Importance of risk communication during and after a nuclear accident

Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management

Volumn 7, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 388-392

  Perko, Tanja ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ANTWERP   (Belgium)

^b BELGIAN NUCLEAR RESEARCH CENTRE   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Crisis communication; Mass media; Nuclear emergency management; Postcrisis communication; Risk communication; Stakeholder involvement

Indexed keywords

EMERGENCY; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; MASS MEDIUM; NOTE; NUCLEAR ACCIDENT; RISK;

COMMUNICATION; COMMUNICATIONS MEDIA; EMERGENCIES; RADIOACTIVE HAZARD RELEASE; RISK;

EID: 80052341055     PISSN: 15513793     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/ieam.230     Document Type: Note

References (17)

1. Abbott P, Wallace C, Beck M. 2006. Chernobyl: Living with risk and uncertainty. Health Risk Soc 8:105-121.
2. Bertell R. 2008. Chernobyl: An unbelievable failure to help. Int J Health Services 38:543-560.
3. Boiarsky C. 2004. Avoiding disasters with better communication. In: 51st Annual Conference of the Society for Technical Communication. Baltimore (MD): Society for Technical Communication. p. 387-391.
4. Cantone MC, Sturloni G, Brunelli G. 2007. The role played by stakeholders in the public debate that brought Italy out of the club of nuclear energy producers. Health Phys 93:261-266.
5. Dubreuil GH, Lochard J, Girard P, Guyonnet JF, Le Cardinal G, Lepicard S, Livolsi P, Monroy M, Ollagnon H, Pena-Vega A., et al. 1999. Chernobyl post-accident management: The ETHOS project. Health Phys 77:361-372.
6. Havenaar JM, de Wilde EJ, van den Bout J, Drottz-Sjöberg BM, van den Brink W. 2003. Perception of risk and subjective health among victims of the Chernobyl disaster. Social Sci Med 56:569-572.
7. Hunt T, Grunig J. 1994. Public relations techniques. Fort Worth (TX): Harcourt-Brace. 407 p.
8. Jackson RJ, DeLozier DM, Gerasimov G, Borisova O, Garbe PL, Goultchenko L, Shakarishvili G, Hollowell JG, Miller DT. 2002. Chernobyl and iodine deficiency in the Russian Federation: An environmental disaster leading to a public health opportunity. J Public Health Policy 23:453-470.
9. Oughton DH. 2008. The Social, Economic and Ethical Consequences of the Chernobyl Accident. In: El Mrabet R, editors. 4th International Symposium on in Situ Nuclear Metrology as a Tool for Radioecology; 2008 Oct 13-16; Rabat, Morocco. p. 18.
10. Palenchar MJ, Heath RL. 2007. Strategic risk communication: Adding value to society. Public Relations Review 33:120-129.
11. Poumadere M. 1995. Issues in communication with the public on health and environmental risk. Eur Rev Appl Psychol 45:7-16.
12. Schmid SD. 2001. Transformation discourse: Nuclear risk as a strategic tool in late Soviet politics of expertise. In: Workshop on technologies of uncertainty-reconstructing order through rhetorics of risk. Ithaca (NY): Sage. p. 353-376.
13. Sjöberg L, Drottz BM. 1987. Psychological reactions to cancer risks after the Chernobyl accident. Med Oncol Tumor Pharmacother 4:259- 271.
14. Sohier A. 2002. A European manual for off-site emergency planning and response to nuclear accidents. Mol (BE): Belgian Nuclear Research Centre (SCK·CEN). 339 p.
15. Turcanu CO, Carlé B, Paridaens J, Hardeman F. 2008. On the constructive role of multi-criteria analysis in complex decision-making: An application in radiological emergency management. In: European Safety and Reliability Conference (ESREL)/17th Annual Meeting of the Society for Risk Analysis Europe (SRA-Europe); 2008 Sep 22-25; Valencia, Spain. London (UK): CRC/ Taylor & Francis. p. 89-96.
16. Van Aeken K, Turcanu CO, Bombaerts G, Carlé B, Hardeman F. 2007. Risk perception of the Belgian population. Results of the public opinion survey in 2006. Open Report of the Belgian Nuclear Research Centre (BLG-1038). Mol (BE): Belgian Nuclear Research Centre (SCK.CEN).
17. Wakeford R. 2007. The Windscale reactor accident-50 years on. J Radiol Prot 27:211-215.