1 / 14

Rebuilding Trust in the Science of Radiation Protection

This presentation at the IRPA13 conference in Glasgow explores the importance of trust in radiation risk assessment and decision-making. Experts highlight the need for stakeholder acceptance, sound science, and transparency to rebuild trust. Case studies on plutonium-contaminated soils underscore the significance of involving stakeholders in data analysis and decision processes. Recommendations include optimizing data utilization, ensuring transparency, and flexibility in decision-making to maintain trust and improve communication.

lilli
Download Presentation

Rebuilding Trust in the Science of Radiation Protection

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. IRPA13: Living with Radiation – Engaging with Society Glasgow, UK, 13 – 18 May, 2012 Rebuilding Trust in the Science of Radiation Protection Helen A Grogan, PhD Cascade Scientific and John E Till, PhD Risk Assessment Corporation

  2. What is trust?

  3. Why do we need to rebuild trust? • Radiation risk assessment is a complex subject • Not feasible to “educate” stakeholders thoroughly • A level of trust has to be established between stakeholders and scientists • Stakeholder acceptance is essential for successful recovery decisions

  4. Where does trust come from? • Sound science • State of the art methods • Intense scientific peer review • Transparency • Availability and accessibility of information • Responsiveness • Taking actions beyond what is expected

  5. Participation of Stakeholders

  6. Inhalation of resuspended plutonium contaminated soils – dominant exposure pathway

  7. We concluded a rancher living on the land with his family is the scenario that would lead to the highest dose

  8. A prairie fire could significantly increase the dose because of greater resuspension following the fire.

  9. Rancher with probability of fire = 1 Curve A Rancher scenario Curve B Child scenario Curve C Resolution of Soil Action Level at Rocky Flats 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Probability of Exceeding Dose Limit 10% level 239+240Pu (Bq kg-1) 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

  10. How do we build trust? • Consistent efficient process for compiling, accessing and analyzing environmental data • Comprehensive, geared to end use • Convert data into knowledge • Flexible, rapid, current • Communicate the knowledge • Transparent, understandable, cannot be delegated

  11. Data Information Knowledge Optimize sample locations Spatial and temporal trends Turning Data Into Information and Knowledge

  12. How do we maintain trust? Establish the ability to re-evaluate decisions as new information becomes available Ensure a transparent process that allows decisions to be traced back to the information they were based upon Establish the ability to allow other factors (e.g., economic, cultural, political) to be accounted for in decision making Effectively communicate the basis for decisions

  13. THANK YOU hgrogan@racteam.com www.racteam.com

More Related