Risk communication and public response to potential radiation emergencies in New York City.

Public knowledge and awareness about radiation (both natural and manmade) tend to be low, while perceived risk of radiation tends to be high. High perceptions of risk associated with radiation have been linked to the affect heuristic and general feelings of dread, which are often not proportionate to actual risk. For example, studies routinely show that members of the public rate the risk of radiation from nuclear power plants as significantly higher (and riskier) than radiation from medical X-rays. This disconnect can have implications for adoption of protective actions during a potential radiation emergency and the perceived efficacy of these actions. This study explores how risk communication efforts influence public risk perceptions, intended protective action, and perceived efficacy of those actions. Using unique data from a survey of New York City adults, we analyze how information provision using different formats-no information, an infographic, an informational video-impact perceptions and response to a hypothetical radiation emergency. We hypothesize that respondents who receive some information, either through the infographic or the video, will have higher perceived efficacy and are more likely to take protective action. Findings suggest that providing information about what to do during a radiation emergency has a statistically significant impact on both perceived efficacy and adoption of protective action. Respondents who saw the informational video were most likely to say that they would take the correct protective actions and had the highest perceived efficacy, followed by those who saw the infographic.

A Radiological Emergency Health and Safety Plan for City Agencies Without First Response Responsibilities.

In New York City, the citywide radiological response plan charges 4 primary agencies with various roles and objectives: police, fire, health, and environmental protection. These agencies perform essential functions such as criminal investigation, life safety, public health, and environmental assessments. In the late phase of an incident where components of remediation and recovery have been initiated, other municipal agencies that had not previously planned to respond to a radiological incident may be expected to supply various levels of support. To prepare the personnel of these other agencies to respond to a radiological incident expeditiously, a Radiological Health and Safety Plan (RHASP), was developed as an appendix to an existing Citywide Health and Safety Plan. RHASP is designed for an agency-wide health physics program that provides 4 key components of radiation safety: (1) training to understand the hazard, (2) framework for a personnel radiation dose measurement program (dosimetry), (3) environmental surveillance of the site for worker and public protection, and (4) radioactive waste control. These components of RHASP are supported by 2 functions inherent in successful radiation safety programs: documentation and quality assurance of the collected radiation safety data. In this article, we discuss the components of RHASP and the potential challenges to its successful implementation.

Bridging the Expertise Gap: Developing and Utilizing a Radiological Advisory Committee for New York City.

From the Field is a semi-regular column that explores what it means to be a local health professional on the front lines of an emergency. Typically, National Association of County and City Health Officials (NACCHO) members share their stories of preparing for and responding to disasters, epidemics, and other major health issues. This month's column features a submission from the New York City health department that describes their experience in setting up a radiological advisory committee. Through exploring the analysis of the challenges faced and the solutions developed, readers can learn how these public health champions keep their communities safe even in extreme situations. Readers may submit topics of interest to the column's editor, Meghan McGinty, PhD, MPH, MBA, at mmcginty@naccho.org . A significant radiological emergency response in New York City would require scientific expertise beyond the routine capability of the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DOHMH) and its partner agencies. Health physicists (radiological safety specialists) are chronically in short supply in the United States, which translates into a limited supply available to local health departments facing a radiological crisis. These professionals support medicine, industry, and the military in routine, nonemergency situations. In order to prearrange the availability of this expertise, a radiological advisory committee (RAC) was formed. The committee engages leading experts in the fields of radiation medicine and environmental radiation science in anticipation of the technical questions that arise from the clinical aspects of internalized radioactivity and the mitigation of the urban environment following a terrorist attack using radioactive materials. The creation of the RAC and its application in a nonemergency public policy forum is described, as are the problems foreseen in operationalizing the RAC during an emergency. Some conclusions are drawn about the effort and cost of maintaining the RAC and the benefits obtained by maintaining it. This information may be useful for other jurisdictions seeking to form a similar expert committee.