1. Risk Communication Overview

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.

This chunk explains that public trust in information is heavily influenced by the credibility of those who provide it. In this case, the specific scenario discussed is about an oil refinery where a chemical leak has been happening for two years. The message suggests that communities will assess the reliability of the information based on their trust in the source, which can vary significantly.

Imagine a local news report about a nearby factory spilling chemicals into a river. If the community knows and trusts the journalist reporting the story, they are more likely to believe the report and take it seriously. On the other hand, if the same information comes from a source that they perceive as unreliable, they might dismiss it or even panic, believing the situation is worse than it is.

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.

This chunk outlines how the same event—like a chemical leak—can be reported in vastly different ways by different journalists. Each journalist might focus on different aspects or use varied language that can lead to varied interpretations by the audience. This highlights the importance of understanding not just the facts but also how they are presented.

Consider a breaking news event like a protest. One news outlet might emphasize the peaceful aspect, calling it a 'community gathering,' while another might focus on any clashes that occurred, labeling it a 'riot.' Depending on which report a person sees, their understanding and perception of the protest can dramatically change.

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.

This section lists the various primary sources from which risk communication derives, identifying common hazards such as smoking, genetically modified foods, and environmental issues. Understanding these sources is crucial for grasping how risks are communicated to the public.

Think of a health campaign warning about the dangers of smoking. This message serves as a risk communication to inform the public of the hazards associated with tobacco, similar to how climate scientists communicate the risks of global warming due to fossil fuel emissions.

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 the scientific community in risk communication is highlighted. Scientists conduct hazard analyses, assessing what could go wrong, the likelihood of these events, and the severity of their consequences. This structured approach plays a vital role in determining how risks are communicated to the public.

Think of a meteorologist during hurricane season analyzing potential weather patterns. They evaluate the risks of severe storms and communicate these risks to residents to help them prepare. Just as meteorologists provide guidance based on their analyses, scientists share critical data to inform public understanding of various hazards.

So, the source of message, when the senders, they are sending to the transmitter. They actually do amplify, magnify and accentuate the informations, it’s not that what information you pass is go directly but it is the media or the other they actually convert this one in printer pair this one, amplify this one, magnify this one, and then it comes through decoding and recoding.

This part explains the process of how messages about risks are communicated. Once the information is sent from the sender to the transmitter, it undergoes alterations, including amplification and magnification, shaped by media and other forms of communication. This suggests that information can change form and meaning before it reaches the receiver.

This can be likened to playing 'telephone' where a simple message is whispered down a line of people. Usually, the message is altered along the way, resulting in a drastically different statement by the time it reaches the last person, which emphasizes the importance of clear communication in conveying accurate information.

He would, the receivers would follow him the senders only if he believes or she believes, okay. So, expected number of fatalities, if our is communication message is including that component. How and what extent it affects people.

This chunk discusses the challenges that can arise from differing perceptions of risk between senders and receivers. For effective communication, the receiver must trust the sender's message. If they do not believe the risk is significant or relevant to them, the communication might fail to provoke any action or concern.

Consider a school informing parents about an increased risk of flu among students. If parents don’t believe the school’s message or feel the flu poses no real threat, they may not take steps to protect their children, like getting vaccinated. Thus, the effectiveness of communication hinges on the trust and beliefs of the audience.

--