Module 9 Closure

Closure Fall 2009

** Q. Module 9, I found it interesting  how complex our risk management/assessment flow chart is becoming, so many factors have been added to it, it seems like environmental health almost takes a backseat to all these other factors. The only thing I found a bit sketchy is Mr. Sandman's strategies, he goes on for a long time to just make the point of "tone your delivery to your audience". All of his suggestions are just ways to turn your information around to make the public feel like they are more involved, this is kind of a basic in any kind of public communication working with human psychology.
A. Yes, but he looks at the components of the situation, as interpreted by the audience.  This can be, often is, very different than the situation is interpreted by an engineer or scientist or health professional. Honesty is always required, but honesty directed towards the sensibilities of the audience.  Not, “You don’t have a problem, since the water tested less than one part per million.” (Which means they are stupid to have been concerned in the first place or be concerned now.)  Rather, “Our department shares your concern about the methylethylgoop in your water supply, while that substances does cause dry skin in rats at very high doses, the EPA believes that concentrations less than 10 parts per million do not result in bad health effects. “ (Which means you were correct in being worried, but we have looked at it carefully and believe it is safe.)  

** Q. As for this week’s quiz regarding Question #3 and the streamlining process (or lack thereof), I guess I am a little confused on the use of “streamline.” It seems to me that since a huge document was drafted that pretty much spells out all the steps that will be taken during a risk assessment, that would be considered “streamlining” the process. Yes, the actual process may get muddled, but there are instructions for how to do it correctly. A. Actually, both algorithms were contained in large documents and the more recent is quite a bit longer.  You may have something there, since the whole point of the process is to “fix” the problem, and if people’s perceptions are the problem, these must be addressed.  The original concept was limited to human health hazards.  But by sticking just to a “scientific” analysis of those, the larger political problem of people being angry and/or freighted may get worse and in the long run, nothing constructive gets done. 

* Q. One of the “muddiest” parts of Module 9 was reading ADEC’s Guidance on Public Involvement for Project Managers.  What a piece a bureaucratic drivel.  From reading it, it appears that ADEC is telling its contaminated site project managers, “we are only doing this because we have to”.  The appendices were helpful.  Whoever compiled that poorly written piece of work should read Neil Postman’s Language in America to gain some insight as to why citizens do not trust bureaucrats.  
A. Yes, but consider this, what you looked at was a draft and I don’t believe it ever went final.  At least I can’t find it.  It is difficult to get people to agree on how to do this, or if it even needs to be done.

* Q. I was a bit confused about that Twelve Components of Outrage table in the 'It's the Outrage, Stupid' article. I was not sure what the safe and risky labels meant. Did the safe side indicate what people are less likely to get outraged about?
A. Yes, people perceive something as “risky” they are outraged about it.  That may be confusing with Sandman’s thesis, Risk = Hazard + Outrage.  Meaning the perceived risk is a function of the actual risk, which he labels “hazard,” and a second factor, which he calls “outrage.”  I believe he is 100% correct in his perception of the situation. 

End 2009 Closure

** Q. I found it interesting how during the history of risk assessment, the public often had little input.  One thing that I was foggy on was how the proposed project would influence Red Baron.  Was the financial loss due to the sanitation workers?  If so that is a lot of drinking on the job ($800,000/year).  Other than that it did not seem like Red Baron was affected, in fact the proposal actually looked like in positively impacted the bar. 
A. You feel Red is trying to rip off the state by inflating his estimate of costs.  Red feels he is being subjected to an unfair process.  The whole community gets the befit of the dump, but it costs him twice, once in taxes and once in lost business.  You have to first and foremost understand that.  I would start by saying, “This must seem like it is unfair to you.  You may loose business by this change.  “Then go from there.  LISTEN to his complaints.  When you present reasons why the dike must be placed there, collaborate with Corps of Engineers or other experts in river control.  You can’t make the process “voluntary,” but you make it seem less “involuntary” by listening to his point of view.  You can be “responsive” by listening to him and offering to relay his complaints to others in your organization who deal with compensation issues. 

*Q. It was a little strange to me that the examples of comparative risk assessment (9C) were based on a one in a million increase in risk.  This seems impractical and far-fetched.  For example, I would like to know how one quantifies the one in a million increase of risk of death/cancer by smoking 1.4 cigarettes.
A. Good question.  These things are often urban legends that get copied from forum to forum.  However, they often have some logical basis.  They may take the annual rate of lung cancer deaths, a percentage, probably 70%, due to tobacco smoke, multiply by a million and divide that by the number of cigarettes smoked each year.  There are approximately 300,000 people who did of lung cancer due to cigarettes each year. 

* Q. It almost seems like you need someone with a communications degree involved at the public involvement stage.  Engineers aren’t notorious for being good communicators.  Do government agencies and companies provide training for risk assessors to communicate with the public? And are risk assessors typically scientists and engineers or more administrative types?
A. The science of risk assessment involves many disciplines.  Most consulting and technical agencies simply identify employees who are good at dealing with those situations.  Industries always have a “public affairs” department or person who is designated at the only interface between the company and the public.