Japan HPS , Sendai, December 2019

IRPA Guidance on Public Engagement
Why Communicate?
Roger Coates
IRPA PresidentPublic understanding of radiation and risk
Public understanding has beenrecognised as a major challenge for the
RP profession for many years.
We have talked about it a lot, but what
have we DONE?

Public understanding of radiation and risk
Public understanding has beenrecognised as a major challenge for theRP profession for many years.
We have talked about it a lot, but what
have we DONE?
Japan has had a special challenge –focused on emergency and recovery

Fukushima Daiichi Lessons
Who did the public trust??
- TEPCO operator?
- Regulatory Body?
- Government?

Fukushima Daiichi Lessons
Who did the public trust??
- TEPCO operator?
- Regulatory Body?
- Government?
It seems none of the above!
Medical practitioners – but poorly preparedJapan HPS tried to help fill the gap – Q&A service

Role of the RP professional
RP Societies and professionals can fill a space here:
We are neutral – no advocacy (eg for nuclear)
Our only role is ‘protecting people against the harmful effectsof radiation and ensuring that radiation sources are used safely
for the benefit of mankind’

It’s a DUTY of RP societies and individual RP
professionals to engage in public communication- many RP Societies have this in their Statutes!

Are YOU confident and comfortable incommunicating with the ‘public’ ?
Is JHPS/SRP/KARP/SFRP/CSRP/ARPS?

The Communication Challenge
Giving people facts on radiation will not solve the problem –there needs to be real dialogue, listening, discussion andengagement. Perceptions are all-important.
But as professionals we still need to agree good practice on
what basic concepts should be put into the picture, and how
they can best be introduced.
What are the key scientific and social messages we believe
are important for this dialogue?
8Communication - How can IRPA help?
What have we done so far?
IRPA TG on Public Understanding of Radiation Risk
Phase 1: - to encourage and support Associate Societies inthe development of effective means of enhancing public
understanding of radiation risk through the sharing of goodpractice, ideas and resource material
Aim: to provide user friendly information essentially throughlinks to existing documentation.
9

Public Understanding of RP and Risk
What do Associate Societies do at the moment? Where are
the good ideas? We should share good practice.
Examples:- Position Papers- ‘Talking Heads’- Press releases- Schools Eventsand media liaison- Web site information- Talks service- Public query service

See the IRPA web site10

Public Understanding of RP and Risk
What more can IRPA and the Associate Societies do?
Phase 2 – Hiroko as TG Chair- To enthuse every RP person and RP society to become more active
public advocates- How to make our societies and individual RP practitioners more
comfortable, confident and effective in their interactions with ‘thepublic’- Take key concepts and messages from the developing experience onrisk communication and make this available to practitioners in accessibleform
11Hence the IRPA Task Group Principal Objective:
To develop the:IRPA Practical Guidance for Engagement with the Public onRadiation and Risk

Why communicate with the public?
•To help people be less fearful of radiation – and morerational (like us!)?

•To be more accepting of things that are ‘good’ – eg
medical X Rays, nuclear power?

•Be less afraid when things go wrong? Emergencies etc• Eg avoid ‘radiation stigma’•

Even to come and work in our profession!

And to do this through presenting and promoting abalanced picture of risks and benefits

Who are ‘the public’?
-School children- General Interest groups
Patients- Politicians
Local residents- Mothers and families
NGOs- Evacuated persons
High radon homes- Citizen scientists
Public hearings- Court cases- Etc etc

And journalists (as intermediaries)

A diverse lot!

Three underpinning considerations• Radiation risk science• Risk perception• Benefits and risks

1. Radiation risk
Radiation protection is based on LNT - but this is an
assumption for protection purposes, not a scientificfact.
At “a few mSv/y”- what do we know??

Radiation risk
At “a few mSv/y” what do we know??
At levels of most practical relevance (around a fewmSv/y), all we know about radiation risk is that:

If there is risk, then it is very small.

