The role of social sciences within the BfS: risk communication and empirical research

1. Dr. Bernd Grosche Head WG Radiation Risk and Radiation Protection Concepts incl. Risk Communication Ph.D. in Epidemiology, M.Sc. in Sociology The role of social sciences within the BfS:risk communication and empirical research

2. The Federal Office for Radiation Protection (BfS) • BfS works for the safety and protection of man and the environment against damages due to ionising and non-ionising radiation. • In the field of ionising radiation there are, e. g., X-ray diagnostics in medicine, safety in the handling of radioactive substances in nuclear technology and the protection against enhanced natural radioactivity. • The work in the field of non-ionising radiation includes the protection against ultraviolet radiation and the effects of mobile communication. • Of special importance are, in addition to the defence against immediate hazards, the precautions for the protection of the general public, persons employed in the working world as well as patients in the medical field.

3. BfS – Simplified Organigramme

4. BfS Workforce • Some 800 employees • Social scientists • Press information • Public relations • Dep. Radiation Protection and Health

5. Dep.Radiation Protection and Health • Division Effects and Risks of Ionising and Non-Ionising Radiation • WG Biological Radiation Effects, Biological Dosimetry • WG Non-Ionising Radiation, Dosimetry, Operation of UV Measuring Network • WG Radiation Epidemiology • WG Radiation Risk and Radiation Protection Concepts incl. Risk Communication (4 sociologists) • Division Medical and Occupational Radiation Protection (1 sociologist)

6. „History of sociology“ in BfS • 1981: Health reporting including social indicators for districts • Validity of patients‘ information on past X-ray examinations • Birth outcome in Germany following the Chernobyl accident (cohort studies) • Gap • Increased awareness of the importance of risk and (more recently) crisis communication incl. stakeholder involvement • Childhood leukaemia near NPPs • Mobile phone use • Nuclear waste disposal

7. Risk Communication and Public Relations / Press Information Risk Communication PR / Press Information 8

8. A few words on radiation • Ionizing radiation • Non-ionizing radiation

9. Risks from radiation exposure (relevant for this presentation) • Radon: ~ 1,900 lung cancer deaths per year in Germany • Nearness of a NPP: 1 extra case of leukaemia amongst 0-4 years old per year in Germany (no plausible explanation) [dose too low by at least a factor of 1,000 and well below dose limits] • 50 Hz fields: increased risk of childhood leukaemia above 0.3 µT (no explanation at all) [dose limit 100 µT] • Mobil phone use: no known risks to date

10. WG Radiation Risk and Radiation Protection Concepts incl. Risk Communication • Evaluation of Radiation Risks – Ionizing and Non-Ionizing • Further Development of Radiation Protection Concepts • Risk Communication • Work on scientific basis • Direct communication in special situations

11. Topics of risk communication • Ionizing radiation • Vicinity of NPPs • Radon in homes (radon awareness survey) • Nuclear waste disposals (participation) • Nuclear accidents (Chernobyl, Fukushima)

12. Topics of risk communication • Non-ionizing radiation • UV (action plan, education material) • Mobile phone use (education material) • 50 Hz fields (education material)

13. Empirical research I: risk perception • Radon (radon wareness survey, from knowledge to action) • Mobile phone use • Perecption of risk • Target group analysis • Information transfer • Conflict settlement • Knowledge transfer • Round table (stakeholder involvement)

14. Radon awarness surveys

15. Central Observations from the RAS • Risk communication raises the information level and helps to change behaviour. • In general the facts about radon have to be continuously communicated and efforts have to be made to put radon in the “right place”, as e.g. radon is seen as a “rural” problem. • The public may know about the severe health effects from radon, but this risk in comparison with other risks is underestimated; Future risk communication strategies could focus on this aspect. • Possible measures to reduce radon must be adapted to the local circumstances, as it seems that the public in some countries (e.g. in Germany) would rather pay a higher amount for remediation work by experts and in other countries (e.g. in the Czech Republic) they rely more on friends and their own work. • A Stakeholder approach should focus on medical doctors, pharmacists, home inspectors and architects.

16. Empirical research II: evaluation • Information campaigns • education material • information material • BfS statements perceived by the public

17. Risk communication in various fields of radiation protection • State of the art on „societal aspects“ • Risk perception • Risk behaviour • Public information needs • Information needs as seen by BfS • Intervention ? • Stakeholder involvement (their interests, arguments etc.) • media, persons concerned, scientists, physicians, industry, politics, statutory accident insurance and prevention, …) 18

18. Handbook on Risk Communication For internaluse only

19. Contents • Introduction • Basics in risk communication • Risk perception and behaviour, cognition, and health behaviour • Central aspects of risk communication • The roles of BfS • The role of trust in risk communication • On the use of risk comparisons in risk communication • Communication of scientific uncertainties • Analyses on specific topics

20. Specific topics • Radon • Radon spas • Childhood leukaemia and NPPs • HF electro-magnetic fields • LF electric and magnetic fields • Electro sensibility • UV radiation and skin cancer

21. Scientific evidence Exposure, diseases, exposure-disease relationship Uncertainties Dissent among scientists On what ? Arena (scientists, public) BfS‘ position Handbook Structure I

22. Recommendation on actions and behaviour By exposure originator To the user Other concerned persons (w/o any benefit) Risk perception and behaviour What happens after inadequate behaviour? Do we know enought about risk perception? Handbook Structure II

23. Scientific framework / basic conditions Significance of the source of exposure in daily life Who are the most important stakeholders? What are their points of view? Which aspects shape the risk discourse? What are the most urgent action needs? What is BfS doing? Handbook Structure III

