3.3. Internal Peer Communication

So, people cannot trust, so by own people trust depends on who are the, who is providing the information. Now, also it is very important that this one, this oil refineries, for example, a particular, the factory there is a specific chemical substance has been leaking from the waste, repository for two years okay. Now, how different maybe a Group transmitter can interpret that one. The event is that a specific chemical substance has been leaking from a waste repository for two years. Maybe, do you think that all journalists will report the same way? No right, they generally don’t do it. Let’s look, journalist 1 reported like that “Leak in waste disposal at high-tech Park”. How about journalist 2 is “State-of-the-art technology for monitoring chemic emissions.” May be journalist 3 is reporting air pollution by toxic waste dump. Journalist 4 is reporting poisoning the air we breathe, the water we drink. So, same event but different journalists are reporting different things, it’s so interesting.

This chunk discusses how different journalists can interpret and report the same event in various ways. It starts by mentioning that people's trust in the information they receive is often dependent on the source of that information. The example given is about a chemical leak at an oil refinery, which has been reported by four different journalists, each highlighting different aspects of the situation. From a relatively benign report to one that emphasizes dire consequences, the diversity in coverage illustrates how the interpretation of facts can vary widely based on perspective.

Think about the various ways a sports game can be reported. One sports journalist might focus on the team's strategy, another might highlight individual player performances, while a third could emphasize the emotional moments of the game. Each report would provide a different lens through which to view the same event, just like the journalists mentioned in the text.

So, the primary source of risk communications. Primary source of risk communication so these are hazards, we know like smoking, genetically modified foods or irrigations of arsenic contaminations or hazardous material or volcanic eruptions okay or Tsunami.

This chunk identifies the primary sources of risk communication, which include various hazards that pose risks to health and safety. Some examples listed include smoking, genetically modified foods, arsenic contamination from irrigation, hazardous materials, and natural disasters like volcanic eruptions and tsunamis. These sources help in understanding the potential risks that come from different situations.

Consider a public health campaign about the dangers of smoking. Such a campaign serves as a primary source of risk communication by informing the public about the health risks associated with smoking, much like how the hazards mentioned in the text inform people about risks from other sources.

Now, the scientific community basically, the first group the senders of the informations what do they do basically, I am talking about the scientist. Okay, they do hazard analysis, what are the hazards, what can go wrong, what are the potential consequences, how likely is it to happen, is the risk is tolerable or not.

In this chunk, the role of scientists in risk communication is emphasized. Scientists are responsible for conducting hazard analyses, which involves identifying potential risks, analyzing what could go wrong, evaluating possible consequences, and assessing the likelihood of these risks. They then determine whether the level of risk is acceptable or not, which forms the basis of effective risk communication.

Imagine a city planning to build a new bridge. Engineers and scientists would analyze the risks involved, such as structural integrity and environmental impact, before construction begins. Their assessments help in making informed decisions that prioritize safety and minimize potential hazards.

So, they can have measured the risk from different parameters, from based on their own parameters but not necessarily that these informations considered to be at raw informations, they only do it to share among themselves within their own peer group, not to outsiders because if they share it without much concern to the outsiders, it can cause lot of mistrust and misconfusions and misleading, okay.

Here, the text discusses how scientists and experts often share risk information among themselves rather than with the general public. This information is typically measured based on specialized parameters, which may not be easily understood by outsiders. The concern is that if this raw data is shared without sufficient context or explanation, it can lead to misunderstandings and a loss of trust among the public.

Think of a medical conference where doctors discuss complex data about a new treatment. If they were to share this technical information with patients without simplifying it, the patients might misunderstand the benefits or risks, leading to anxiety or mistrust.

So, what I am analysing is also under considerations if my data is right or wrong, the scientific analysis is also under subject of that what authentic data they have. So, here is this that are you sure that data you gave me is correct, I have been giving you incorrect data for years.

This chunk focuses on the reliability of data in scientific analysis. It highlights the importance of authentic data and how scientists must critically analyze their findings, keeping in mind the potential for incorrect or biased data. Thus, even when two scientists analyze the same data set, they may arrive at different conclusions depending on various factors influencing their interpretation.

Consider two different researchers studying the effects of a new drug. If one researcher uses flawed data or outdated methods while the other employs the latest techniques, their conclusions might starkly differ, illustrating how crucial accurate data is to scientific findings.

Senders passing this informations to the transmitter and transmitter is decoding and recoding. And when they are sending it to the receiver, they are also decoding and recoding the informations, So, it’s not directly going and so during this process, amplifications, magnifications and accentuations are happening, okay.

This chunk explains the complexity of the risk communication process. It outlines how information is passed from senders (scientists) to transmitters (media), who then recode that information before sending it to receivers (the public). This multi-stage process means that by the time the final message reaches the public, it may have been amplified, altered, or otherwise transformed, which can affect how the information is perceived.

Imagine a game of telephone where a message is whispered from one person to the next. As the message travels, it might change slightly with each whisper. Similarly, in risk communication, the way the information is handled at each stage can significantly alter how it's understood by the end recipient.

So, how people react it depends on how they are perceiving the seriousness of the risk and perceiving their perceived acceptability okay. So, it depends that if this person is getting informations from the mass media... So, the probability and the severity he would judge...

This final chunk discusses how public reactions to risk are largely influenced by their perceptions of seriousness and acceptability of that risk. People gauge the potential impact of a risk based on how they interpret information from various sources, including mass media. Their beliefs about the likelihood of events and the severity of potential outcomes play a crucial role in determining their overall response to the information.

Think about a news report on an impending hurricane. People who believe they're in the path of the hurricane might feel anxious and prepare extensively, while those far from the storm may dismiss it as unlikely to affect them, leading to very different reactions to the same alert.

--