The earthquake, tsunami and nuclear triple disaster that struck Japan in March 2011 led to the release of massive amounts of radioactive isotopes into the environment. I began outreach and education efforts in the interest of the common good given questions and fear about the disaster among family, friends and members of the public and in response to poor quality, misinformation in the public domain. Examples of this outreach are the blog I maintain at the DailyKos and the monitoring project I head up that was funded by the Marine Environmental Observation Prediction and Response network a Canadian federal Centre of Excellence. Through some of the response to my efforts I have learned much about conspiracy theories and the pitfalls of risk communication and science education. The purpose of this diary is to provide some examples of conspiracy theorists thoughts, whether it matters if someone holds such theories, and some initial thoughts of what scientists might do to better communicate with the public about their work.
I'm just returning from a Conspiracy Theory Conference held at the University of Miami over the last two days hosted by Dr. Joe Uscinski co-author of the recently published book American Conspiracy Theories (Oxford University Press) with Dr. Joe Parent. The conference brought together Political and Social Scientists, Psychologists and Philosophers whose research aims to understand why people are more or less likely to subscribe to conspiracy theories and what the impact of holding such theories on individuals and groups might be. I was invited to speak given some of the harassment and targeting by conspiracy theorists that my outreach efforts have invited.
How I Became Involved With Science Knowledge Mobilization About the Fukushima Disaster
My area of expertise is marine chemistry and my research seeks to understand how chemical elements are distributed in the ocean. Some of this research involves understanding how contaminants behave in seawater and makes use of radioactive isotope tracers to understand present and past ocean processes. In response to questions from my family, friends and members of the public after March 11, 2011, I began following results of scientific research that was published in the peer reviewed literature about the disaster. My family and I live in Victoria, BC Canada which is downwind and downcurrent of Japan and I was concerned about the potential threat the disaster represented to our health and the health of our community. We also belong to a Community Supported Fishery where we consume more than average amounts of seafood harvested from the northeast Pacific Ocean. My perception of the risk was shaped by the evidence garnered through the application of the scientific method and I communicated the scientific consensus to those who asked. However, in late 2013 I began to receive email correspondence and hear from undergraduate students I teach about some of the poor quality information being circulated online about the disaster. A fine example of such less than fine writing is an article entitled “28 Signs That The West Coast Is Being Absolutely Fried With Nuclear Radiation From Fukushima”. Of course this post went viral despite being rife with bunk, speculation and pseudoscience. In response to articles and reports in the same vein I decided that I would begin to speak and write publically about what the international scientific community was learning about Fukushima bringing published results out from behind publisher paywalls and translating the technical literature for the general public.
Beginning in 2014, I spearheaded efforts to obtain grant monies and establish the Integrated Fukushima Ocean Radionuclide Monitoring (InFORM), project which is a network involving academic, governmental, and non-governmental organizations, as well as citizen scientists. InFORM is acquiring data to support a thorough radiological impact assessment for Canada’s west coast stemming from the FDNPP accident, and to effectively communicate these results to the public. InFORM is funded by the Marine Environmental Observation Prediction and Response (MEOPAR) network, a national Centre of Excellence at Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia that was established by the Canadian Government in 2012.
Public Outreach Related to Fukushima and the Consequences
What follows here is not meant to be a comprehensive account of my experiences with conspiracy theories following my decision to communicate with the public about Fukushima, but to provide specific examples that characterize the general response. Full disclosure. I have not lead a particularly sheltered existence but I have learned a significant amount about how people view the world since I began writing and speaking publicly on the FDNPP disaster. Though not a comprehensive list, my eyes have been opened to conspiracy theories about weather control using the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP), the evils of public drinking water fluoridation, chemtrails and the elaborate involvement of the Queen of England in climate change research to promote nuclear power (search it!) to name a few. Many of these conspiracy theories are likely quite familiar to the reader but I must admit I was not aware of these ways of perceiving the world until my Fukushima journey began. In general, the response from those members of the public more prone to accept conspiracy theories is that some combination of the Government of Japan, TEPCO, the United Nations, the Nuclear Industry and the scientific community are coordinating to deceive the public about the disasters impact. Specifically, in my case as will be described below, this involves ideas that scientists are being paid to alter or withhold information, planting marine organisms in the ocean to cover up massive loss of life due to negative impacts of Fukushima derived radioactivity or that embedded agents of the nuclear industry are purposefully misleading the scientific community and compromising their measurements worldwide. These ideas are unsubstantiated conspiracy theories with no evidence that supports their underpinning assumptions or proposed agency.
Example 1: Scientists are getting paid to lie about the Fukushima disaster
Excerpt from YouTube screed "UVic Gives Banana Molesting Nuclear Apologist Jay Cullen $630,000 Hush Fund August 12, 2014"
“Shouldn’t people take that $630,000 (referring to the funding of the InFORM project) away cuz he’s actually truly is disgusting and disingenuous, he really truly is just a fake, hopeless, demented liar for apologists for nuclear industry. How can you do that Jay? Why would you do that man? What the hell is wrong with you? Don’t you think we should deserve a chance Jay (yelling)?”
- BeautifulGirlByDana August 12, 2014
Of course in Canada, Professors like me are paid 12 months salary by the university for which they work and derive no direct compensation from grant monies that we raise through peer reviewed proposal competitions. A formal requirement of our jobs that is codified in our contract is that we raise such monies. The $630,000 is paid to the University of Victoria and is and will be used to purchase new equipment to expand our capacity to make measurements of gamma emitting isotopes in the environment and to pay the salaries of students that InFORM scientists train in their respective laboratories. This particular gentleman subscribes to other popular conspiracy theories, believing for example, that
directed energy weapons were involved in taking down the towers on 9/11 and that
chemical companies conspire to put fluoride in water and toothpaste which constitutes a form of child abuse. The gentleman struggles with science literacy and distinguishing between junk or pseudo- science and actual science and states many “facts” about Fukushima that have no basis in reality (e.g. a geiger counter can not detect naturally occurring radionuclides).
