Of the four articles that we read this week, the two that had the most relevance to my topic of radiological dispersion devices (RDDs) were “A Diagnostic for Risk Communication Failures” and “Ethical Issues.” These readings address reasons why better risk communication has not been taken by the government in addressing the risk of an RDD attack.
In “A Diagnostic for Risk Communication Failures,” the authors, Leiss and Powell make the argument that the public and the experts perceive and assess risks differently. These differences in perception create a “risk information vacuum” where the public is not getting the proper information and the experts are not trying to give the proper information to the public. Instead of receiving accurate information, the public attains information from inaccurate sources. Sources mentioned in the article include media reports which may increase fear in the public or skew information from interest groups.

This “risk information vacuum” perfectly explains one of the problems with risk communication in the area of RDDs. Most citizens do not know what an RDD is, but may have heard of a “dirty bomb” (another name for RDDs) from television shows like Fox’s “24.” The portrayal of RDDs or any weapon of mass destruction in television or movies is usually exaggerated. The destruction, the death, the survivability, and other consequences are created in order to fit the plot line or characters. However, many people watching do not realize this and may actually believe that this would happen. This is especially true when information is not given to the public from government agencies to show otherwise.

A second problem that involves the “risk information vacuum” is that once the public is “informed” by movies, TV, or media on the issue it may be difficult for the government or other organizations to convince the public that they are wrong in their assessment of RDDs. This will continue to frustrate the situation and may make it worse.

The second article “Ethical Issues” from Lundgren’s and McMakin’s Understanding Risk Communication addresses ethics in risk communication. The authors write of the influence of personal, social, and organizational ethics on the role of risk communicators. Ethics can be described as an individual’s convictions and what they find to be right or wrong. If someone is making an ethical decision they will do what they believe is morally right for them to do. Also, a person may refuse to follow someone or a group that is not acting as they see is ethical.

To an extent, I find this to be an issue with my topic. The public may not see the government as always acting ethically and may not trust them because of this. The public may find the government untrustworthy in disseminating information due to other incidents in the past (i.e. Hurricane Katrina) and may not trust the government to give accurate information. This makes it difficult for agencies such as FEMA to produce information about RDDs and other weapons of mass destruction and have faith that the public will follow it.

Both of these articles show the two main problems with communicating the risk of RDDs to the pubic – untrustworthy sources (i.e. the government) and sources that give inaccurate information (i.e. movies and TV).

Risk communication is a difficult form of writing where the author must analyze an issue, problem, and solution to a topic while keeping their audience’s knowledge of the topic in mind. The following three examples show how risk communication can be used and discuss the dangers of not carefully addressing parts of the topic or parts of the audience’s needs. 

24

Fox’s 24 has been indirectly and directly used as a form of risk communication since the beginning of its first season. It has indirectly been used as a form of risk communication on terrorism and weapons of mass destruction because the federal government has not given accessible information to the public on these topics. The government surely talks about it, but fact gets mixed with fiction because most citizens do not go looking for accurate information and they trust that TV, movies, and the news are given them such. 

The show has been used as a direct form of risk communication due to forums such as the one held by the Heritage Foundation called ” ‘24′ and America’s Image in Fighting Terrorism: Fact, Fiction or Does it Matter?” The Heritage Foundation invited three actors from the show to contribute to the discussion of how the television show contributes to counterterrorism efforts in the United States. Others invited to the forum were Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, and radio host Rush Limbaugh. Instead of discouraging the relationship between the fictional show and counterterrorism efforts, Chertoff praised the characters and said that “such perseverance will help America defeat terrorism” (Washington Post).

Allowing such a blur of lines causes people to think that this show is real. Despite objections from the producers and actors of the show saying that the show is fictitious, experts still use it as an example of counterterrorism. The underlying problems is whether it is ethical to allow the public to see the show 24 as realistic and to use the information seen and learned from the show to access risk in real life. The representatives of the federal government had the opportunity to define a clear line between the truth of the threat of weapons of mass destruction and the fictitious portrayal of the threat in the show and the media. Without this distinction, it is difficult for the public to decide which information to believe – that of the federal government that has covered up information in the past or that of a television show with their favorite actor. 

FEMA – “Are You Ready?”

This guide that was created by the Federal Emergency Management Agency displays two of the three spans to make their argument that national security is necessary and that citizens can prepare themselves for attacks and natural disasters. The issue span is neglected mainly because most citizens would agree that national security is an issue that is worth funding and creating programs for. The problem span is introduced at the start of each section of threat to national security (i.e. flooding, radiological dispersion devices, etc). This section talks about different aspects of each problem and how the problem has occurred in the past. The solution span is mixed with the problem span and comprises a larger section than the other span. This is in part because the main point of this guide is to inform citizens of preparedness and what they can do themselves in case of an emergency.

The guide gives an excellent summary of the problem and the solution to each national security problem; however, the main problem is that not many people have seen this guide. It is available on line and probably in most federal offices, but that requires citizens to go in search of the information, which is unlikely to happen. Because of the lack of accessibility to the public, this makes the guide by FEMA useless despite the well-laid out information. 

Radiation Event Medical Management - website overview of RDDs

The Radiation Event Medical Management is a part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Their overview about radiological dispersion devices aims to educate those who are emergency responders. On the website, the information is set up providing a brief overview of what an RDD is, other methods of dispersing radioactive materials, lists potential material to be used, guidelines pertaining to the exposure amounts of radiation, and resources about responding to such an emergency. The website provides a clear issue span by giving the definition of an RDD and what its impacts are. It also provides a clear problem span by stating the potential outcomes of an attack. The solution span is slightly difficult to discern from the website, but becomes clear if you look move onto the links included in the last table of the page. Here, we learn of different agencies and each of their ideas on how an emergency responder should take action in case of an RDD incident.

Overall, this website provides clear information within distinct spans. Those who wrote the document knew that their primary audience was those who were within the emergency management field. However, I don’t think that the authors of this thought about the problems with this being online. With a simple internet search, anyone can find this information. This creates a problem since the language is fairly technical (i.e. information about radioactive material and isotopes) and is aimed at those who work in the field. If the website authored offered a less-technical version or provided additional links that furthered explained technical terms.