PROBLEMS OF RISK COMMUNICATION RELATED TO THE PROVISION OF THE RADIATION SAFETY. BASIC CONCEPTS AND DEFINITIONS
https://doi.org/10.21514/1998-426X-2018-11-3-83-91
Abstract
The implementation of the State program of the Russian Federation “Development of nuclear power industry”, Federal target program «Ensuring Nuclear and Radiation Safety from 2016 to 2020 and up to 2030», introduction of new imaging modalities in medicine that are associated with high patient and staff doses, poor public awareness of the presence and level of hazard of natural sources of ionizing radiation determine the relevance of the current study. The aim of the study was to develop the effective methods of risk communication for the improvement of the radiation protection and safety of the population, to introduce these methods in the daily practice of Rospotrebnadzor and, eventually, to assist in the formation of a risk-oriented society in the Russian Federation. Currently, Russian-language terminology in the field of risk communication is not developed; Russian terms are frequently just poor adapted/translated versions of English terms. This manuscript is focused on the definition of the basic concepts of risk communication and the formation of uniform terminology in the field of the radiation safety of the population. A glossary of basic terms in the field of riskcommunication is attached to the manuscript. The authors, considering the analysis of scientific data, suggest the following definition of risk communication: a process of interaction with other participants that is intentionally initiated by one of the participants in the information field of risk and is aimed at the evaluation of the attitudes on risk, their formation or change in other participants; formation or change of own attitudes on risk.
About the Authors
L. V. Repin
Saint-Petersburg Research Institute of Radiation Hygiene after Professor P.V. Ramzaev, Federal Service for Surveillance on Consumer Rights Protection and Human Well-Being.
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Leonid V. Repin – Junior Researcher, Information Analytical Center.
Saint-Petersburg.
A. M. Biblin
Saint-Petersburg Research Institute of Radiation Hygiene after Professor P.V. Ramzaev, Federal Service for Surveillance on Consumer Rights Protection and Human Well-Being.
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Artem M. Biblin – Head, Information Analytical Center.
Saint-Petersburg.
N. M. Vishnyakova
Saint-Petersburg Research Institute of Radiation Hygiene after Professor P.V. Ramzaev, Federal Service for Surveillance on Consumer Rights Protection and Human Well-Being.
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Nadezhda M. Vishnyakova – Doctor of Medical Sciences, Deputy Director.
Saint-Petersburg.
References
1. Onischenko G.G., Zaytseva N.V., May I.V. [et al.] Health risk analysis in the strategy of state social and economic development: monograph. In: G.G. Onischenko, N.V. Zaitseva eds. Perm, Publishing house of Perm National Research Polytechnic University, 2014, 783 p. (in Russian).
2. Health and environment: communicating the risks. Copenhagen, WHO Regional Office for Europe, 2013, 68 p. (In Russian).
3. Covello VT, Sandman PM. Risk communication: evolution and revolution. In: Wolbarst A, ed. Solutions to an Environment in Peril. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press; 2001 pp.164–178.
4. Leiss W. Three phases in the evolution of risk communication practice //The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 1996, V. 545, №. 1, pp. 85-94.
5. Wildavsky A., Dake K. Theories of risk perception: Who fears what and why? Daedalus, 1990, pp. 41-60.
6. Siegrist M., Cvetkovich G. Perception of hazards: The role of social trust and knowledge. Risk analysis, 2000, V. 20, №. 5, pp. 713-720.
7. Dierkes M. [et al.] Between understanding and trust: the public, science and technology. Routledge, 2005.
8. Sandman P.M. Responding to community outrage: Strategies for effective risk communication. AIHA, 1993.
9. Arkhangelskaya G.V., Zykova I.А., Zelentsova S.А. The difficulties of informing the population on the issues of radiation protection. Radiatsionnaya gygiena = Radiation Hygiene, 2014, Vol. 7, No 2, pp. 42-49. (In Russian).
10. Covello V.T. Risk communication, radiation, and radiological emergencies: strategies, tools, and techniques. Health physics, 2011, Vol. 101, №. 5, pp. 511-530.
11. Perko T. Importance of risk communication during and after a nuclear accident. Integrated environmental assessment and management, 2011, Vol. 7, №. 3, pp. 388-392.
12. Murakami M., Tsubokura M. Evaluating risk communication after the Fukushima disaster based on nudge theory. Asia Pacific Journal of Public Health, 2017, Vol. 29, №. 2_suppl., pp. 193S-200S.
13. Figueroa P.M. Risk communication surrounding the Fukushima nuclear disaster: an anthropological approach. Asia Europe Journal, 2013, Vol. 11, №. 1, pp. 53-64.
14. Robertson A.G., Pengilley A. Fukushima nuclear incident: the challenges of risk communication. Asia Pacific Journal of Public Health, 2012, Vol. 24, №. 4, pp. 689-696.
15. Hyer R.N., Covello V.T. Breaking bad news in the high-concern, low trust setting: how to get your story heard. Health physics, 2017, Vol. 112, №. 2, pp. 111-115.
16. Barg A.O. Risk-communication in the sphere of health as a sort of social communication. Discussion, 2017, №1 (75), pp. 50–55. (In Russian).
17. Barg A.O., Lebedeva-Nesevrya N.A. Risk-communication is an effective way of producing the cumulative acceptability of human health risks. Population Health and Life Environment, 2014, V. 261, № 12, pp. 9-11. (In Russian).
18. 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).
19. Zykova I.А., Zelentsova S.А., Arkhangelskaya G.V. Information requirements of population in different radiation-hygienic situations. Radiatsionnaya gygiena = Radiation Hygiene, 2013, Vol. 6, No 4, pp. 11-18. (In Russian).
20. Biblin А.М., Zykova I.А., Koroleva Т.М., Nikolaevich М.S. Methodological approaches to assessments of health risks in hygienic research. Radiatsionnaya gygiena = Radiation Hygiene, 2013, Vol. 6, No 2, pp. 32-38. (In Russian).
21. ICRP, 2018. Ethical foundations of the system of radiological protection. ICRP Publication 138. Ann. ICRP 47(1)
22. Lundgren R.E., McMakin A.H. Risk communication: A handbook for communicating environmental, safety, and health risks. John Wiley & Sons, 2013, 392 p.
23. IAEA Safety Glossary. Terminology Used in Nuclear Safety and Radiation Protection. 2016 Revision. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency, 2016. – Available on: https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/17/11/iaeasafety-glossary-rev2016.pdf (accessed: 01.07.2018)
Review
For citations:
Repin L.V., Biblin A.M., Vishnyakova N.M. PROBLEMS OF RISK COMMUNICATION RELATED TO THE PROVISION OF THE RADIATION SAFETY. BASIC CONCEPTS AND DEFINITIONS. Radiatsionnaya Gygiena = Radiation Hygiene. 2018;11(3):83-91. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.21514/1998-426X-2018-11-3-83-91
Views:
1402
Email this article 