Example 2: Scientists are seeding the ocean with organisms to cover up the "death of the Pacific Ocean"
Excerpt from YouTube video "Underwater Video of Victoria Harbor is Disappointing Sept. 10, 2014"
“A very odd day indeed I suspect local university propped up by the nuclear industries are seeding the harbor to trick peopl (sic). Just like the nuclear industries apologist at those institutions have been doing to the local public for decades by insidiously equating Bananas potatoes potassium 40 and walking in sunshine with man made ionized radiation from melted reactors at Fukushima... Its clear to us with the videos and pictures Victoria is a fable created to keep the population asleep with a few species but don,t look any deeper like us its not pretty ”
- BeautifulGirlByDana Sept. 10, 2014
Here the gentleman suggests that I or my colleagues at UVic have purposefully planted marine organisms around Victoria to keep up appearances and to fool the public into thinking that the oceans are healthy. The gentleman believes the entire coastline is devoid of life because of Fukushima derived radionuclides. Aside from the
relatively small activity concentrations that arrived in our coastal zone in the weeks following the triple meltdowns in March 2011 we have
yet to actually detect any contamination in the intertidal here in British Columbia. And no, I have not been going around with aquaria full of anemones and bull kelp to repopulate the coast...my schedule is pretty full as it is without adding invertebrate and kelp husbandry and transport into the mix.
Example 3: Powerful organizations and governments are controlling what international scientists measure and report
As you know because I have reported here in the past, Energy News is a website that routinely reports on the Fukushima disaster providing a less than balanced point of view and tending to misrepresent or misunderstand the scientific literature such that readers of the site are misinformed on the topic. The comment section of this website is populated by many references to conspiracy theories. My correspondence in the media have been distorted and misrepresented on a number of occasions by the website.
A good example of some of the conspiracy theories discussed there can be found in the comment stream of a report published there on August 28, 2014. In the comment stream a discussion between two ENENews subscribers suggests that the laboratories that are processing and analyzing samples related to Fukushima have been infiltrated by "nuclear technician" "embeds" that introduce false information and results friendly to the nuclear industry.
“I started out wanting to see Cullen as a tool more than a shill, but he keeps right on shilling...Oh, both Buesseler and Cullen have plenty of knowledge and experience in various things oceanographic, Socrates. Certainly much more than me, and I wouldn't dream of challenging them on that. What I challenged was a dumb data point Buesseler probably got from his actual embedded radiological 'experts' who ran the samples for him. I literally thought when I first saw it that it was a sardonic 'joke' played on the oceanographers by the embeds, just because the oceanographers wouldn't know any better. Yeah, nuclear technicians can be real-clown funny sometimes, will no doubt hoot about it with their buds forevermore.” – JoyB August 28, 2014
Similar comments in diaries and comments on the Daily Kos suggest that by some agency TEPCO, the Japanese Government or the Nuclear Power Industry are somehow able to control what international scientists, who have been processing and measuring radionuclides in environmental samples for decades, are capable of detecting and reporting with respect to the amounts and relative ratios of radionuclides released from Fukushima-Daichi. This must be similar to what Einstein characterized to "spooky action at a distance" when commenting on quantum entanglement in the 20
th century.
What does it matter what people think and are conspiracy theories harmful?
I used to be of the opinion that those who hold conspiracy theories with little factual evidence to support them were likely of little negative consequence to anyone but themselves and people very close to them. However, there is a growing body of evidence to suggest that holding conspiracy theories or being exposed to conspiracy theory based information can subvert social systems and undermine peoples faith in society. By undermining the meaning that people strive to find in life conspiracy theories can, sometimes without the awareness of the holder, increase feelings of powerlessness and reduce faith in government and science. For example, a recent study by Jolley and Douglas published in the open access, peer reviewed journal PLOS ONE looked at how exposing individuals to false anti-vaccine conspiracy theories affected the intention of those individuals to have a child vaccinated. Relative to controls who received information refuting anti-vaccine CT's individuals exposed to such CT were less likely to have a child vaccinated. In a similar study by Jolley and Douglas in 2013 found that exposure to information supporting the conspiracy theories about climate change research being a hoax perpetuated by scientists lowered subjects intentions to reduce their carbon footprint, relative to participants who were given refuting information, or those in a control condition. The authors found that this effect was mediated by powerlessness in the face of climate change, uncertainty, and disillusionment. Clearly, CT exposure in these cases results in behaviors and feelings in individuals that translate into behaviors that are not in the public good and could be classified as harmful. This is not to stay that CT exposure is necessarily always bad but that can definitely lead to behavior that is not in the public good.
What does this mean for science communication, outreach and education?
I am still working on this but have a few ideas. I am not sure what, if anything, is necessarily to be done. However, I think the fact that information of dubious quality can still lead to powerful responses in the public on important issues highlights the importance of scientists reporting results as quickly and as clearly as they can in a public forum. It becomes very difficult to displace non-evidence based beliefs once individuals have been exposed to poor quality information requiring a committed and organized response of the scientists doing the best and most relevant work on a given issue. This communication would ideally be facilitated by working with a talented and dedicated science journalist who can accurately and clearly convey complex and technical topics to the public. Given how easily public opinion can be swayed and the power of CT's the media has a responsibility, I think, to move away from balanced coverage of CT prone but important issues like climate change and vaccine efficacy and safety. The false equivalency that media sometimes provides by giving equal footing to information and opinions on such issues, when one side is fundamentally bereft of quality science, can be harmful to the public good. I look forward to hearing from DK readers about this issue.