Dealing With The Dangers Of Fear: The Role Of Risk Communication

Abstract

Among the many lessons of the homeland terrorist attacks of 2001 was that fear has powerful public health implications. People chose to drive instead of flying, thereby raising their risk of injury or death. Thousands took broad-spectrum antibiotics to prevent possible anthrax infections, thereby accelerating antimicrobial resistance. Such potentially harmful actions were taken by people seeking a sense of safety because they were afraid. This essay argues for greater emphasis on risk communication to help people keep their fears in perspective. Effective communication, not only through what the government says but implicit in the actions it takes, empowers people to make wiser choices in their own lives, and to support wise choices by society in applying limited resources to maximize public and environmental health.I t h a s b e e n m an y m o n t h s n ow since that awful September day when Americans were attacked on our own soil. There has been time enough to recover from the horror, to heal from the loss, and to at least begin the effort to make ourselves physically safer. But as we reinforce security at airports, hunt down those who would attack again, and invest in public health preparedness, what are the government and public health institutions doing to battle the terror of terrorism? What are we doing for our sense of emotional well-being? Not enough. As important as it is to physically protect ourselves from the next attack, addressing our fear also has important implications for the public's physical health. We believe that the government could, and should, be doing more to recognize and combat the risks we face from being afraid. We need more-effective risk communication to fight the terror in the "War on Terrorism." The Health Risks Of FearNot long after September 11, a woman from the Boston area who had flown dozens of times announced to her family several states away that she was now afraid

Suicide in the Major Western Countries 2000–2002: The Violent Deaths of September 11, 2001

“…We agree with Gray and Ropeik (2003) that in order to make wise choices, policy makers should adopt a more proactive attitude, even if it appears to countermand popular wisdom's and political preferences (Gray & Ropeik, 2003;Pritchard, Baldwin, & Meyer, 2004;Wallace, 1997;Wallace & Staiger, 1998). Informed by the strongest Suicide in the Major Western Countries 2000-2002 statistical mortality evidence, Governments need to tackle the perennial and obdurate public health problem of suicide, which continues to take a horrendous human toll even in the face of other more emotional political imperatives, which surround civil violent deaths.…”

The Politics of Public Health Policy

“…Gray & Ropeik observe that some public health issues-bioterrorism, for examplewill command attention disproportionate to their epidemiological impact, because the perception of risk and concern depends on other factors, including the degree of public awareness, the uncertainty about risk exposure, whether the risk is personal, how catastrophic the risk is, and whether it is voluntarily assumed or otherwise controllable (61). Stone also notes the speculative nature of risk construction: "Potential future needs often have a political potency far greater than actual needs, because fear of the unknown plays a bigger part.…”

Dirty Soil and Clean Consciences: Examining Communication of Contaminated Soil

“…The public is a highly heterogeneous group (Wester-Herber, 2004) and what might be important for one group may not be relevant for another. There are numerous studies indicating which concerns are most common among parts of the public (Drew et al, 2003;Hansen et al, 2003) and also a number of studies and suggestions on how risk communication is best achieved (Frewer, 2004;Grey & Ropeik, 2002) that could serve as a useful tool at an early stage in planning a remediation project.…”