Misreporting Fukushima: A Failure of Science Journalism with Global Repercussions? Monday, February 20, 2012: 9:45 AM-12:45 PM

Readers may be interested  how the events at Fukushima were covered in the media. A symposium on the topic will be at the upcoming annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS, which publishes Science magazine/journal). The symposium summary, speaker list and talk titles are linked and pasted below.

The AAAS annual meeting draws hundreds of reporters, editors and producers from all over the world, so this symposium has the potential to reach the right ears. The diverse speaker affiliations may also help emphasize that criticism of Fukushima coverage is not just coming from "pro-nuclear shills." I'm not sure if anyone from this list will be at the meeting, but I'll plan to live tweet from this session using either @INL or @nicstrick handles.

http://aaas.confex.com/aaas/2012/webprogram/Session4515.html
Misreporting Fukushima: A Failure of Science Journalism with Global Repercussions? Monday, February 20, 2012: 9:45 AM-12:45 PM
Room 118 (VCC West Building)
The Tohoku great earthquake caused thousands of deaths, almost all as a result of the tsunamis, and caused extensive damage to food and water supplies, medical services, power, and communications. Whole towns in Japan were sluiced away by one of the greatest natural disasters to strike a major industrialized nation in a century. But the world's focus was drawn to a potential disaster at the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant and the prospect of losing control over its nuclear reactors. According to a recent study, the reporting on Fukushima led to a global drop in support for nuclear power. Six industrialized nations — Germany, Italy, Switzerland, Thailand, Malaysia, and Japan — announced plans to curtail or cancel their nuclear programs despite pressures to reduce fossil fuel–based power generation. Why did global reporting shift from one of the biggest earthquakes in history into a story of nuclear risk? Why does the invisible menace of nuclear power catch the imagination in global reporting unlike other conspicuous tragedies such as earthquakes, population displacement, or destruction of other major infrastructures? Instantaneous global communication now offers an opportunity to get accurate information, scientifically based advice, and valuable informed commentary in seconds. While 24-hour commentary can be noise rich and data poor, this is not inevitable. What steps could be taken to communicate the risks of damage to major infrastructure and avoid a communication meltdown during major disasters?

Organizer: Julia Wilson, Sense About Science
Co-Organizer: Michael Hanlon, The Daily Mail
Moderator: Tracey Brown, Sense About Science
Discussant: Mark Henderson, The Times

Speakers:
Paddy Regan, University of Surrey
Radiation, Public Perception, and Nuclear Superstition: Why Are We Scared of the Atom?
Elizabeth Dowdeswell, Council of Canadian Academies
Nuclear Policy: A Global Environmental and Legal Perspective
Michael Hanlon, The Daily Mail
Communication Failure: How the World's Media Got Their Wires Crossed over Fukushima
Albert Yuan, San Lian Life Weekly
Seismic Quackery, Earthquake Prediction, and Panic
Pieter Doornenbal, RIKEN
The Perspective from Japan: Rising Panic and Common Sense
Ramesh Sadhankar, Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd.
A Technical Perspective

Nicole Stricker, PhD.
Science Press Officer
Idaho National Laboratory
208-526-5955 (o), 208-520-3230 (c)