Therefore, he suggests that there is a need for the society to embrace risk communication to enlighten the society. However, this can only be achieved if this is done in a descent and rational manner. This, to the author, is the only way through which such disasters can be ultimately eradicated. It is true that that the prevailing environmental conditions have made life more difficult for people. Surprisingly, it is those who make no contributions to environmental degradation who suffer most. I concur with the author for making such a claim. The dangers associated with pollution result into diseases such as cancer and death. In deed, such a condition is so hazardous to the health of the ordinary people to whom they are exposed. I would like to agree that the author makes a logical argument. Man is one of the major causes of health problems. It is the interactions of people to their immediate surrounding that exposes them to risks. Meaning, people should be sensitized on environmental conservation and any risks associated to it. This explains why these articles advocate for a careful use of communication (Roy Berko, et al., 2010). Risk communication can be a better tool of establishing a conducive environment for the biodiversity.
I would like to rally behind the author for insisting that risk communication should be prioritized a culture. If it is made as a part of people’s culture, it can be in an appropriate manner to suit the requirements of the people. If it is fused into the culture, it will be effectively used in assessing the situation and coming up with the most appropriate recommendations. Moreover, it will be an important experience which should be chosen wisely. Meaning, it should be a choice made in a rational manner to comply with the societal norms. For instance, it is only communication which can influence people to avoid using sewerage fertilizer to perpetually produce food for their daily consumption. It is very harmful for their health.
Despite making a logical argument, I would like fault this author for making a shallow claim. He concentrates on risk communication without outlining that this is a multifaceted task which requires collaboration from all the involved stakeholders. Even if media has a crucial role to play, he was supposed to emphasize that everyone should make a contribution. As Spengler, John and Sexton, K. A. examines, ‘human beings are responsible for most of the disasters facing them today’ (P. 62). The article should have indicated that each person should make a contribution towards resolving them. Moreover, the government should actively involve the local citizens to determine the course of action. Human health is very important and should not be taken for granted. The author should stress on the significance of risk communication in promoting environmental ethics. Communication is a powerful tool in the creation of a risk-free environment.
Discussion Questions
- What are the contributions of EPA towards environmental conservation since its inception?
- Identify and explain three limitations of technical risk assessment.
Works Cited
Roy Berko, et al., Communicating. 11th ed. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc., 2010. Print.
Spengler, John and Sexton, K. A. (2003). "Indoor Air Pollution: A Public Health Perspective". Science 221 (4605): 9–17 [p. 9].
