PROBLEMS OF RISK COMMUNICATION ON RADIATION SAFETY. ANALYSIS OF MATERIALS ON THE INTERNET AFTER THE 2013 RADIATION ACCIDENT AT THE ELECTROSTAL HEAVY ENGINEERING WORKS

Presumably in the first days of April 2013, the smelting of scrap metal occurred on the territory of the Electrostal Heavy Engineering Works without the use of radiation input control. An unspecified source of ionizing radiation, containing 137Cs in an unknown quantity, was melted. As a result of smelting, contamination of the territory of the plant and the adjacent territory of Elektrostal city occurred. The relevance of the study is due to the high social significance of this accident, which is confirmed by a large number of materials published in both federal and regional mass media. In total, for the period from 12.04.2013 to 12.05.2013, 129 materials were identified. In addition, the total number of video views on this accident on the YOUTUBE website exceeds the population of Electrostal city. The purpose of the study was to analyze the practice of crisis risk communication, used by various officials and specialists in connection with the radiation accident in the territory of the Electrostal Heavy Engineering Works in 2013. The study analyzed publications in the mass media, messages on official websites of departments, organizations and authorities involved in the emergency response, video materials on the YOUTUBE website, messages on Internet forums. In order to record, analyze and store publications, an automated information system for the analysis of publications, developed by specialists of the Rospotrebnadzor Information and Analytical Center for Radiation Safety of the Population was used. The analysis of crisis risk communication with the population conducted by government bodies and representatives of various departments in the liquidation of the consequences of a radiation accident on the territory of the Electrostal Heavy Engineering Works revealed a discrepancy between the real risk communication practices in the case of the radiation accident in Elektrostal with modern scientific recommendations for radiation risk communication. Individual cases of unreliable and mutually exclusive information provided by the authorities to citizens were identified, resulting in a rather negative response on the part of Internet users. As a result of the research, there was revealed a lack of response to information materials distributed on the Internet, devoted to a radiation accident on the part of official authorities. Information from the authorities aimed at appeasing the public, due to the critical perception of the information received from the authorities, was not taken seriously by a significant part of the population. It was shown that in order to reduce the negative consequences of ineffective information work with the public, it is necessary to develop methodological support for crisis risk communication and to introduce it into the everyday practice of Rospotrebnadzor through training and improving the skills of individuals involved in communication with the media, non-governmental organizations and the population.

1. Covello V., Sandman P.M. Risk communication: evolution and revolution. Solutions to an Environment in Peril, 2001, pp. 164-178.

2. Perko T. How to Communicate about Radiological Risks? A European Perspective, 2015, № 1.

3. Ann Fisher. Risk Communication Challenges. Risk analysis, 1991, Vol. 1, №. 2, pp. 173-179.

4. Slovic P. Perception of risk. Science, 1987, Vol. 236, №. 4, pp. 280-285.

5. Kasperson R., Golding D., Toler S. Social distrust as a factor in siting hazardous facilities and communication risk. Journ. of Social Issues, 1992, Vol. 48, №. 4, pp. 161-187.

6. Slovic P. Informing and education the public about risk. Risk analysis, 1986, Vol. 6, N. 4, pp. 403-415.

7. World Health Organization et al. Health and environment: communicating the risks, 2013.

8. Arkhangelskaya G.V., Zykova I.A., Zelentsova S.A. The difficulties of informing the population on the issues of radiation protection. Radiatsionnaya Gygiena = Radiation Hygiene, 2015, Vol. 7, №. 2, pp. 42-49. (In Russian).

9. The Aarhus Convention: An Implementation Guide. United Nations, 2 ed. New York and Geneva, 2014, 380 p. (In Russian).

10. Stražišar B., Kralj M. The Aarhus convention in the nuclear sector—right to information versus nonproliferation? Journal of Radiological Protection, 2016, Vol. 36, № 2, pp. S160–S174.

11. Cho K.W. Ethical foundations of the radiological protection system. Annals of the ICRP, 2016, Vol. 45, №. 1_suppl., pp. 297-308.

