Risk Communication
On March 28, 1979, America’s worse commercial nuclear accident occurred – a partial meltdown of the reactor core at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant near Middletown, Pennsylvania. In the early hours and days of the Three Mile Island accident, nobody knew for sure what was happening. Metropolitan Edison, owner of the nuclear plant, put their best face on and tried to make the most reassuring statements it could given what was known at the time. So as the news got worse, Metropolitan Edison had to keep going back to the public and the authorities to say, if effect, “it’s worse than we thought.” Coordination lacked between local, state, and federal regulatory agencies and neither Met Ed nor the Nuclear Regulatory Commission had a “disaster” public information plan. News reports reflected this communication gap with utter confusion and misinformation. The imprecise reports and inaccurate information led to panic, and more than one hundred thousand residents, mostly children and pregnant women, fled the area. It was believed that clear, understandable information was all that was needed to make people see that the risks were lower than many feared. This paper will define risk communication; explain how risk communication methods are developed; and discuss a well-known risk communication campaign.
Sound and thoughtful risk communication can assist public officials in preventing ineffective, fear-driven, and potentially damaging public responses to serious crises such as the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant accident. Historically, risk communication was largely a one-way form of communicating, with the public being told what the experts thought to be important. Today, risk communication is an interactive process of exchange of information and opinion among individuals, groups, and institutions; often involves multiple messages