Emotional reactions to climate change: a comparison across France, Germany, Norway, and the United Kingdom.

We present a study of emotional reactions to climate change utilizing representative samples from France, Germany, Norway, and the United Kingdom (UK). Drawing on appraisal theories of emotion, we examine relations between appraisals, emotions, and behavioral intentions in the context of climate change. We compare the four countries concerning emotional differences and commonalities and relate our findings to pertinent models of cultural values. Five distinct emotions were measured: worry, hope, fear, outrage, and guilt. In addition, the survey asked respondents to appraise a set of climate-related statements, such as the causality of climate change, or the efficacy of mitigation efforts. Also, a set of climate-relevant actions, such as willingness to reduce energy consumption or support for climate policies, was assessed. Findings show that appraisals of human causation and moral concern were associated with worry and outrage, and appraisals of efficacy and technological solutions were associated with hope. Worry and outrage are associated with intentions to reduce one's energy consumption, whereas hope and guilt are related to support for policies such as tax and price increases. A country comparison shows that French respondents score high on outrage and worry and tend to engage in individual behaviors to mitigate climate change, whereas Norwegian respondents score high on hope and show a tendency to support policies of cost increase. Generally, worry is the most and guilt the least intense emotion. Moral concerns and perceived collective efficacy of one's country in addressing climate change are relatively strong in France, while beliefs in human causation and in negative impacts of climate change prevail in Germany, and confidence in technological solutions are prevalent in Norway. In sum, findings reveal typical patterns of emotional responses in the four countries and confirm systematic associations between emotions and appraisals as well as between emotions and behaviors. Relating these findings to models of cultural values reveals that Norway, endorsing secular and egalitarian values, is characterized by hope and confidence in technological solutions, whereas France and Germany, emphasizing relatively more hierarchical and traditional values, are rather characterized by fear, outrage, and support for behavioral restrictions imposed by climate change policies.

Key principles and operational practices for improved nanotechnology environmental exposure assessment.

Nanotechnology is identified as a key enabling technology due to its potential to contribute to economic growth and societal well-being across industrial sectors. Sustainable nanotechnology requires a scientifically based and proportionate risk governance structure to support innovation, including a robust framework for environmental risk assessment (ERA) that ideally builds on methods established for conventional chemicals to ensure alignment and avoid duplication. Exposure assessment developed as a tiered approach is equally beneficial to nano-specific ERA as for other classes of chemicals. Here we present the developing knowledge, practical considerations and key principles need to support exposure assessment for engineered nanomaterials for regulatory and research applications.

Scientific truth or debate: On the link between perceived scientific consensus and belief in anthropogenic climate change.

Scientists overwhelmingly agree that climate change exists and is caused by human activity. It has been argued that communicating the consensus can counter climate scepticism, given that perceived scientific consensus is a major factor predicting public belief that climate change is anthropogenic. However, individuals may hold different models of science, potentially affecting their interpretation of scientific consensus. Using representative surveys in the United Kingdom, France, Germany and Norway, we assessed whether the relationship between perceived scientific consensus and belief in anthropogenic climate change is conditioned by a person's viewing science as 'the search for truth' or as 'debate'. Results show that perceived scientific consensus is higher among climate change believers and moreover, significantly predicts belief in anthropogenic climate change. This relationship is stronger among people holding a model of science as the 'search for truth'. These results help to disentangle the effect of implicit epistemological assumptions underlying the public understanding of the climate change debate.

Towards a strategic research agenda for social sciences and humanities in radiological protection.

Reflecting a change in funding strategies for European research projects, and a commitment to the idea of responsible research and innovation in radiological protection (RP), a collective of research institutes and universities have developed a prospective Strategic Research Agenda (SRA) for Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH) in radiological protection. This is the first time such a research agenda has been proposed. This paper identifies six research lines of interest and concern: (1) Effects of social, psychological and economic aspects on RP behaviour; (2) Holistic approaches to the governance of radiological risks; (3) Responsible research and innovation in RP; (4) Stakeholder engagement and participatory processes in RP research, development, policy and practice; (5) Risk communication; and (6) RP cultures. These topics were developed through broad stakeholder consultation, in conjunction with activities carried out in the framework of various projects and initiatives (EU H2020 CONCERT programme, the EU FP7 projects OPERRA, PREPARE and EAGLE, the 2015-2018 RICOMET series of conferences, and the 2014 and 2016 International Symposia on Ethics of Environmental Health); as well as through dialogues with members of the European radiation protection research communities. The six research lines open opportunities to integrate a range of key social and ethical considerations into RP, thereby expanding research opportunities and programmes and fostering collaborative approaches to research and innovation.

Looking for citizen-centered communication: dialogues between radiological protection or nuclear safety specialists and media professionals.

What happens when radiological protection or nuclear safety officials get together with media professionals to talk about public communication on ionizing radiation risks? Do they have common views of the challenges and ways to meet these? This practical article reports on dialogue workshops organized by the EAGLE project in four European countries (France, Poland, Romania, and Slovenia). Common findings are classed and presented by themes, including inter alia: crisis versus everyday communication; mediated versus direct communication; sources, actors, roles and responsibilities; language and format; trust and confidence, balance in reporting and development of risk culture; nuclear industry promotion versus citizen-centered risk communication. The article also presents reflections from an expanded international workshop (RICOMET, June 2015). It echoes the participants in calling for a platform for ongoing dialogue between information sources and transmitters, in the interest of building solid relationships, risk culture and public understanding on ionizing radiation.

