Lead contamination, the media and risk communication: a case study from the Ribeira Valley, Brazil

Abstract

This paper discusses the importance of risk communication in studies of public health issues, and analyses the roles of scientists and the media in communicating scientific data, and their influence on risk perception. The findings are based on a case study from Adrianópolis in the Ribeira Valley (Brazil), conducted between 2005 and 2006, where residents were exposed to lead contamination that originated from a smelter and a sulphide mine. This study had two goals: (1) to understand the impact of information regarding lead contamination on the daily lives of the local inhabitants; (2) to understand and analyse the consequences of an absence of a strategy for risk communication by the researchers involved in the study. Besides drawing attention to the need for studies concerning passive environmental issues, the Adrianópolis case study showed that there was a lack of adequate planning for dissemination of information to local inhabitants that seriously undermined the relationships between researchers, the community and the media, and this caused damage to the various stakeholders.

Geoscientists' views about science communication: predicting willingness to communicate geoscience

“…Furthermore, many geoscience subjects are presented by the media mainly because of their disaster side; journalists rarely approach positive aspects of research or direct implications on people's lives (Liverman and Jamarillo, 2011). Lack of strategic communication on topics with impacts on human health, for example regarding mining wastes, produced negative effects on local populations (Di Giulio et al, 2008). Not only the social impacts but also the political, cultural and economic orientations and the politicisation of some subjects affect the will and way of communicating.…”

“…Topics with greater popular visibility, public interest or increased "social demand" such as medicine and health or climate bring more attention to some areas than to others and give scientists different opportunities to engage with the public (Dunwoody et al, 2009;Jensen, 2011;Ivanova et al, 2013). For example, scientists who acknowledge the impact of their work tend to communicate more, such as nanoscientists, demonstrating a greater sense of social responsibility (Dudo et al, 2014). Also, scientists who perceive the controversy of their research, as climate scientists , or who understand the importance of communication for the wellbeing of society (Besley et al, 2013), feel a bigger responsibility to communicate.…”

“…Literature reveals a wide range of studies focused on specific scientific communities like geneticists (Mathews et al, 2005), nanoscientists (Corley et al, 2011;Dudo et al, 2014), astronomers Anjos et al, 2021), biologists and physicists (Ecklund et al, 2012, Johnson et al, 2013, climate scientists or marine scientists (Pinto et al, 2018). The very first approach to study the geoscientists' community attitudes and practices was made by Liverman and Jaramillo (2011), under the scope of the working group for Communicating Environmental Geosciences of the Commission for "Geoscience for Environmental Management" (GEM) of the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS).…”

Geoscientist’s views about science communication: predicting willingness to communicate geoscience

“…Also many geoscience subjects are presented by the media mainly because of their disaster side, journalists rarely approaching positive aspects of research or direct implications on people's lives (Liverman and 95 Jamarillo, 2011). Lack of strategic communication on topics with impacts on human health, for example regarding mining wastes, produced negative effects on local populations (Di Giulio et al 2008). Not only the social impacts but also the political, cultural and economic orientations and the politicization of some subjects affects the will and way of communicating.…”