21
Communicating Risk with PLT Naoko Kakuta, ERIC Keiichi Sato, TUAT

Communicating Risk with PLT

  • Upload
    maina

  • View
    80

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

Communicating Risk with PLT. Naoko Kakuta , ERIC Keiichi Sato, TUAT. Our Study for FoR. Interviewed 11 experts on risk communication. Tried out activities on risks: Crossroads; Negotiate Killer. Translated Focus on Risk. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Citation preview

Page 1: Communicating Risk with PLT

Communicating Risk with PLT

Naoko Kakuta, ERICKeiichi Sato, TUAT

Page 2: Communicating Risk with PLT

Our Study for FoR

• Interviewed 11 experts on risk communication.

• Tried out activities on risks: Crossroads; Negotiate Killer.

• Translated Focus on Risk.• Developed guidelines: scientific literacy,

citizenship, thinking skills and concerns on social issues such as risk.

Page 3: Communicating Risk with PLT

Opinion Spectrum

• 1mSv/y Ordinary people’s annual limit(Japan by law*)

• 5mSv/y Chernobyl  Evacuation Area

• 5.2mSv/y Specialists entering to a controlled area*

• 1-20mSv/y After the accident being controlled(ICRP)

• 20-100mSv/y  Emergency after the accident(ICRP)

• 50mSv/y Radiation wokers* +zone of no return

• 100mSv Dr. Yamashita and MEXT

Page 4: Communicating Risk with PLT

Communicating Nuke Risk

Page 5: Communicating Risk with PLT

Key Stages for Communication

• Risk Perception• Accidents Information• Risk Assessment• Risk Reduction• Risk Management

Page 6: Communicating Risk with PLT

Principles for Communication

• Open, transparency• Multidirectional• Process of participation

• Public perception• Societal values and ethics• Scientific judgment• Political and economic factors

Page 7: Communicating Risk with PLT

Levels of Radiation – MEXT textbook

Page 8: Communicating Risk with PLT

8

Too Famous Fukushima

Page 9: Communicating Risk with PLT

Level of Contamination of Schools

Page 10: Communicating Risk with PLT

Calculation: Everybody learned

• X μSv/h × 24hours  × 365days = Y μSv/y• YμSv/y=1/1000 Y mSv/y• 1mSv/y=0.1μSv/h

• 1mSv/y is a limit set for ordinary people for ordinary time.

• Japanese Government extended the limit to 20mSv/y for children at school in Fukushima.

• Schools with 2.28μSv/h and over are limited for outside activities down to three hours a day.

Page 11: Communicating Risk with PLT

Where should be the line?1mSv/年 5mSv/年 5.2msv/年 20mSv/年 20mSv/年 50mSv/年 100mSv/年

日本の基準(平時 ) 一般公衆

放射線管理区域 * 放射線業務従事者 **

Japan Ordinary  peopleControlled Area Special Worker

ICRP 緊急時収束後の一般公衆のための安全基準値    緊急時被ばく状況After the accident       Immediately after the

accident

チェルノブイリ避難区域基準Chernobyl Evacuation Zone

Page 12: Communicating Risk with PLT

Barriers

• Risk perception control before the accidents.• “Science” was used to accept 100mSv.• “No epidemic proof exist” was the reason for

“Safe” level of exposure. Japanese Merchants of Doubt

• “No more nukes” decision at the end of August, but “No Nukes Here and Now”went on. no celebration, no change of strategies, just “No Nukes” forever

Page 13: Communicating Risk with PLT

Risk perception controls

• “Nukes are safe” PRs on medias.• Nukes poster design contests, essay contests

at schools.• Subsidies and budgets for municipal

governments of nuclear plants.• Employments for the plants.

• Total money put into these?

Page 14: Communicating Risk with PLT

$98 billion !

• Since 1974, promotion of power resources development tax was used to cover all these subsidies for nukes. The tax was paid by the power companies.

• Power companies also donate money for contests, festivals and “risk communications”, besides for this tax. Which adds up to $31 billion over 40 years of nukes history.

Page 15: Communicating Risk with PLT

Is 20mSv/y really safe?

• Zoning started for the refugees:– Unlivable for many years, zone of no return, over

50 mSv/y, compensation of $60,000 for 5 years.– Permitted for visits only, between 20-50mSv/y.– After decontamination of this 20mSv and under

zone, people are allowed to come back.

– Back or not, more than 40,000 people will be kept on the edge.

Page 16: Communicating Risk with PLT

25000 cannot return to their home.

Zone of over 50msv/y

Page 17: Communicating Risk with PLT

So, who cares for these refugees?

• Actually the refugees are the one who’s been gasping down all these nukes money. These municipalities are still poor? Rubbish!

• Another barriers for dialogue….

Page 18: Communicating Risk with PLT

Why is this?

• Doubt?  Fear?  Distrust? Envy?

• Lack of self confidence• Lack of experience of cooperation• Too big for dialogue

• So, just this “anti” type of movements continue.

Page 19: Communicating Risk with PLT

Where are we?

• Fatigue• Flight• Focusless• Frail• Forgetful• Futureless• Lack of experience of risk communication.

Page 20: Communicating Risk with PLT

Teaching Materials Guidelines

• Understanding the nature of science, including scientific uncertainty, controversial etc.

• “Society and Risk” --Learning from the past, focusing on our common future

• Action Orientation* • Emphasis on skills building*– *NAAEE

Page 21: Communicating Risk with PLT

Shared Vision for the Future

• We have only one Earth.• We all want to survive, us human, as well as

other living things.

• We have to learn to live together.• We have to learn to cooperate.

• http://www.globalcommunity.org/flash/wombat.shtml