‘Stay clear from the smoke’: effects of alternative public messages in case of large-scale chemical fires

In the Netherlands, until recently, public messages in case of a large chemical fire, routinely contained phrases such as: ‘no hazardous materials have been detected in the smoke’, ‘there is no danger to public health’, and ‘people are recommended to stay indoors and close doors and windows’. Such messages not only fail to adequately inform people about risk, they are also inherently inconsistent. That is, the advice to stay clear from the smoke makes little sense unless there is a potential danger of the smoke. To improve risk communication in case of major fires, we developed several alternative risk messages and tested them in a digital experiment. We found that participants who read alternative messages that included the phrase: ‘all smoke is harmful’ considered the message more credible and less inconsistent than those who read the routine message. However, they also perceived the risk as higher. Participants who read an alternative message in which a qualification of the extremely low chance of developing cancer by inhaling the smoke was added, considered the message just as credible but also more clear. Moreover, they had lower perceptions of risk than those who read the alternative message without a qualification of risk. Responses with respect to adherence to recommendations or expectations towards government actions did not differ depending on the message. Based on our findings, we conclude that a public warning in case of major fires should take the public perspective into account, fitting the content s to the needs of the final receivers, and conveying a clear, consistent and informative message to enhance a basic understanding of the risk involved and the rationale of recommendations. This will not only enhance trust and credibility it may also reduce concerns and promote adherence to recommendations

Where there’s smoke, there’s fire: focal points for risk communication

Large fires involving hazardous materials are often characterized by failing crisis communication. In this study, we compared opinions of experts regarding the risks of major fires to lay beliefs using a mental models approach. Amongst lay people this revealed relevant knowledge gaps and beliefs in opposition to those held by experts. While, experts considered the chance of getting cancer from inhaling smoke from a chemical fire extremely small, most lay people thought that even at a great distance, the chance of getting cancer to be large. To improve crisis communication about risk in a case of large chemical fires, and reduce the potential for messages to be misunderstood, distrusted or dismissed, we recommend a clarification of cancer risk in communications about public health emergencies such as chemical fires, for which lay people equate even small exposures to carcinogenic chemicals make one more likely to get cancer later in life

"These Power Lines Make Me Ill": A Typology of Residents' Health Responses to a New High-Voltage Power Line

Little attention has been devoted to the potential diversity in residents' health responses when exposed to an uncertain environmental health risk. The present study explores whether subgroups of residents respond differently to a new high-voltage power line (HVPL) being put into operation. We used a quasi-experimental prospective field study design with two pretests during the construction of a new HVPL, and two posttests after it was put into operation. Residents living nearby (0-300 m, n = 229) filled out questionnaires about their health and their perception of the environment. We applied latent class growth models to investigate heterogeneity in the belief that health complaints were caused by a power line. Classes were compared on a wide range of variables relating to negative-oriented personality traits, perceived physical and mental health, and perceptions of the environment. We identified five distinct classes of residents, of which the largest (49%) could be described as emotionally stable and healthy with weak responses to the introduction of a new power line. A considerable minority (9%) responded more strongly to the new line being activated. Residents in this class had heard more about the health effects of power lines beforehand, were more aware of the activation of the new line, and reported a decrease in perceived health afterwards. Based on our findings we can conclude that there is a considerable heterogeneity in health responses to a new HVPL. Health risk perceptions appear to play an important role in this typology, which has implications for risk management