Analysis of Cancer Risks in Populations Near Nuclear Facilities Phase 1 (2012) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
5 Risk Communication and Public Engagement
5 Risk Communication and Public Engagement
Pages 253-268
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 253... ...
as a primary resource for communicating with the public about cancer risks associated with the nuclear facilities that it regulates. The committee assumes that the studies recommended in this report, if carried out, would be used by the USNRC for this same purpose.
|
From page 254... ...
to convey the risk of dying from cancer. However, public perceptions of risks are not shaped solely on the endpoint of a technical analysis, such as the number of cancer deaths in a population near a nuclear plant.
|
From page 255... ...
Some individuals and groups question the value of technical risk assessment. A survey of environmental groups in the United States suggested that "environmentalists resent the technocratic, exclusionary nature of risk assessments that undermine democratic participation in local environment decisions" and view risk analysis as a waste of resources, while little is done to reduce the risk (Tal, 1997)
|
From page 256... ...
suggests that there has been a refocusing of the primary goals of risk communication: initially from an effort to change public views about risk, later to gaining public acceptance for the sources of risk and their management, and more recently to building trust. Successful risk communication now involves sustained, two-way communication and information exchanges between technical and policy experts and the public.
|
From page 257... ...
. Matching content to needs can be particularly challenging when communicating about complex scientific and technical concepts, for example, radiation cancer epidemiology: Radiation terminology is specialized, concepts in cancer biology are complicated, and health effects at low radiation levels, if any, are generally small, often delayed, and therefore difficult to assess in an epidemiologic study.
|
From page 258... ...
This is certainly the case for assessments of cancer risks in populations near nuclear facilities, because data on exposures and disease occurrence may not be complete (see Chapter 3 and 4)
|
From page 259... ...
4 This notification is required by Section 15 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. 5 Maintenance of a Public Access File is required by Section 15 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
|
From page 260... ...
Many of these comments appear to reflect public distrust of the nuclear industry and its regulator. The committee also received some recommendations for study design, including the following: • Widen the study scope; include non-USNRC-regulated facilities, and examine noncancer effects such as birth defects, cardiovascular disease, and infertility.
|
From page 261... ...
5.3.2 Outreach to State Public Health Departments To understand the concerns of individuals who live near nuclear facilities and collect information on past risk assessments, the committee contacted the Departments of Public Health in states that are now hosting or have previously hosted a USNRC-licensed nuclear facility to request information on the following issues: Reports from members of the public about health concerns6 or sus • pected health effects related to nuclear plants or nuclear fuel-cycle facilities in their communities. • Reports from physicians or other healthcare providers concern ing suspected disease clusters that could be related to radioactive releases from these facilities.
|
From page 262... ...
262 ANALYSIS OF CANCER RISKS TABLE 5.1 Reported Health Concerns Associated with USNRC Licensed Nuclear Facilities Reported Health Concerns State Reported inquiries Year Facility Implicated Arizona 0 -- -- Arkansas 0 -- -- California 1 2008 Diablo Canyon San Onofre Humboldt Bay Rancho Seco Connecticut 6 1987 Haddam Neck, Millstone 2000 Haddam Neck 2004 Millstone 2007 Millstone 2011 Indian point Millstone Florida not routinely 1996 St. Lucie Georgia 0 -- -- Illinois Multiple 2000-today Dresden Braidwood Iowa 0 -- -- Kentucky 2 2002 Paducah 2007 Paducah Louisiana 0 -- -- Maine 1 1989 Maine Yankee Maryland 0 -- -- Massachusetts Multiple 1980-today Vermont Yankee Pilgrim Michigan 4 1994 Fermi 1999 Fermi 2005 Fermi 2009 Fermi Minnesota Multiple 1994 Monticello Prairie Island 2000 Prairie Island Mississippi 0 -- -- Nebraska 0 -- -- New Hampshire 1 2009 Vermont Yankee New Mexico 0 -- -- New York multiple Major 1980s Indian Point 1990s Indian Point Ginna Nine Mile Point FitzPatrick 1995 Ginna Nine Mile Point FitzPatrick 2002 Nine Mile Point 2007 Ginna
|
From page 263... ...
In 2007, the University of Kentucky's Kentucky Water Resources Research Institute produced an assessment on behalf of the Kentucky Radiation Health Branch addressing radiation dose and risk assessment attributable to surface waters near the plant. Commonly, the concerns reported to the state health departments would be for noncancer health concerns related to nuclear facilities, such as Down's syndrome prevalence (Massachusetts Health Department)
|
From page 264... ...
For example, although the Tennessee Department of Public Health reported that it has been contacted by only two members of the public in 2009 and 2010 with concerns about the Nuclear Fuel Services facility located in Erwin, Tennessee, the study committee is aware that a group of citizens in Erwin have filed a class-action lawsuit against Nuclear Fuel Services, claiming that releases from the facility are to blame for high rates of cancer. The Health Department of Georgia reported that it has not received any relevant health reports; however, members of the public voiced health-related concerns during the committee meeting in Atlanta, Georgia.
|
From page 265... ...
Goal setting is important to encourage realistic expectations and to clarify motives and objectives. For example, although public participation in any Phase 2 epidemiologic study is essential for its success, the scientific aspects of the study remain the responsibility of the experts who are carrying out the study.
|
From page 266... ...
It requires that information be accessible to the public when legal considerations permit, and also that information be presented with clarity. For example, background documents, conceptual information about the study design, sources of information used in the study, study results and uncertainties, and study progress reports can be shared.
|
From page 267... ...
The Phase 2 study can build on these Phase 1 efforts to achieve effective collaboration with local people and officials and increase social trust and confidence. To this end, the Phase 2 study should develop and execute an engagement plan that includes processes to: • Identify key stakeholders and stakeholder groups with whom en gagement is essential.
|
From page 268... ...
. Cancer in Populations Living Near Nuclear Facilities, Vols.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.