One of the things that is neither addressed in this blog nor in other forms of risk communication about radiological dispersal devices is the comparative risk between RDDs and other problems either pertaining to national security or with other issues.

Within already published and known forms of risk communication about RDDs, the topic of comparative risk is never fully addressed. Of course, there is always the association between RDDs and nuclear weapons, but the threat or risk of an RDD attack is never compared to the threat or risk of other things such as the issue of global warming or the issue of child obesity (see blog roll for more information on these issues). It seems there is a hierarchy that is created through government spending and the popular media of what holds more risk and how people should assess these risk. But is having the decision made for you really the proper way of doing this? Should the government decide which issue is more important by allocating more funding to one program over the other? By doing so, aren’t they putting themselves at risk by not fully informing their citizens?

There is no easy solution to the problem of comparative risk because there will always be issues to compare with other issues. With no easy way to discern which is more important at any given moment, it is difficult for individuals to decide which issue to learn more about or pay more attention to. It is even difficult to depend upon the private sector to disseminate information due to government funding or the sector’s dependence on public opinion. They may not want to risk their own money, time, and other resources on an issue that the public may not see as a high priority.

Because there is no easy way of deciding which issue is more important than another, it is up to an informed citizenry to help the government and the private sector in deciding this hierarchy. Public opinion can sway groups, legislators, and lobbyists to fund research or programs pertaining to a certain issue. Although it is not guaranteed to give enough funding to an issue, it can help bring, if only temporarily, an issue to the public eye. Until the threat of RDDs is widely known and until the federal government sees that this is the most plausible of threats, we must depend on small groups and researchers to find the information and present it to the public.