24. Future topics for the Handbook • in progress • Nuclear waste disposals (in general, Asse, Konrad, Morsleben (ERAM), Gorleben), • Exposures at the workplace • planned: • Medical radition exposure • Natural radiation exposure (other than radon) • Transportation of radioactive substances • Mammography • Radioactivity in drinking water • NORM (Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials)

25. Current work • Behaviour model • Combination of aspects from behavioural sciences (e.g. sociology and pychology) and environmental economy • Aiming at practical use / orientation for planning of information campaigns, intervention etc. 26

26. Thoughts on risk communication and nuclear waste disposals • Basic concepts of radiation protection • Dose constraints • Optimization • Justification • Not only radiation protection, but also societal, economic and other aspects • Most challenging part of radiation protection, in particular after disasters and when planning nuclear waste disposals

27. Showcase DMF • „hard science“ alone is not enough • self commitment by the providers • here, communication is of central importance • personell hired for this topic

28. German Mobile Telecommunication Research Programme (DMF) • The DMF was conducted from 2002 to 2007 within the portfolio of the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU) under the auspices of the Federal Office for Radiation Protection (BfS). • The Programme was funded with €17 million, equally shared by the Federal Ministry for the Environment and the network operators. • The Programme supported the WHO’s international EMF project and seeked to increase the amount of data required for risk assessment.

29. German Mobile Telecommunication Research Programme (DMF) • Research focused on: • Biological mechanisms of action of high frequency fields • effects on animals and humans • determination of the exposure, i.e. dosimetry • risk communication

30. German Mobile Telecommunication Research Programme (DMF) • BfS has determined the scope of knowledge still needed in order to reevaluate the health risks • On this basis, BfS has drawn up a draft of a research programme. • The BfS draft was submitted to a comprehensive consultation process, e.g. public consultation on the internet and a final public discussion in an expert workshop • The resulting comments were taken into account for the development of the final programme draft • After conclusion of the projects in 2007, public meetings took place in order to allow a final discussion of the results.

31. Transparency • BfS has made available to the public an internet portal for the Research Programme (www.emf-forschungsprogramm.de). • The BfS internet portal comprises: • Description of the entire Programme. • Overview of the research projects within the framework of the Programme (topic, summary description, term (each item in English and German), interim reports in their current version (Programme report), and, on conclusion of the projects, final reports (in German) and abstracts in English and German. • Overview of the results of national and international research projects on the relevant areas of research, including BfS assessments.

32. RTDMF • Representatives from the following institutions take part in the RTDMF: • German Commission on Radiation Safety (SSK), • Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz (BUND), • Telecommuniction network providers, • Mobile Telecommunication Information Centre (IZMF), • consumer centres, • German Medical Association, • Länderausschuss für Immissionsschutz, • Research Association for Radio Applications, • Office of Technology Assessment at the German Parliament (TAB), • one media representative

33. Projects on risk communication within DMF I • Risk perception EMF • Identifying the general public's fears and anxieties with regard to the possible risks of high frequency electromagnetic fields of mobile telecommunications (annual surveys since 2003) • Analysis of target groups for differentiated information • A socio-psychological analysis of the characteristics and needs for information and communication of electromagnetic hypersensitive persons

34. Projects on risk communication within DMF II • Information and communication measures • Examination of the knowledge and effects of information activities in the field of mobile telecommunications and determination of further approaches to improve information of different population groups • EMF-Portal: Internet Information System and Literature Database on Biomedical Effects of Electromagnetic Fields

35. Projects on risk communication within DMF III • Site acquisition in Germany - Risk communication in local settings • Site acquisition process in Germany – Framework, Regulation, Practice • Realisation of the self commitment • Support of the co-operation between the mobile telecommunication actors by the local Agenda 21 • Development of an online manual for successful siting processes and risk communication in the field of mobile phone conflicts • Mediation as a possible alternative dispute resolution method in the site acquisition process

36. (bi-)annual surveys on risk perception: Identifying the general public's fears and anxieties with regard to the possible risks of high frequency electromagnetic fields of mobile telecommunications, 2003-2006, 2009 (next one on its way) Risk perception

37. The surveys were focused on possible health concerns and perceived health problems of the population in relation to high frequency electromagnetic fields from mobile phones. In addition, various data concerning cell phone use, level of information, as well as knowledge and application of preventive measures were collected. Risk perception

38. In general EMF related risks are of lower priority compared with other possible health risks. So EMF is ranked lower then consumption of meat of unknown origin, gene technology, air pollution, side effects from medicine, UV radiation, cigarette smoking and alcohol consumption. Risk perception

39. „Best practice“ portal for people working in communities etc. and who are involved in deciding were to build new or modified antennas Information for public servants

40. Information on radiation protection and their public perception • What kind of information is available ? • Review of social science literature • Who gives this information ? • Internet review • Public perception and understanding ? • Representative survey, 2,512 CATI

41. Information on radiation protection and their public perception • Results • NPP are most dangerous • UV risk is known, but not as dangerous as NPPs • Less harmful: braodcasting (radio and TV), mobile phone use, radon • Information given by BfS is thought to be • trust worthy: ~ 85 % • competent: ~ 90 % • frank and honest: ~ 65 % • Knowledge about BfS information on grid development < 5%

42. Further projects • 1. Knowledge management • 2. annual surveys • 3. study evaluation system for lay persons • 4. Best-Practice-Portal • 5. Evaluation of the EMF portal

43. Special thanks to Christiane Pölzl-Viol and Conny Egblomassé-Roidl Thank you very much or your attention!