Lay public mental models of ionizing radiation: representations and risk perception in four European countries.

How do members of the lay public understand ionizing radiation and its effects? How do they define ionizing radiation, and to which other concepts do they connect it? Do they perceive danger and risks? Do they know how to protect themselves? What do they think of various applications of ionizing radiation? Where and how does the public lodge confidence or doubt? What is the demand for information and transparency? We applied the mental models approach to investigate these questions in four European countries (France, Poland, Romania, and Slovenia; 63 respondents), providing a rich picture of how the lay public perceives ionizing radiation. Mental models are messy and overlapping but meaningful and useful schemas, resulting from a person's multidimensional experience and relation to the surrounding natural and social world. Collectively, members of the lay public (independently of their education or background) possess a non-negligible amount of knowledge on the topic of ionizing radiation risk, and hold strong views on related concepts. Mutual understanding between specialists and potentially affected citizens may be a critical pathway to build a shared and effective risk culture supported by accurate, two-way risk communication and inter-actor relationships.

Addressing ecological effects of radiation on populations and ecosystems to improve protection of the environment against radiation: Agreed statements from a Consensus Symposium.

This paper reports the output of a consensus symposium organized by the International Union of Radioecology in November 2015. The symposium gathered an academically diverse group of 30 scientists to consider the still debated ecological impact of radiation on populations and ecosystems. Stimulated by the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters' accidental contamination of the environment, there is increasing interest in developing environmental radiation protection frameworks. Scientific research conducted in a variety of laboratory and field settings has improved our knowledge of the effects of ionizing radiation on the environment. However, the results from such studies sometimes appear contradictory and there is disagreement about the implications for risk assessment. The Symposium discussions therefore focused on issues that might lead to different interpretations of the results, such as laboratory versus field approaches, organism versus population and ecosystemic inference strategies, dose estimation approaches and their significance under chronic exposure conditions. The participating scientists, from across the spectrum of disciplines and research areas, extending also beyond the traditional radioecology community, successfully developed a constructive spirit directed at understanding discrepancies. From the discussions, the group has derived seven consensus statements related to environmental protection against radiation, which are supplemented with some recommendations. Each of these statements is contextualized and discussed in view of contributing to the orientation and integration of future research, the results of which should yield better consensus on the ecological impact of radiation and consolidate suitable approaches for efficient radiological protection of the environment.

Use and perceived benefits and barriers of QSAR models for REACH: findings from a questionnaire to stakeholders.

The ORCHESTRA online questionnaire on "benefits and barriers to the use of QSAR methods" addressed the academic, consultant, regulatory and industry communities potentially interested by QSAR methods in the context of REACH. Replies from more than 60 stakeholders produced some insights on the actual application of QSAR methods, and how to improve their use.Respondents state in majority that they have used QSAR methods. All have some future plans to test or use QSAR methods in accordance with their stakeholder role.The stakeholder respondents cited a total of 28 models, methods or software that they have actually applied. The three most frequently cited suites, used moreover by all the stakeholder categories, are the OECD Toolbox, EPISuite and CAESAR; all are free tools.Results suggest that stereotyped assumptions about the barriers to application of QSAR may be incorrect. Economic costs (including potential delays) are not found to be a major barrier. And only one respondent "prefers" traditional, well-known and accepted toxicological assessment methods.Information and guidance may be the keys to reinforcing use of QSAR models. Regulators appear most interested in obtaining clear explanation of the basis of the models, to provide a solid basis for decisions. Scientists appear most interested in the exploration of the scientific capabilities of the QSAR approach. Industry shows interest in obtaining reassurance that appropriate uses of QSAR will be accepted by regulators.

The acceptance of in silico models for REACH: Requirements, barriers, and perspectives.

In silico models have prompted considerable interest and debate because of their potential value in predicting the properties of chemical substances for regulatory purposes. The European REACH legislation promotes innovation and encourages the use of alternative methods, but in practice the use of in silico models is still very limited. There are many stakeholders influencing the regulatory trajectory of quantitative structure-activity relationships (QSAR) models, including regulators, industry, model developers and consultants. Here we outline some of the issues and challenges involved in the acceptance of these methods for regulatory purposes.

The 2003 heat wave in France: dangerous climate change here and now.

In an analysis of the French episode of heat wave in 2003, this article highlights how heat wave dangers result from the intricate association of natural and social factors. Unusually high temperatures, as well as socioeconomic vulnerability, along with social attenuation of hazards, in a general context where the anthropogenic contribution to climate change is becoming more plausible, led to an excess of 14,947 deaths in France, between August 4 and 18, 2003. The greatest increase in mortality was due to causes directly attributable to heat: dehydration, hyperthermia, heat stroke. In addition to age and gender, combinatorial factors included preexisting disease, medication, urban residence, isolation, poverty, and, probably, air pollution. Although diversely impacted or reported, many parts of Europe suffered human and other losses, such as farming and forestry through drought and fires. Summer 2003 was the hottest in Europe since 1500, very likely due in part to anthropogenic climate change. The French experience confirms research establishing that heat waves are a major mortal risk, number one among so-called natural hazards in postindustrial societies. Yet France had no policy in place, as if dangerous climate were restricted to a distant or uncertain future of climate change, or to preindustrial countries. We analyze the heat wave's profile as a strongly attenuated risk in the French context, as well as the causes and the effects of its sudden shift into amplification. Research and preparedness needs are highlighted.