1.1. Sources of Information

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 chemical emissions.” Maybe 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 sources can report the same event in varied ways, affecting public perception and trust. When a chemical leak occurs, for instance, various journalists may frame the story differently based on their viewpoints or intended message. Journalist 1 might focus on a neutral aspect, while Journalist 4 emphasizes the negative impact on health. This variation highlights the importance of critical evaluation of information and understanding the source.

Think about how different news outlets reported on a popular event like a sports match. While one channel might highlight the game's thrilling moments, another might focus on the controversies or disagreements among players. Just like sports fans might come away with different feelings about the match, audiences interpreting news can feel differently about an event based on the coverage they consume.

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 introduces the concept of primary sources of risk communication, which includes various hazardous events such as smoking, genetically modified foods, arsenic contamination, and natural disasters like tsunamis. These sources play a critical role in informing the public about potential risks related to health and safety, enabling better understanding and decision-making regarding risk factors.

Imagine a community living near a volcano. People might rely on scientists to understand if there's a risk of eruption. The scientists' warnings can serve as primary sources of information, alerting locals about the need for safety precautions. Just as a weather forecast helps us prepare for a storm, risk communication helps communities prepare for potential hazardous situations.

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.

This chunk explains that scientists play a crucial role in risk communication by conducting hazard analyses. They assess potential hazards, evaluate the consequences, and analyze the likelihood of such risks occurring. This systematic approach helps determine if a risk is manageable or too severe, forming the foundation for public warnings and safety measures.

Consider how scientists analyze the risk of a playground being safe for children. They examine the conditions of equipment, ground materials, and potential dangers like sharp edges or high falls. Based on their analysis, they can decide whether the playground's risks are acceptable or if measures—like adding soft ground material—should be implemented for safety.

So, they can categorize the risk low, medium, high, very high or extreme high and so you can have measured the risk from a 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.

In this chunk, the categorization of risk into levels such as low, medium, high, etc., is discussed. However, it's important to note that initial analyses and discussions may occur within the scientific community before being shared with the general public. This caution is crucial to prevent misinformation and distrust, as sharing raw or unrefined information without context can lead to confusion.

Think of an episode of a TV show where a character figures out a mystery. The character doesn't immediately tell everyone their findings because the information is still unclear or unverified. Instead, they discuss it with their friends first to refine the details before making a public announcement. This careful approach in the scientific community is similar—the aim is to provide accurate and trustworthy information.

--