Validating audio data

This video clip runs through the twelve principal components of outrage (voluntary versus coerced, natural versus industrial, etc.).Then it illustrates these components with a seat-of-the-pants “outrage assessment” of genetically modified food.Presented to the New South Wales Environment Protection Authority, Sydney Australia, February 2, 2016 This three-hour video (and audio) is the entire first morning of a 1-1/2-day risk communication seminar I presented in February 2016 for the New South Wales Environment Protection Authority.GHD, an Australia-based engineering and environmental consulting firm, brought me to Australia for this and other events.So this video is different from most of the introductory videos I have posted. There’s a quick summary of “Risk = Hazard Outrage” and my three paradigms of risk communication (my usual introductory shtick).But there’s also a discussion of why information is rarely life-changing and why cognitive dissonance can make it so; of why it’s important to be willing to speculate and to be willing to scare people; and of the need for public health professionals to tell the whole truth about vaccination. Aired on Australian Broadcasting Corporation's “Media Report” radio program and posted on its website, August 28, 2014 Interview with Peter Sandman by Richard Aedy, August 11, 2014 Richard Aedy interviewed me for Australian radio via telephone for 20 minutes on August 11.The selection emphasizes that both hazard perception and hazard response result more from outrage than from hazard.Two short excerpts from this clip have been posted on You Tube (more or less as advertisements for the clip, and the course as a whole).

This video clip outlines the fundamental distinction between a risk’s “hazard” (how much harm it’s likely to do) and its “outrage” (how upset it’s likely to make people).

This studio-produced 1994 video focuses on three key aspects of quantitative risk communication: (This video was produced in 1994 by the American Industrial Hygiene Association. With AIHA’s permission, the entire video is now available free of charge online.) Podcast for the “Atomic Insights” website, May 31, 2013 (with Rod Adams, Margaret Harding, Meredith Angwin, and Suzy Hobbs-Baker) Rod Adams runs a website called “Atomic Insights” that promotes nuclear power.

In early May 2013 he discovered my approach to outrage management, and put posts on his own website and on an American Nuclear Society website urging nuclear power proponents to learn outrage management.

There are recommendations for nuclear communication throughout the podcast, and a Q&A at the end with Rod and fellow proponents Margaret Harding, Meredith Angwin, and Suzy Hobbs-Baker.

The plan is to follow up with a second podcast, a more narrowly focused roundtable discussion among the five of us on nuclear power outrage management.

Search for validating audio data:

validating audio data-55validating audio data-38validating audio data-36

We covered the usual basics: the hazard-versus-outrage distinction, the three paradigms of risk communication, etc.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

One thought on “validating audio data”