12. IAEA. Communication with the Public in a Nuclear or Radiological Emergency. Vienna. 116 p.

13. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [et al.]. Crisis and emergency risk communication (2012 edition). Atlanta (United States of America): Department of Health and Human Services. Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 2014, 424 p.

14. Lundgren R.E., McMakin A.H. Risk communication: A handbook for communicating environmental, safety, and health risks. John Wiley & Sons, 2013, 392 p.

15. Repin L.V., Biblin А.М., Kovalev P.G., Repin V.S. [et al.]. The Automated System of Radiation Exposure Control (ASCRE) for Rospotrebnadzor: creation history, applicability and development. Radiatsionnaya Gygiena = Radiation Hygiene, 2015, Vol. 7, №. 3, pp. 44-53. (In Russian).

16. Romanovich I.К., Akhmatdinov R.R., Akhmatdinov R.R., Biblin A.M., Gromov A.V., Repin L.V.; Ed.: Popova A.Yu. Analysis of radiation accidents and incidents registered in the Russian Federation for 2012-2016. Topical issues of the organization of control and supervision of physical factors. Proceedings of the AllRuss. scientific-practical. Conf, 2017, pp. 343-346. (In Russian).

17. Biblin A.M. Analysis of the media coverage characteristics on radiation safety issues of the Saint-Petersburg and the Leningrad region population. Radiatsionnaya Gygiena = Radiation Hygiene, 2017, Vol. 10, № 2, pp. 23-30. (In Russian).

18. Romanovich I.К. Features of emergency response in case of radiation accidents at non-radiation facilities (on the example of the accident at the Electrostal Heavy Engineering Works. – Available on: rospotrebnadzor.ru/upload/iblock/6d7/30-06-15romanovich.ppt (accessed: 24.10.2017). (In Russian).

19. Arutyunyan R.V. Responding to a radiation incident at JSC Electrostal Heavy Engineering Works. Positive lessons. – Available on: osatom.ru/mediafiles/u/files/zasedania_2013/Arutinian_21_11_2013.pdf (accessed: 24.10.2017) (In Russian).

20. Arkhangelskaya G.V., Zykova I.A., Zelentsova S.A. Methodical approaches to information protection of the population on the basis of ideas about the social acceptability of radiation risk: Handbook for specialists of the Rospotrebnadzor. Radiatsionnaya Gygiena = Radiation Hygiene, 2010, Vol. 3, № 1, pp. 60-64. (In Russian).

21. Covello V.T., and F.Allen. 1988. Seven Cardinal Rules of Risk Communication. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Policy Analysis

22. Arkhangelskaya G.V., Zelentsova S.A., Zykova I.A Assessment of the Fukusima nuclear power plant accident consequences by the population in the Far East. Radiatsionnaya Gygiena = Radiation Hygiene, 2012, Vol. 5, №. 4, pp. 12-20. (In Russian).

23. Melikhova Е.М., Byrkina Е.М., Pershina Yu.A. On the Issue of Certain Mechanisms of Social Amplification of Risk in Media Coverage of the Fukushima NPP Nuclear Accident. Meditsinskaya radiologiya i radiatsionnaya bezopasnost = Мedical Radiology and Radiation Safety, 2013, Vol. 58, № 4, pp. 5-16. (In Russian).

24. Kuroda Y. Current State and Problems of Radiation Risk Communication: Based on the Results of a 2012 Whole Village Survey. PLOS Currents Disasters. 2017 Feb 24. Edition 1. doi: 10.1371/currents.dis.84670981063d27f0a7c41b959fca70ec.

25. Murakami M., Nakatani J., Oki T. (2016) Evaluation of Risk Perception and Risk-Comparison Information Regarding Dietary Radionuclides after the 2011 Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant Accident. PLOS ONE 11(11): e0165594. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0165594.

26. Perko T. Radiation risk perception: a discrepancy between the experts and the general population. Journal of environmental radioactivity, 2014, Vol. 133, pp. 86-91. Received: November 16, 2017