Our Blog: where do you stand?
Next Entry | Previous Entry | All Blog Entries | Subscribe to Feed
The Odds Are Better Than We Think
By: Loren Wassell | 05/21/2009
If anyone knows how much our lives are threatened by chemical exposure it ought to be the members of the Society of Toxicology, the professional organization of scientists who study harmful effects of chemicals and other impacts on people and the environment.
A new survey of toxicologists concludes that the news media and environmental groups tend to overstate the risks of everyday chemical exposure, and some industry groups tend to understate them. In general, we are right to be skeptical of the barrage of information we get about threats to our health:
They overwhelmingly reject the notion that exposure to even the smallest amounts of harmful chemicals is dangerous or that the detection of any level of a chemical in your body by biomonitoring indicates a significant health risk. And they are nearly unanimous in rejecting the notion that organic or "natural" products are inherently safer than others.
The survey is based on responses from nearly 1,000 members of the group, and the analysis of responses list the most serious chemical risks starting with tobacco smoke - and the relative accuracy of information sources with government agencies, WebMD and Wikipedia among the best. In other words, new on-line media are doing a better job of conveying information than the traditional mainstream media, and government agencies tend to play it straight up the middle.
The study was conducted by the Center for Health and Risk Communication at George Mason University and STATS, the Statistical Assessment Service, both devoted to improving scientific and statistical information.
In some ways, this is old news. Peter Sandman helped pioneer the field of risk communication by determining that people's perception of "risk" is actually a combination of statistical hazard - how likely is it? - and another factor he calls "outrage," an emotional factor based on whether or not the risk is voluntary or well-understood. The new study supports Sandman by suggesting that popular sources of risk information are closer to the Sandman definition than the objective hazards considered by the toxicologists.
In communications about risks, we need to consider how people really perceive risks - including the "outrage" factor - as well as the hazard itself. But it's important to know where we can turn for credible information, and what the experts think is really risky.
Posted in Issues and Crisis Management
comments
FactChecker2 says:
Thu, May 21, 2009 at 8:50:pm
Peter Sandman advanced the field of risk communication, but it was Paul Slovic et al who did the seminal risk perception work. Sandman and the other great risk communicators stand on the shoulders of the risk perception researchers and others like Kahnemann and Tversky.
Tammy says:
Thu, May 21, 2009 at 1:54:pm
Peter Sandman gets it right. He elaborates on the concept that when we as individuals choose the risk, we feel less endangered and therefore have no outrage. But when people perceive that they have no choice in the risk, the level of outrage increases and the perception of danger increases. Looking at those who choose to smoke cigarettes is a perfect example of this. Well stated, Loren!