A blog about nuclear communications

You can make a comment or ask a question directly to one of the speakers. The question will be forwarded to her/him and she/he will be asked to reply.

An issue, which is seldom addressed when talking about nuclear communications, is internal communications. And yet several studies have shown that people who live near nuclear facilities are usually more informed and more favourable to nuclear power. This is partly because most of the time they know someone who works for the facility and is able to provide them with first hand information about it.

Christelle Mutschler, Head of Communications at the Fessenheim Nuclear Power Plant in France shared her own experience with PIME participants. Fessenheim is the oldest nuclear power plant in France and last year during its third ten year outage (inspections had to decide whether the plant could be granted another ten years of operation), the plant had to face strong opposition from nuclear opponents. She explained how an extensive internal communications campaign improve the image of the plant in the whole area. The employees have a key role to play in external communications. Employees are perceived as credible sources of information by their family and friends (80% of people interviewed said so). They are therefore efficient relays of information and must be kept informed of the company’s views to convey the right messages. Fessenheim has a staff of 800 employees but all in all there are 3500 people working for EDF in the Alsace region that are all potentially good spokespersons for the industry.

John Reynolds is Head of Media Relations at Sellafield Ltd, the site, which has been plagued with a bad image for decades. Therefore it is crucial for the company to focus on internal communications in order to improve its corporate image. Sellafield employs 11000 persons. The company tried to contribute to internal relationships, promote a positive sense of belonging and pride and develop awareness and understanding of change. The employees can take time off to get involved in local life and therefore are good relays of information. Some of them are members of the local government, others are involved in teaching, others have volunteered for emergency services… During the latest flood in the area, many of them took time off to help out and Sellafield employees were regularly interviewed by local newspapers.

These two examples show how important it is to inform employees in order for them to be good ambassadors of the company. What are your views on that?

And last but not least, the PIME Award winner was announced. And the winner is… Rosatom  with its project of new information centres located in big cities in Russia:

http://fr.rian.ru/world/20100216/186071300.html

You can make a comment or ask a question directly to one of the speakers. The question will be forwarded to her/him and she/he will be asked to reply.

The first day of the PIME 2010 conference in Budapest focused on the issue of how to better connect with the general public. Speakers from a broad spectrum addressed the issue and gave different answers and solutions to the problem.

The first speaker ,Janos Süli, the plant’s chief executive officer, gave an overview of the latest nuclear developments in his country. He told PIME (the conference on Public Information Materials Exchange) in Budapest today that Hungary is expected to call for tenders for the two units in 2011. He also said work is continuing to extend the operational lifetimes of the four existing Russian-built VVER-440 units at Paks. He said the life extension proposals call for unit 1 to be operational until 2032, unit 2 until 2034, unit 3 until 2036 and unit 4 until 2037. He said Hungary’s nuclear regulator, the Hungarian Atomic Energy Authority, had already said it could see no impediments to the extension of the four operating lifetimes. He said a licence for the life extensions is scheduled to be issued in 2012.

Stephen Tindale, former member of Greenpeace, argued that we should convince the public that even though there are risks associated with nuclear technology, “they are less serious than the risk of a 6^o rise in global temperatures”. Renewables are not sufficient to fight climate change and all low-carbon technologies are needed including nuclear power.

James Gillies, Head of Communications, CERN explained how to make complex science look simple and therefore appease fears of the unknown. He told PIME delegates of the impact of the film “Angels and Demons” that was partly filmed at the CERN in Switzerland. It gave good publicity to the centre and generated extensive media coverage. The CERN even created a website to explain the science behind the film: http://angelsanddemons.cern.ch/.

Alain Michel (Belgian editor)‘s argument is that rather than presenting rational facts to the public, the nuclear industry should try and trigger people’s emotions. That’s something nuclear opponents are very good at. His suggestion is to use fiction (TV shows and films) to familarise people with nuclear and instill the idea that nuclear is a harmless technology rather than try to convince them with rational and technical facts.

Franck Deconinck (Professor, Vrije Universiteit Brussel and Belgian Nuclear Research Centre SCK•CEN)’s viewpoint is that nuclear communicators should try and emphasize human aspects of nuclear technology by talking about its medical applications for instance. The nuclear industry should convey simple and straightforward messages in lay term to the general public. It should stress the benefits of nuclear without hiding the risks. It is the only way to build trust and confidence.

