Week 8 Response Paper

The assigned chapters in Environmental Communication and Science in Public this week explore the realm of environmental risk communication.  The definition of risk communication presented by Robert Cox is “any public or private communication that informs individuals about the existence, nature, form, severity, or acceptability of risks.” Questions to help analyze risk communication include:  Who controls the discourse with the public about environmental risks?  Who is at risk?  Who benefits from this risk being taken? 

Entities such as the EPA are responsible for determining whether or not a risk is “acceptable”, and use a 4 step assessment process to make this decision.  While there is science that drives this process of analysis of a risk, the final judgment on the acceptability of a risk is subjective.  For instance, dioxin in sewage sludge used to irrigate farm fields was not considered a high risk because only 22 people in the next 70 years would likely get cancer from it.  Is this acceptable?  Why do we accept that anyone at all could get cancer from a substance such as dioxin being used to fertilize crops? 

Oftentimes it is difficult even to link a chemical with a certain illness that it may cause.  This was the case for a Massachusetts community that inspired the book and film A Civil Action—even though children were getting leukemia at unusually high rates, it was difficult to tie that illness to specific chemicals that a company dumped into the water years ago. 

Another theme of these chapters was the disparity between perspectives on environmental risks and hazards.  Scientists, on the one hand, do not dwell on low-risk situations that could have enormous consequences, but the public does.  This conflict involves both the technical risk communication and also the cultural model of discourse between science and the public.  Technical risk communication is straight forward and aims to educate and inform the public.  Cultural risk communication, however, takes into account the worldview of the audience, and aims to involve the public more in risk communication and decision making. 

Finally, the media’s role is discussed here.  The media tends to cover the most dramatic aspects of a risk, rather than taking a holistic look at the potential problem and informing the public.  Alternative media is, again, stepping up to fill this niche where mainstream media is lacking. 

In conclusion, I am left wondering how much dioxin is too much?  What are our core values about what the health of the environment should be?  Also, what are some ways that the media can improve in an effort to bring science and public together in the area of risk communication?