1. Communicating Risk: Lessons from an Environmental Journalist Dina Cappiello Houston Chronicle NUARTC/TCEQ Air Toxics Workshop

5. So why is it so difficult?? Different natures of the media and science Interest groups – industry, environmentalists, government – present data in ways that serves their ends, but to lay public appears contradictory/dishonest Flaws of the media: mainly looking for conflict, rather than answer

6. THE NEWSPAPER Most readers 5 th grade-level understanding of science Deadline-driven/immediate Want certainty – good/bad, healthy/unhealthy Public audience: Chronicle ~ 700,000 readers per day Concerned with quality of life questions

7. SCIENCE Specialists, with multiple degrees Research takes time, peer review etc. Uncertain outcomes, incremental Inaccessible to public: audience is other scientists Concerned with advancing knowledge, not necessarily solving public dilemmas

10. Ozone vs. Air Toxics OZONE -Smog alerts -Clear standard: above bad, below good -Extensive research -Good communication among stakeholders IN THE NEWS AIR TOXICS -No alerts -No clear-cut standards -Research lacking -Poor communication among stakeholders NOT IN MASS MEDIA

11. Example 1 Galena Park monitor -Records some of the highest concentrations of benzene in state. Above state long-term ESL since 1998 -Located across from public school YET…. School district, public officials and residents were completely unaware of readings

12. Example 2 TCEQ Mobile Monitoring State’s own workers, in some heavily polluted areas will not sit in monitoring van or wear gas masks….

15. State concludes: Monitoring not close enough to neighborhood to make predictions Levels for those chemicals measured below short-term ESL, so no health effects expected In cases when long-term ESL busted, until recently, state reports said that it only indicated need for further evaluation RESULT: MIXED MESSAGES, CONFUSION, DISTRUST

16. Example 3 CAP MEETINGS -Came out of the 1990 CAA, set up and run by local industry -Industry touts CAP meetings as communicating with public YET… Residents who have attended for years still are unclear what is in their air and whether it will harm them

17. Closing the gap…In Harm’s Way -Citizen-collected science…science engaged community, became real -Analyzed existing state data to answer following questions: 1.What is in the air in neighborhoods near chemical plants/refineries? 2.Is it enough for to put people that live there at greater risk?

18. ESLs Part of the communication problem In some cases, Texas allows levels of air toxics not allowed in other states Level not uniform. Some ESLs set at 10-4 cancer risk, others 10-6 When used in permitting, ESLs are compared to dispersion models from one facility, sometimes not entire site, and never multiple sources

19. Show ESL chart www.chron.com/toxic

20. SOLUTION Compared to EPA IRIS RfCs set at 10-6 level and calculated cancer risk Did not count values not above 1996 NATA level as exceedance Compared to stationary monitors in non- industrial neighborhoods RESULT: Very different picture www.chron.com/toxic

21. CRITICISM 72-hour grab vs. annual standard This is a fair criticism…. However, in all cases our median value was below that detected by TCEQ in all of 2003 and our value fell within range of TCEQ monitoring data…show chart