Eventually, representatives from other industries gave participants an insight into their communications strategy and pointed out what lessons the nuclear industry can learn from their own experience. Daniel Verbist, Executive Director, CEFIC, the European chemical industry trade association, explained that building trust was the cornerstone of their strategy. To do so, the industry must “demonstrate that it cares about society’s concerns”, develop a constructive and pro-active dialogue with stakeholders and consumers and explore dilemmas inherent to modern society. The industry has to be able to remain as transparent as possible and convey clear messages in lay terms. The chemical industry faces similar challenges as the nuclear industry, it is an industry based on science but its decisions cannot be based only on science, because there are ethical and environmental concerns that must be taken into account if we wish to gain public acceptance.

Ynke Feenstra from the European Research Centre of the Netherlands presented the communications challenges that the Carbon Capture and Sequestration technology is faced with. There are some similarities with nuclear technology: it is a complex technology that suffers from the not in my backyard syndrome and is perceived as hidden and not transparent, the risks are quite low, but an accident could have a serious impact on local residents and environment. The industry has to engage in a dialogue with stakeholders and speak the same language. It should try to stress the benefits of the technology for the local community and first of all it should not hide uncertainties. Be as transparent as possible and listen to the public. This is the only way to connect with it!

So now let us know, what you think about the sessions if you attended the conference or what are your views on the subject!

To give you a sneak preview of the forthcoming PIME conference, I would like to mention the presentation that Alain Michel is going to deliver during the session entitled “connecting more effectively with the public”. His argument is that rather than presenting rational facts to the public, the nuclear industry should try and trigger people’s emotions. That’s something nuclear opponents are very good at (one example if Greenpeace video of a plane crashing on a nuclear power plant while a family is walking on a beach nearby).

His suggestion is to use fiction (TV shows and films) to familarise people with nuclear and instill the idea that nuclear is a harmless technology rather than try to convince them with rational and technical facts. It is true that most films and documentaries that deal with nuclear are mainly antinuclear and have negatively affected the image of nuclear power. Think about “the incredible Hulk” that becomes a green monster following a nuclear accident, “Godzilla” that is also created by nuclear radiation or the popular cartoon, “the Simpsons”.

Dr. Bill Irwin, a philosophy professor in Canada published recently a book demonstrating that the show may have had strong influence on social perception of the nuclear industry. The characters- careless plant employee Homer, miserly Mr. Burns, and environmentalist Lisa – have made powerful and repeated arguments against the safety of nuclear power.

Alain Michel suggestion would be to make the most of the impact of popular films by producing a soap opera featuring nuclear workers and their family. An idea which is to be debated during the PIME conference in Budapest on 15 February.

When you talk about nuclear, what comes in mind first is the atomic bomb, a weapon of massive destruction that slaughtered the population in Hiroshima and Nagasaki or the Chernobyl accident that is associated with thousands of deaths. Rarely do people mention the medical use of nuclear power or its applications in agriculture or water desalination… And yet recent news from the tragic earthquake in Haiti remind us that “yes” nuclear power can save lives!

The US super carrier Carl Vinson has arrived at Port-au-Prince to rescue the population hit by the earthquake in Haiti. It carries not only supplies, helicopters and a field hospital, but also a twin-reactor vessel capable of desalinating seawater to produce 1.5 million litres of potable water per day.

The population in Haiti lacks everything from food to shelter, but the lack of drinkable water could be the last straw. That’s why the contribution of the US Navy to bringing water desalination nuclear reactors can help save Haitians from the potentially deadly dehydration.

In the medical field too, nuclear applications help improve human health and cure diseases. Radio therapy, for example, is one of the most effective cancer therapies known. Stable and radioactive isotopes are deepening our understanding of human biological processes. There has been a dramatic increase in cancer cases worldwide, especially in industrialised nations .  The number of new cases is expected to climb to 15-million by the year 2015, and roughly two thirds will occur in the developing countries, where the average life span is quickly increasing. About half of all cancer patients today receive radiotherapy as part of their treatment. Radiotherapy, combined with surgery, and to a lesser extent, chemotherapy, will remain the most important curative treatment for most cancer tumours, with radiotherapy used in up to 60 percent of all patients in some countries. Thanks to improved therapies, most cancers can be cured if detected early enough.

More than 800 million people, mainly in Africa and Asia, suffer from hunger.  Most depend on agriculture for their livelihood; many rely on imported food or relief aid for their very existence. Many factors affecting plant growth and crop quality, such as drought, insects and disease, are often beyond farmers’ control. While it is difficult to create ideal growing conditions, for the last three decades it has become possible to produce plants that are better “tailored” to thrive in imperfect conditions by radiation technology. Nuclear applications can also boost soil productivity. Soil nutrients and water are essential to plant growth, but in many areas of the developing world soils are deficient in key nutrients. Stable and radioactive isotopes can play a crucial role in understanding soil-plant interactions and in helping to increase crop production through better soil management.

