In the reading “Constraints to Effective Risk Communication,” there are several constraints faced by risk communicators discussed. Amongst these are emotional responses from the audience, believing that the public cannot understand complex sciences, and allowing outside sources to affect the public’s opinion on a risk. These three constraints are difficult to overcome, but I believe through my blog I can address these and hopefully create a successful end to the risk communication process on RDDs.

The first constraint deals with emotional responses from the audience. According to the article these can range from “hostility and outrage, panic and denial, apathy, mistrust of risk assessment, disagreements on the acceptable magnitude of risk, lack of faith in science and institutions, and learning disabilities” (Lundgren 59). I believe that the most common emotional reaction from the audience pertaining to RDDs is denial and apathy. I choose these three for a couple of reasons. Most people pretend as if there is no chance of a terrorist attack happening to them even though there is evidence to prove otherwise. For example, why would the government spend so much money in national security if there was not a real threat? I chose apathy because most people do not care if an attack can happen, especially if they think there is no chance of it happening to them.

I think that my blog can address these emotions by showing people evidence that there is a real threat of an RDD attack occurring. By giving people substantial evidence and educating them through non-technical language, I think I can at least begin to change a person’s individual risk assessment. Dealing with apathetic individuals, on the other hand, might be harder because they have already decided not to learn anymore about the problem.

The second constraint that I think my blog addresses deals with “dumbing” down the audience. Most people who work in science and write risk communication believe that the audience cannot possibly understand scientific terms. They refuse to explain the information in any other way and believe that the audience should learn more about science in order to learn more about the risk. I think that this is a huge problem that needs to be addressed by all risk communicators. The goal in this form of communication is to show the audience there is a problem and a risk and show them how to protect themselves from the risk.

My blog addresses this problem by providing information in an easy to read and understand context. It also provides other information about other sources to look into about the threat of an RDD attack. By giving the reader several different ways of approaching the issue, the reader will feel more comfortable with subject matter and may be able to think of their own solution to the problem.

The third constraint that my blog addresses pertains to risk communicators allowing outside sources to interfere with their own risk communication. This is one of the biggest problems that I have found with my issue. The outside sources that most affect the issue come from misinformation from media outlets and scenes from movies and television. These sources are attractive to the public and many may even find them trustworthy because their favorite actor is in the show or movie. However, these sources are not that credible. Many give exaggerated, overly dramatic depictions of what would really happen if there was a terrorist attack.

My blog addresses this by providing the public with a different way of looking at information. I’m not part of the federal government, so I’m not using an overwhelming amount of technical information and I’m not writing to gain popularity like television shows and movies. I’m giving basic information in a different format in order to inform others of RDDs and tell them about the threat and risk of not knowing or preparing for such an attack.

Hopefully, my blog continues to address these three constraints and creates a comfortable environment where all blog readers can inform themselves on this threat and prepare themselves for such an event.