Tag Archives: panic

crisis response, opinion and insights

More Peter Sandman analysis on Japan radiation threat communications

3 Comments

After my March 16 post on risk communications related to the Japan radiation threats, I decided to continue the dialogue with Peter.  We traded some emails last Wednesday, which I thought I’d summarize here (edited for brevity/clarity):

Peter,

 Three interesting articles to share: 

 Side note – years ago, I analyzed the Union and found it to be more aligned with political leanings than scientific.  I wonder if that’s still the case.

 – J.D.

Here is an edited summary of Peter’s insightful responses:

Continue reading More Peter Sandman analysis on Japan radiation threat communications →

crisis response, opinion and insights

Japan’s radiation threat: Sandman’s risk communications analysis

3 Comments
Source: AP

The nuclear radiation risk in Japan seems to be growing by the day (by the hour?). 

How does one attempt to put context on that risk? 

On March 14, in that moment in time, The Wall Street Journal opinion page (sub. required) attempted to do just that through the voice of William Tucker, an expert on (and proponent of) nuclear power.

Key quotes:

Even while thousands of people are reported dead or missing, whole neighborhoods lie in ruins, and gas and oil fires rage out of control, press coverage of the Japanese earthquake has quickly settled on the troubles at two nuclear reactors as the center of the catastrophe….

 

The core of a nuclear reactor operates at about 550 degrees Fahrenheit, well below the temperature of a coal furnace and only slightly hotter than a kitchen oven…. You can’t have a “runaway reactor,” nor can a reactor explode like a nuclear bomb. A commercial reactor is to a bomb what Vaseline is to napalm….

 

There was a small release of radioactive steam at Three Mile Island in 1979, and there have also been a few releases at Fukushima Daiichi. These produce radiation at about the level of one dental X-ray in the immediate vicinity and quickly dissipate….

 

If a meltdown does occur in Japan, it will be a disaster for the Tokyo Electric Power Company but not for the general public. Whatever steam releases occur will have a negligible impact. Researchers have spent 30 years trying to find health effects from the steam releases at Three Mile Island and have come up with nothing. With all the death, devastation and disease now threatening tens of thousands in Japan, it is trivializing and almost obscene to spend so much time worrying about damage to a nuclear reactor.

 

Source: NTV

I want to believe Tucker, as I’m sure many others do.  But there’s something amiss with his overabundant “calm context.”  Something about the way he’s presented his case….

For guidance, I emailed the Tucker article to risk-communications guru Peter Sandman.   Peter graciously shared his insights with me – and then with all of his followers through a guestbook post (with my permission, post-haste). 

I encourage you to read Peter’s full response through the link above.  I’ve have Peter’s permission to cross-post some highlights here:

Continue reading Japan’s radiation threat: Sandman’s risk communications analysis →

opinion and insights

Toyota recall aftermath: many protagonists fail inspection

2 Comments

Last August, I wrote a blog post that compared the Toyota recall frenzy of 2010 to the Audi 5000 frenzy of 1986.  At that time, there were reports that investigators were having trouble finding any “sudden acceleration” problems tied to the Toyota electronics.

Four months later, I followed up with a post that covered the sensational media reporting of ABC News’ Brian Ross.  The February broadcast — in the thick of the media frenzy — featured dramatic footage of driver tests that pointed to software/electronic problems with Toyota vehicles.  The report leaned heavily on findings of a professor of automotive technology, whose work was commissioned by a paid advocate for trial lawyers (not disclosed in the original ABC News broadcast).  Tsk, tsk.

Earlier this week, federal investigators confirmed that there is no evidence of electronic failures that led to Toyota sudden acceleration incidents.  Thus, the circle is complete – the Toyota 2010 situation is the doppelganger of the Audi 1986 situation.  Both situations point to “pedal misapplication” as a likely cause in most of the reported accidents.  Both situations end with calls to move the brake and accelerator pedals a little further apart to avoid such confusion.

Summarizing this situation now is difficult, but this is a good callout from Jeffrey Liker’s post on Harvard Business Review blog:

So who won in this debacle? Journalists who wrote speculative and poorly researched sensational articles got a lot of internet hits. NHTSA got a lot of attention, a larger budget, and a reputation for toughness. It remains to be seen whether the lawyers suing Toyota will get anything. American drivers got a paranoid auto industry that will recall vehicles at the drop of a hat. There will be some positive safety policies relating to how runaway cars are shut off in an emergency, and we all may get “black boxes” that record our recent driving actions. And Toyota got a crisis that drove it to reflect intensively and to make dramatic changes to improve its responsiveness to customer concerns, so likely will emerge stronger — but lost billions of dollars of value in the process.

Other implications?     Continue reading Toyota recall aftermath: many protagonists fail inspection →

crisis response

Looking Backward, Moving Forward

8 Comments

Consider these events:

  • Reports begin to surface of “sudden acceleration” from one auto manufacturer, including heartbreaking video/audio of fatal incidents
  • Media coverage of the situation is sometimes sensational, adding to public concerns about “runaway cars”
  • Plaintiffs’ lawyers swarm and advertise to collect testimony of anyone involved in an accident in these cars
  • “Experts” like the Center for Auto Safety weigh in on the situation, confirming the public’s fears about the safety of those cars
  • Government officials get involved, publicly skewer the auto maker, and then order studies to determine the sources of the problem
  • Months later, after reputational damage is done, fines are issued and legal verdicts and settlements are paid – studies begin to show that “driver error” is likely in most of the car accidents
  • As the legal basis for “sudden acceleration” weakens, other owners and plaintiffs lawyers seek compensation for lost resale value

If you’re older than age 40, this all might sound doubly familiar.  Each of the events above apply to both the Audi 5000 situation back in 1986, and the Toyota recall of 2009-2010. 

This is not to suggest the automobiles were perfect. 

Continue reading Looking Backward, Moving Forward →

"Three Tough Q's" Interview Series

Three Tough Q’s: Peter Sandman

4 Comments

I’m delighted to launch this interview series – dubbed Three Tough Q’s – with one of the true luminaries of risk and crisis communication, Peter Sandman.  If you haven’t had the privilege, I encourage you to attend one of Peter’s speaking engagements or tap the cornucopia of resources on his Web site. 

Interview highlights appear here, but each question also links to the complete, robust responses that appear on Peter’s Web site. 

Without further ado – enter, Sandman:

Continue reading Three Tough Q’s: Peter Sandman →