Well to put in a nutshell and without starting to lecture anyone, many applications of nuclear can help save human lives. Perhaps would it help to improve the image of nuclear technology if these applications were mentioned more often. What is your viewpoint?

In this difficult time, I would like to express my sympathy with the population in Haiti.

The conference on nuclear communications, PIME, will be held in about a week time in the capital of Hungary Budapest from 14 to 17 February. The programme will feature among others Prof. Ira Helsloot, a sociologist working at Amsterdam University. He is going to deliver a speech about mass psychology and how we can better understand the man-in-the-street’s perception of nuclear as a potential threat.

Numerous studies have shown that if you ask people to rank a number of potentially risky activities or technologies, nuclear comes first well before cars, handguns or smoking. And yet the probability of dying in a nuclear accident is far less than the one of dying in a car crash or from a lung cancer. What can account for that?

The work of Paul Slovic, a famous American psychologist, on risk perception shows that people are usually more afraid of what they cannot control. For instance, someone is more likely to be frightened if she/he is the passenger of a car than if she/he is driving the car. The risk will also be less accepted if the person hasn’t chosen to be exposed to it. For example, if you smoke you know you are increasing your chance to develop a lung cancer, but since you’re doing it on your own free will, you accept it. On the contrary, if a harmful chemical ingredient is added to a food product and it is not on the label, it is not acceptable for consumers. Another criterion is whether or not, the threat stems from a natural source or is created by human activities. People are usually more afraid of nuclear radiation than of solar radiation, they are more suspicious towards chemical drugs than towards herbal remedies, though both can be equally dangerous. Last but not least, we tend to weigh benefits versus drawbacks. Nuclear radiation from isotopes that are used to treat cancer is considered as a necessary side-effect to save lives, while nuclear radiation from nuclear power plants is less acceptable.

It you take all these criteria into consideration, it is clear that nuclear power is perceived as a major threat. So the key to gaining public acceptance is probably be to be as transparent as possible to avoid misinformation. However as transparent as the nuclear industry may be, people still tend to believe that true facts are being hidden. So how can we convince this intractable citizen that the risk she/he perceived is greater than it actually is?

Global warming, which is one of the most serious global challenges facing the world today, has undoubtedly contributed to make policy-makers and even the man-in-the-street reconsider nuclear energy. Though it is probably not good news for polar bears, nuclear has benefited from the climate threat: “One man’s meat is another man’s poison”.

World leaders are currently meeting at the United Nations Climate conference in Copenhagen from 7 to 18 December to decide on new emissions targets in order to limit temperature rise to 2°C to avoid irreversible damages to environment. Climate change is probably good news for nuclear in the sense that it did better than any communications campaign could have done to improve the image of nuclear. In recent years, nuclear has evolved from being the black sheep of all energies to the status of reliable low-carbon energy source.

A majority of European citizens is now aware of the fact that nuclear power is a non emitting energy source. According to the latest Eurobarometer on Radioactive Waste, 62% now agree that one of the main advantages of nuclear energy is that it produces less greenhouse gas emissions than coal and oil (an increase by 4% compared to 2005 ). Stressing the climate change benefits of nuclear energy positively influences one in ten people to be more supportive of expanding the role of nuclear power in the world according to an IAEA study published in December 2005.

“Nuclear is not the solution, but there is no solution without it” said Loyola de Palacio, former Energy Commissioner. Indeed nuclear energy along with renewables is among the low-carbon energy sources that contribute to curbing greenhouse gases. The current use of nuclear energy (accounting for about 15% of the world’s electricity generation) avoids the emission of about 2.1 billion tonnes of CO2 every year. In the EU as whole, nuclear avoids 675 million tonnes of CO2 per year. By comparison, the EU has a greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction target of 446 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent below 1990 level by 2008-2012. Moreover nuclear power is more reliable than wind or solar energy, because the wind doesn’t always blow and the sun doesn’t always shine. A 1188 MW reactor (like Sizewell B in the UK) produces as much electricity as 2000 wind turbines, taking into account the load factor of the respective energy sources (measure of the output of the plant compared to the maximum output it could produce: 80% for nuclear, 30% for wind).

Danish Minister for Climate and Energy, Connie Hedegaard, who chairs the Copenhagen summit declared recently that nuclear would be discussed as an option during the conference. In the Kyoto protocol, nuclear energy is excluded as an option for implementation under JI and CDM (flexible mechanisms that are aimed at helping countries meet their targets). During the pre-Copenhagen negotiations, some parties have called for nuclear and other technologies like Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) and natural carbon sinks (prevention of deforestation) to be included in the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and in the Joint Implementation.

