Public education understanding risk

The media never made an effort to educate the public on quantitative risk estimates and use these to put nuclear risks into perspective. I published papers on catalogs of risks,10 and used them constantly in public presentations and interviews with reporters. These are easily understandable to anyone, butthey were never transmitted by the media. 

A tactic in the educative process is to use risk assessment and risk management documents as teaching tools to train the public to understand and manage risk, as noted below. 

I do not believe that we can educate a typical member of the public to understand the objective meaning of "a radiation dose rate of 300 /iSv/year" or the "annual deviation width of natural radiation", not to speak of "a risk of 10 /year". 

Risk assessors and decision makers both need to be prepared to communicate risk results in an understandable form to other practitioners (regulatory and registrant), stakeholders, and the public. This is particularly critical in the case of uncertainty in the assessment. Most scientists hired to perform risk assessment are thoroughly trained in their subject matter but less familiar with the demands of public presentation or the essentials of educating at multiple levels. Regulators must provide scientists and decision makers with the support and opportunity to develop skills necessary to effectively communicate with stakeholders and the public. 

A public that is frightened of horrific consequence will be unwilling to take even a small risk if they perceive that the nuclear option will put the community at risk. Again the approach is to identify those groups whose support is essential and ensure they understand the merits and demerits of the nuclear program, and the true intent of the opposition. The proponent must strive to educate the media, schools, and community organizations to explain the issues and the objectives of the proponents and opponents. 

---