• Please log in or register to access this feature.

Invited Commentary

You have free access to this content

Importance of risk communication during and after a nuclear accident

  1. Tanja Perko*

Article first published online: 20 JUN 2011

DOI: 10.1002/ieam.230

Issue

Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management

Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management

Special Issue: Challenges Posed by Radiation and Radionuclide Releases to the Environment

Volume 7, Issue 3, pages 388–392, July 2011

Additional Information

How to Cite

Perko, T. (2011), Importance of risk communication during and after a nuclear accident. Integr Environ Assess Manag, 7: 388–392. doi: 10.1002/ieam.230

Author Information

  1. University of of Antwerp, Prinsstraat 13, 2000 Antwerpen, Belgium, and Belgium, and the Belgian Nuclear Research Centre (SCK·CEN), Boeretang 200, 2400 Mol, Belgium

*University of of Antwerp, Prinsstraat 13, 2000 Antwerpen, Belgium, and Belgium, and the Belgian Nuclear Research Centre (SCK·CEN), Boeretang 200, 2400 Mol, Belgium.

Publication History

  1. Issue published online: 20 JUN 2011
  2. Article first published online: 20 JUN 2011
  3. Accepted manuscript online: 24 MAY 2011 08:52AM EST
  4. Manuscript Accepted: 16 MAY 2011
  5. Manuscript Revised: 3 MAY 2011
  6. Manuscript Received: 15 APR 2011

SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

ARTICLE TOOLS

View Full Article (HTML) Get PDF (219K)

REFERENCES

  • Abbott P, Wallace C, Beck M. 2006. Chernobyl: Living with risk and uncertainty. Health Risk Soc 8: 105–121.
  • Bertell R. 2008. Chernobyl: An unbelievable failure to help. Int J Health Services 38: 543–560.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Hunt T, Grunig J. 1994. Public relations techniques. Fort Worth (TX): Harcourt-Brace. 407 p.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Palenchar MJ, Heath RL. 2007. Strategic risk communication: Adding value to society. Public Relations Review 33: 120–129.
  • Poumadere M. 1995. Issues in communication with the public on health and environmental risk. Eur Rev Appl Psychol 45: 7–16.
  • 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.
  • Sjöberg L, Drottz BM. 1987. Psychological reactions to cancer risks after the Chernobyl accident. Med Oncol Tumor Pharmacother 4: 259–271.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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).
  • Wakeford R. 2007. The Windscale reactor accident—50 years on. J Radiol Prot 27: 211–215.
View Full Article (HTML) Get PDF (219K)