Global warming has undoubtedly improved nuclear’s image. People are now more aware of nuclear power’s climate credentials and the Chernobyl cloud is fading away.

Though it would be really cynical to start comparing death tolls of various accidents, we can underline the fact that nuclear accidents are always better remembered than others. That is the point that the British conservative Member of the European Parliament, Roger Helmer, makes in his Blog.

He remarks that the chemical disaster that took place in Bhopal, India in 1984 killed directly around 10 000 people, whereas the Chernobyl accident caused the death of 50 people. Of course 50 people are already too many. However how come the anniversary of the Bhopal disaster is hardly covered in the media, while the Chernobyl disaster’s anniversary gets extensive media coverage every year.

No NGO has ever suggested phasing out the chemical industry as a result of an accident. The nuclear industry is constantly attacked by anti-nuclear activists that urge governments to shut nuclear power plants. Why is that? Is a nuclear dead more valuable than a chemical one?

That’s very interesting from a communications point of view. One could argue that Bhopal is too far away from Europe and that people’s sensitivity depends on distances. Chernobyl was much closer and what struck public opinion is that it affected the entire European continent. Well, then what about the Ghislenghien accident in Belgium or the explosion of the AZF factory in Toulouse, France. That’s pretty close, isn’t it?

What can account for the fact that nuclear accidents are perceived as more serious than other industrial accidents whatever the actual casualties? The sociologist, Mr d’Iribarne, who conducted a study on “the French and radioactive waste” found that the terms “radioactive” and “nuclear” convey irrational fears. Nuclear power is considered almost as something supernatural on which mankind has hardly any control. People’s perception of nuclear accidents derives maybe from these irrational fears. Of course it is always better for the media to tell scary stories with the word “nuclear” than to talk about the more neutral chemical industry. It is more likely to sell newspapers or increase the audience.

Well, I am sure you can find other explanations about that and I’m curious to have you views on it.

Recently the BBC website reported that a fisherman’s cottage was on sale in the North of England in a beautiful area close to a nature reserve. However the Estate agent had failed to mention that the house was located just opposite a nuclear power plant, Dungeness A and B. No wonder, since this “detail” would undoubtedly have made the price of this charming cottage drop.

Indeed there is nothing that unites people in a common cause that the belief that our back yard is under threat. This common manifestation of our humanity has always been there but it has only recently been given political relevance by the modern-day concept of nimby (“not in my back yard”). We are prepared to fight tooth and nail to preserve our little piece of paradise on earth. Of course, when it comes to energy provision it is not just nuclear power stations that bear the brunt of prevailing nimbyism. Even renewable energy sources are not exempt of criticism. Increasingly wind farms are targeted by people who are not prepared to have rows of wind turbines blight the beautiful countryside with their ugliness, noise and frequent periods of pointless inactivity. And the press now regularly presents the increasingly heard views of the anti-wind energy lobby – much to the dismay of those people who think that all forms of renewable energy are, by their very nature, beyond reproach.

Increased acceptance through increased knowledge holds the key to transforming people’s perceptions of nuclear energy. The nuclear community must do more to communicate the knowledge that will counter the nimby argument. It must present the facts that will counter misunderstanding and misinformation. It must present an alternative scenario where “having it in my back yard” might actually be a positive thing for the local communities involved. It is not easy when you have to fight against human instinct and private interest. But we cannot operate in a communications vacuum. It is vitally important to give the facts in order to counter the fiction. Unless we can convince people by presenting the truth and by engaging them in the debate they will never consider an alternative viewpoint and the work we do will not get the recognition and support that it deserves. Unless we can “sell” our science more effectively to a broader public the nimbyists will remain largely ignorant of the many benefits of nuclear technology. And the status quo they so crave will be maintained.

It might seem a very tall order to change entrenched thinking but it can be done. Look at what recently happened in Sweden. I recently visited SKB’s facilities at Forsmark. There it was explained to me how a concerted communications campaign and the involvement of the local community it in every step of the decision-making process relating to the selection of a deep underground waste repository led to consensus and increased acceptance. Scientists and industrialists working in the Swedish nuclear sector have added good communications to their list of skills and it has paid off. An opinion poll published in June 2009 shows that around 80% of the local population is in favour of the deep geological repository that is planned to be built there. Of course, it is much easier to initiate such a project when the local community is already won over to the nuclear cause. But, nevertheless, a well-organised communications plan and programme of information based on openness and dialogue can persuade people that a new scenario can happily coexist with our natural instincts. They are not necessarily mutually exclusive. There is a new emerging force in Sweden (and elsewhere too) that is providing a counter argument to the nimby brigade – the yimby (yes in my back yard) brigade. My trip to Sweden encouraged me to believe that good science communicated well can change the way people react to nuclear energy. The good people of Forsmark and the neighbouring communities, who have the same self-preservation instinct as everybody else, know what is in their common long-term interest and have acted accordingly.

