Main points:
 

• The public is currently desperately ill-served by the lack of ready access to up-to-date balanced and trustworthy information on the possible risks associated with different energy sources. Those that exist appear to be either reassuring propaganda or are limited to a particular hazard.
• We suggest some general principles for numerical communications of risks associated with energy sources:
  • Separate different types of hazards experienced: eg acute short-term from chronic long-term
  • Separate impact on individuals, society and the environment
  • Include both quantifiable risks and those that are important but are difficult to put numbers on
  • For quantifiable risks, to use clear metrics, using whole numbers preferably in comprehensible units
  • Be clear about the uncertainty attached to numbers, which should only be given to the precision justified by the evidence
  • Comparisons may be made with both other sources of risks, but voluntary and involuntary risks should be clearly separated
  • Give multiple formats and ways of expressing risks, eg in terms of both rate and impact on a population
  • Provide a clear warning that the past does not necessarily predict the future, and that we should be wary of being either reassured or scared by historical events
  • Be clear about the extent to which risk estimates are based on scientific models, and emphasise their assumptions
  • Acknowledge uncertainty and limitations of data and knowledge
  • Acknowledge any disputed science
  • Attempt to give a balanced view that does not seek, or appear to seek, to persuade
• We recommend that public communication acknowledges that there are many relevant issues of concern and does not solely focus on those most easily put into numbers.
• We recommend that a suitable trusted provider for this comparative information be identified.