Communicating Risk: Lessons from an Environmental Journalist

1
Communicating RiskLessons from an Environmental
Journalist

• Dina Cappiello
• Houston Chronicle
• NUARTC/TCEQ Air Toxics Workshop

2
It is particularly important here...
3
And here...
4
Or here...
5
So why is it so difficult??

• Different natures of the media and science
• Interest groups industry, environmentalists,
  government present data in ways that serves
  their ends, but to lay public appears
  contradictory/dishonest
• Flaws of the media mainly looking for conflict,
  rather than answer

6
THE NEWSPAPER

• Most readers 5th grade-level understanding of
  science
• Deadline-driven/immediate
• Want certainty good/bad, healthy/unhealthy
• Public audience Chronicle 700,000 readers per
  day
• Concerned with quality of life questions

7
SCIENCE

• Specialists, with multiple degrees
• Research takes time, peer review etc.
• Uncertain outcomes, incremental
• Inaccessible to public audience is other
  scientists
• Concerned with advancing knowledge, not
  necessarily solving public dilemmas

8
(No Transcript)
9
(No Transcript)
10
Ozone vs. Air Toxics

• OZONE
• Smog alerts
• Clear standard above bad, below good
• Extensive research
• Good communication among stakeholders
• IN THE NEWS

• AIR TOXICS
• No alerts
• No clear-cut standards
• Research lacking
• Poor communication among stakeholders
• NOT IN MASS
• MEDIA

11
Example 1

• Galena Park monitor
• Records some of the highest concentrations of
  benzene in state. Above state long-term ESL since
  1998
• Located across from public school
• YET.
• School district, public officials and residents
  were completely unaware of readings

12
Example 2

• TCEQ Mobile Monitoring
• States own workers, in some heavily polluted
  areas will not sit in monitoring van or wear gas
  masks.

13
(No Transcript)
14
(No Transcript)
15
State concludes

• Monitoring not close enough to neighborhood to
  make predictions
• Levels for those chemicals measured below
  short-term ESL, so no health effects expected
• In cases when long-term ESL busted, until
  recently, state reports said that it only
  indicated need for further evaluation
• RESULT MIXED MESSAGES, CONFUSION,
• DISTRUST

16
Example 3

• CAP MEETINGS
• Came out of the 1990 CAA, set up and run by local
  industry
• Industry touts CAP meetings as communicating with
  public
• YET
• Residents who have attended for years still are
  unclear what is in their air and whether it will
  harm them

17
Closing the gapIn Harms Way

• Citizen-collected sciencescience engaged
  community, became real
• Analyzed existing state data to answer following
  questions
• What is in the air in neighborhoods near chemical
  plants/refineries?
• Is it enough for to put people that live there at
  greater risk?

18
ESLs

• Part of the communication problem
• In some cases, Texas allows levels of air toxics
  not allowed in other states
• Level not uniform. Some ESLs set at 10-4 cancer
  risk, others 10-6
• When used in permitting, ESLs are compared to
  dispersion models from one facility, sometimes
  not entire site, and never multiple sources

19
Show ESL chart

• www.chron.com/toxic

20
SOLUTION

• Compared to EPA IRIS RfCs set at 10-6 level and
  calculated cancer risk
• Did not count values not above 1996 NATA level as
  exceedance
• Compared to stationary monitors in non-industrial
  neighborhoods
• RESULT
• Very different picture
• www.chron.com/toxic

21
CRITICISM

• 72-hour grab vs. annual standard
• This is a fair criticism.
• However, in all cases our median value was below
  that detected by TCEQ in all of 2003 and our
  value fell within range of TCEQ monitoring
  datashow chart

22
(No Transcript)