With more and more countries reviewing their nuclear phase-out policies, extending the operational duration of their reactors, launching new build programmes or opting for long term underground waste disposal, the climate is more propitious to changing hitherto unchallenged and preconceived views. Yes, there is a bit of the yimby in all of us too. It’s a question of activating it and allowing it to express itself.

 Other Media: Download

A film, « waste, the nightmare of nuclear » was broadcasted recently on the Franco-German television, ARTE, and generated extensive media coverage. It intends to prove that the nuclear industry is incapable of managing its radioactive waste. The film and a recent incident at Cadarache, France triggered once again a controversial debate on radioactive waste management.

Communicating on the waste issue is a very difficult task. Indeed how can you explain to the man-in-the-street that high-level radioactive wastes can be safely stored for over 500 000 years? Such a time scale is almost inconceivable for the human brain. A normally constituted human being would think: so what if the next generations forget about it? What if it starts leaking and nobody knows about it? Do we really want our children, grandchildren and grand-grandchildren to inherit that?

The French documentary I mentioned earlier “uncovered” the fact that EDF stores tonnes of depleted uranium in Siberia. Later EDF explained that this was not radioactive waste, but irradiated materials. Hum! What is the difference exactly? In fact it is difficult to explain that there is a difference between low, intermediate and high level waste. And though, it is an important detail because short-lived or low-intermediate waste (protective shoe covers and clothing, cleaning materials like rags and mops) accounts for 90% of the total amount of waste and is not dangerous to handle. The level of radioactivity of this waste decreases with time, losing 50% of its radioactivity every 30 years; after less than 300 years 90% will have decreased below the level of naturally-occurring radioactivity. It can be stored in surface or near surface. Long-lived or high-level waste consisting in spent fuel from nuclear power plants and research reactors accounts for only 10% of total radioactive waste, but must be stored safely for over 500 000.

Technical solutions for the final storage of high-level waste exist. There is broad consensus in Europe that deep geological disposal is the best applicable technical solution. Countries like Finland and Sweden are already about to implement this solution. But the trouble is how to convince people that the industry can handle its waste. And it is crucial, because Eurobarometers, European wide opinion polls, have shown that if people believed that the waste issue was solved, there would be a majority of people in favour of nuclear power.

But the term, radioactivity, is always very scary for most people. It rings negative bells: Chernobyl, Nagasaki… Giving facts is rarely sufficient to overcome fears. So by which means can we compete against emotions?

 

 YouTube: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

The German federal elections saw the landslide vistory of Angela Merkel’s CDU. The rather dull political campaign was marked not only by the Chancellor’s breast on the poster of one of the CDU’s female candidates (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/11/merkels-cleavage-takes-ce_n_256567.html), but also by the nuclear issue.

Indeed the Red-Green coalition‘s agreement to phase out nuclear power limits the operational lives of the reactors to an average of 32 years. Angela Merkel and her party want to reverse the phase out policy and extend the lifetime of the nuclear power plants. The Socialist party (SPD) and the Greens on the contrary intend to implement the agreement.

The thorny issue became all the more controversial when the current environment Minister, Mr. Gabriel “revealed” that former Chancellor Helmut Khol had demanded scientists to minimize in a report the risks due to the Gorleben salt mine in Lower Saxony, which is the potential permanent nuclear waste storage for high level waste.

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,4662800,00.html

The “revelations” snowballed and threatened Chancellor Merkel’s reelection. The issue was addressed again during a debate between her and her rival, Frank Walter Steinmeier. Chancellor Merkel was put on the defensive and had somehow to tone down her position regarding nuclear: “We have made clear: we don’t want new nuclear power stations. I don’t know anyone [in the CDU] who entertains this idea”. She said she considered nuclear power as a bridge technology until renewable technologies were mature enough.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iP19D1vAPZE&feature=related

It shows how a controversial issue such as nuclear can become a real political stake and trigger a major communications crisis within a party. Once again the transparency of the industry is questioned and public opinion is encouraged to believe that facts are being concealed.

 

 YouTube: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download