Japan's ongoing nuclear disaster is scary enough, but some rumours and hoaxes linked to it are alarming and persistent.
Vienna, Austria - Although the real ramifications of the meltdown of the Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear plant are bad enough, hyperbolic claims abound of drastic spikes in cancer rates, mutant sea creatures and more. And little of this has been successfully countered with, well, anything close to reason.
If public trust in major institutions is undermined, many people turn to social media to find information they deem more authoritative.
So, after a major event which may have a huge impact on public health, how can officials best communicate the risks of radiation exposure in an effective way?
Vincent Covello is an epidemiologist who runs the Center for Risk Communication in New York. Generally speaking, he said, about 50 percent of people respond favourably to "regulatory standards" - if, for example, they take a measurement of radiation and know that it falls within accepted boundaries, that is enough for them to feel safe. In this particular case, it should be noted that there is a lack of consensus on regulatory standards when it comes to radiation exposure.
 |
| In-depth coverage one year after triple disaster |
Forty percent of people tend to place a greater priority on three main comparisons when assessing their safety. A temporal comparison makes people consider what they were exposed to before and after an incident.
A geographical comparison considers exposure in the context of other locations' exposure. Finally, a situational comparision allow people to draw frames of reference around more familiar experiences, such as how much radiation one is exposed to in a dental X-ray versus being in Fukushima.
"The bad news is that 10 percent of the population never believe what you have to say - and that is generally true for almost any type of issue," said Covello.
"In today's world of blogs and Wikipedia, being first is critical - in fact, we often find that you can typically have almost any question answered by a person claiming to be an authority within as little as four minutes of an event… which puts a premium on being first."
Post a Comment