2. What are public perceptions of radiation?
-Uniquely dangerous (especially man-made)Nuclear bombs
No safe level
Deform my babies
Damage my children

But perhaps a little less fearful for ‘good, naturalradiation’ and medical X Rays???

What drives perceptions?
But what drives perception?
What can social science and risk communication
experience tell us?

What drives perceptions?
But what drives perception?
What can social science and risk communication experience tellus?

Public see radiation as much more dangerous than doscientists: ‘Dread Factors’-Involuntary – imposed risk
Lack of control
Cannot see or feel it
Delayed effects are always lurking
Perceived as a ‘new’, man made threat

Risk perception
Perceptions drive attitudes and behaviours
Effective public engagement is based on understanding
and recognising these perceptions, concerns, fears andaspirations,- to openly acknowledge them with empathy,- and to move the dialogue forward on that basis.

3. Benefits and risks
Is there such a thing as ‘an acceptable risk’?

Benefits and risks
Is there such a thing as ‘an acceptable risk’?
Or – is it a situation or activity that is acceptable (ornot) based on its benefits and risks as seen by theindividual??
So we should try and frame our public engagement in
the context of benefits and risks

Guidance for Effective Engagement
Scientific facts will not change perceptions
It needs two-way dialogue, active listening, showing
empathy and ultimately developing trust and respect
between the parties.
“Some things can only be understood via the heart”

“Lose the Scientist, Become a Human Being”
Professor Niwa experience in Japan

“Lose the Scientist, Become a Human Being”
Professor Niwa experience in Japan“People need to know that you care before they carewhat you know”.
“Every good conversation begins with good listening”

How do we develop the skills?
Skills such as empathy, active listening, recognising perceptions
•••••
•
•
•
•

Acknowledge concerns and issues.
Acknowledge and validate feelings
Ask questions rather than giving facts
Discuss, not tell
Admit uncertainty, be honest and open.
When you don’t know something, say so.
Don’t speculate, guess, assume, or make promises you can’t keep.
Avoid using humour
Be aware of your body language

Is it safe?
This is a key question - highly likely to be asked‘Safe’ is subjective and perception-based:– many organisations avoid the word
What are you going to say? Plan in advanceWhat situations should we engage in?
- Schools education-- Encourage STEM careers
Medical exposures- Non-ionising radiation
Radioactive waste management - Radon
Emergencies and incidents- Long term recovery
General public information- Government liaison
Media interviews/discussions- Science outreach- Etc etc

Each situation has its unique context and challenges

WHO ‘Risk v Perception’ Matrix

WHO ‘Risk v Perception’ Matrix

Radioactive waste management

Emergencies

Medical X-ray exposures

RadonWhat can your RP Society do?
• What is the Association’s role related to public information andcommunication?

• Communication in a case of emergency events?
• To educate and/or to provide advice in public debates related toradiation risks and benefits?
• To help make your individual members more comfortable and confident
in their ability to communicate?

• What are challenges that associations are faced with and what
are good practices in communication and stakeholder
engagement?

What can your RP Society do?
Suggestions:- Schools programmes- Government/political liaison- The conventional media- Student and STEM engagement- General public information- Science outreach- Liaison with other professional organisations- Public engagement on specific topics- Training radiation protection professionals in public engagement

Tentative Outline of Guidance
1. Why engage with the public?
2. Who are ‘the public’?
3. Three underpinning considerations
4. Communications and engagement strategy
5. Face to Face engagement
6. Guidance for specific situations
7. Use of different media
8. The role of Radiation Protection Associate Societies
9. The role of individual radiation protection professionals
10. Supporting information and general referencesSummary• Its our duty as RP professionals to engage with thepublicIt’s the only way to achieve our aim of adequately protecting thepublic without unduly limiting the safe use of medical, scientific andindustrial radiological practices for the benefit of mankind.

•But no-one said it was easy – especially from our sciencebackground!

•Perception, listening, empathy are the key words

The Way Forward for the Guidance• The draft guidance is open for comment until
mid- December Comment via your RP Society• Publish and launch the guidance at IRPA15Seoul, May 2020