Every day, health physicists and physicians are expected to communicate effectively with concerned people, but rarely (if ever) are they given training on how to effectively communicate. In an age of social media, this paper presents the relevance of teachings from an ancient Greek philosopher. Aristotle's Rhetoric is still considered one of the most influential works on persuasive messaging. He puts the onus of effective communications on the people with the "true" and "just" information to communicate that information clearly to the audience. By communicating with intention-using the persuasive appeals of ethos, pathos, logos, and storytelling-radiation professionals can speak to their expertise in radiation science, while adapting their instructions, presentations, and communications styles to meet the needs of each type of audience: from scientists to concerned citizens, from doctors to first responders, and beyond.

This article summarizes major points from a newly released guide published online by the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR). The article reviews basic principles about radiation and its measurement, short-term and long-term effects of radiation, and medical countermeasures as well as essential information about how to prepare for and respond to a nuclear detonation. A link is provided to the manual itself, which in turn is heavily referenced for readers who wish to have more detail.

Introduction: Community assessments to measure emergency preparedness can inform policies, planning, and communication to the public to improve readiness and response if an emergency was to occur. Public health and emergency management officials need an effective assessment tool to measure community preparedness for a radiological emergency. Methods: The authors created a survey instrument to collect data on household radiological emergency preparedness that could be implemented using the Community Assessment for Public Health Emergency Response (CASPER) methodology, developed by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. To inform the development of the tool, the authors examined existing CASPER surveys, focusing on identifying best practices for creating a survey instrument, as well as analyzing the results of a survey of radiation preparedness experts and state/local health and emergency management officials. Results: The developed survey tool includes 32 questions covering four domains: communication in an emergency, preparedness planning, physical/behavioral health, and demographics. The instrument captures information related to identified barriers in communicating in a radiological emergency as well as self-reported behaviors that could potentially be influenced through awareness and education.Discussion: Using the proposed survey instrument and following the existing rapid assessment methodology provided by CASPER, public health and emergency management agencies can collect valuable information on the radiation preparedness needs of their communities, which can then be used to improve household readiness for an emergency.

Central to applying the principle of optimisation in the system of radiological protection is the evaluation of what level of radiation exposure should be considered “as low as reasonably achievable” (ALARA), after taking into account the prevailing circumstances. Determining what is “reasonable” is an abstract, although somewhat intuitive, concept with many potential interpretations depending on both the situation and those involved, whether individuals or organisations. There are common themes in the types of considerations that need to be addressed to determine “reasonableness” regardless of the exposure situation. However, despite the consistent and agreeable nature of these themes, there remains a gap in how to apply them in real situations. For example, without measurable goalposts (or a clear process for setting such goalposts) for determining what constitutes ALARA, we can find ourselves misinterpreting the optimisation process as keeping exposures “as low as possible.” We propose herein, by consolidating and building on existing ideas, an easily understandable and actionable “reasonableness” framework. This simple, yet broadly applicable tool is intended to help radiation protection experts in the systematic, deliberative, and collaborative reflection on all of the factors that make up “reasonable” before making a decision—whether it be a proposed medical treatment or clean-up of a contaminated site. Each process execution and decision itself will necessarily retain the complexity of the prevailing circumstance. The proposed “Rs” of Reasonable represent Relationships (stakeholders, empathy, and trust), Rationale (contextual, technical, and ethical), and Resources (technological, financial, and time).

During the spring of 2011, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) used its national radiation monitoring and sampling system, RadNet, to detect, identify, and inform the public about radioactive material in the United States resulting from Japan's Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant release. The RadNet system monitors ambient air, drinking water, precipitation, and pasteurized milk for radionuclides. To supplement its existing stationary (fixed) continuous air monitoring system, EPA deployed additional air monitors to Saipan, Guam, and locations in the western United States. The Agency also accelerated the regular quarterly sampling of milk and drinking water and collected an additional round of samples. For two months, staff located at EPA's Headquarters Emergency Operations Center, west coast regional offices, and National Air and Radiation Environmental Lab worked seven days a week to handle the increased radiochemical sample analysis from air filters, precipitation, drinking water, and milk; provide interagency scientific input; and answer press and public inquiries. EPA's data was consistent with what was expected from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant release. The levels of radioactivity were so low that the readings from the near-real-time RadNet air monitors stayed within normal background ranges. Detailed sample analyses were needed to identify the radionuclides associated with the release. Starting at the end of April and continuing through May 2011, levels of radioactive material decreased as expected.