Centre for Radiation, Chemical and Environmental Hazards

HPA Experience

of Public Communication in

Different types of Emergencies

Enhancing Transparency and Communications Effectiveness in the event of a Nuclear or Radiological EmergencyVienna, 19/6/12

Mary Morrey, UK HPA

© HPA

Emergencies impacting UK

• 1957 Windscale Fire• [1979 Three Mile Island]

• 1986 Chernobyl• 2005 Buncefield Oil Storage depot fire• 2006 London polonium poisoning• 2009 Swine flu• 2011 Fukushima

Also:• tyre fires....• (national) emergency exercises

Increasing self-empowerment and articulation of the public

© HPA

Communication: Not just for emergencies

• Chronic public health concerns• nuclear power programme, mobile phones• contaminated land: radiation and chemical• waste management: landfill, incinerators, composting....

• Balancing need for action with level of risk• Mercury in face cream• Measles• Jequirity ‘beads’• TB

Use ‘Peace Time’ Activities to build Partnership Working and Processes

© HPA

What is the Goal?

• An ‘effective’ response• minimise health consequences• minimise disruption / anxiety• maximise rate of recovery (social, economic)

• Most stakeholders want a balanced, rational response strategy – trust the common sense of the public• no clear ‘correct’ strategy• comprehension of the concept of optimisation• balance: common framework & local flexibility• understand range of anxieties and losses• reduce inequity

© HPA

Dimensions of Engagement

• Different groups:• Health risk: high, chronic, ‘worried well’, worried for others• Empowerment: protect themselves, needing assistance• Perspective: local, national, international

• Different engagement timeframes• planning, emergency response, rehabilitation

• Different communication mechanisms• how to engage• what to provide

Need to plan for this now, not when it happens

© HPA

Communication during ‘Polonium’

• One-to-One:• Low risk - reassurance: Medics, supported by scientists• Higher risk – detailed explanations & action: Scientists,

supported by medics• Partners (local, national, international) – consistent

response: all staff, as appropriate

• Media:• Trained staff with ‘aptitude’, supported by

communications’ experts – plain English, honest, manage expectations

• Website:• Key for reducing direct burden on staff

© HPA

Communication during Fukushima

• Cross-Government & International Partnership Working was key:• Strong pre-emergency links and MoUs• Embedding specialists in key Departments• SAGE (Science Advisory Group in Emergencies)• International liaison between specialists• Collation and publication of all monitoring results by one

agency

• One to One advice:• Embassy telecons• NHS Direct – call centre triage

© HPA

Lessons Learned: planning

• Pre-prepared messages & information:• factual information• how to convey difficult messages

• Who says what• Mechanisms for agreeing messages• Processes for informing messages• Presentation formats and media• Flexible frameworks to cope with reality:

• many new players ‘on the day’• communication breakdowns• staff unavailable, eg caught up in incident• ministerial decisions / statements

© HPA

Lessons Learned: Communicators

• For effective engagement, public must:• respect your expertise• trust in your independence• trust that you have a genuine interest in their concerns• believe you are empowered to act

• Public look to ‘independent’ organisations and professions• Public look to direct contact with individuals• Public understand ‘optimisation’ – ie balancing harms and

benefits• Public will accept an iterative approach to improving the

situation – providing it is well-managed

© HPA

Lessons Learned: Personal

People want responses that:• sound reasonable• address their concerns• involve them (and are not patronising)

• are honest about what is not known (with a reasoned approach to dealing with this uncertainty)

• are equitable from their perspective• enable them to plan their lives (being told when information will be

available is better than saying nothing, and certainly better than giving wrong information (avoid ‘broken promises’))

• give them reasons to ignore ‘scare-mongering’• give them reassurance for their children’s health (they don’t want to

feel guilty for the rest of their lives)