Panel on "communication, terrorism and homeland security: new research, recent experience, emerging challenges".
S. Becker
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/HP.0b013e3182259ad3
2011-11-01
Health Physics
Abstract:THE PANEL chair, Steven M. Becker (University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Public Health), opened the session by pointing out that communication issues were now seen as a crucial dimension of terrorism preparedness and response. He indicated that much had been learned about risk communication for homeland security in recent years, both from real-world events and from scientific research. The purpose of the panel was to highlight recent developments, review new findings and tools, and examine emerging issues and challenges. The first speaker, G. James Rubin (Kings College London), discussed risk communication lessons from the 2006 London polonium episode. In that incident, Alexander Litvinenko, a Russian dissident and former KGB officer living in the United Kingdom, was apparently intentionally poisoned with the radionuclide Po. Rubin noted that the mysterious circumstances of Litvinenko’s poisoning and the dramatic images of his deteriorating condition (ending with his death) generated enormous media interest. Meanwhile, the news that trace quantities of polonium had been found in a variety of locations around London created the potential for widespread public concern. Rubin then reported the results of two studies that had been carried out by his team and the Health Protection Agency (HPA). The aims of the studies were to examine public perceptions of the incident and test the effectiveness of the HPA public information efforts. The first study, a telephone survey of 1,000 Londoners, found that public concern was actually quite limited, with only 11.7% of respondents saying they felt their own health might be at risk. One reason for the relatively low level of concern, noted Rubin, was that people viewed the incident more as a spy story with a specific person targeted than as a more general threat or terror attack. In addition, the HPA’s consistent message indicating not only which areas were at risk but also which areas were not at risk was apparently effective. In the second study, qualitative interviews were carried out with 86 participants who were randomly selected from a register complied by HPA. A notable finding was that participants were skeptical about what they perceived as attempts to reassure rather than inform them. Summing up what had been learned from the studies and the case, Rubin said that how an incident is perceived (e.g., a crime vs. a terror attack) makes a significant difference in public reaction. Thus, a dirty bomb or other radiological/ nuclear terrorism event could produce a very different reaction from the polonium incident. In terms of public information efforts, Rubin concluded that it is important to tell people not only which areas are at risk, but which ones are not at risk. Finally, said Rubin, what members of the public want from the authorities is information rather than reassurance. The next speaker, Gillian K. SteelFisher (Harvard School of Public Health), examined the use of rapid emergency polls in disasters, emergencies, and terrorism. These polls, said SteelFisher, are carried out by telephone and typically involve randomized samples of about 1,000 people. Polls can be conducted at baseline, mid-crisis, and aftermath points. One major advantage of rapid emergency polls, noted SteelFisher, is their immediacy. Because they are carried out as a crisis or emergency unfolds, people’s views and opinions are fresh. This minimizes recall biases. Another advantage of rapid emergency polls is their quick turnaround time. Thus, data generated can directly inform current efforts to address or follow up an emergency. Topics covered in rapid emergency polls may include public knowledge and concerns about a threat, public responses and reactions, public information-seeking behavior, and views of future recommendations. To illustrate the use of rapid * Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Disaster and Emergency Communication Research Unit, The University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Public Health, 1665 University Boulevard, Room 530, Birmingham, AL 35294-0022. For correspondence contact the author at the above address, or email at smbecker@uab.edu. (Manuscript accepted 21 May 2011) 0017-9078/11/0 Copyright © 2011 Health Physics Society