Canadians' Representation of Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and Explosive (CBRNE) Terrorism: A Content Analysis

ABSTRACT The global threat of terrorism raises questions about preparedness and risk communication in the context of public health and security. Although experts discriminate between chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive (CNRNE) terrorist events, little is known about how the Canadian public represents these forms of terrorism. A stratified random sample of 1502 Canadians participated in a telephone survey on CBRNE terrorism. A word association technique was used to assess first words or images that came to mind while thinking about different types of terrorist scenarios. Content analysis of this data revealed a number of potential uncertainties and misconceptions regarding different types of terrorism scenarios. Despite most frequently providing agents in response questions surrounding chemical or biological terrorism, respondents frequently confounded agents of biological and chemical nature. Similarly, different aspects of nuclear events were not consistently distinguished. Most notably, however, a sizable proportion of respondents had difficulty providing word associations to the different types of terrorist events or only provided vague responses that closely mirrored the scenario in question. Finally, images regarding the potential impacts of scenarios were infrequent. Implications for risk communication and preparedness are discussed; in particular, the need to provide the public with more detailed information regarding the nature of different forms of CBRNE terrorism and how to best prepare for a potential event.

[1]  S. Ishimatsu,et al.  The Tokyo subway sarin attack: disaster management, Part 1: Community emergency response. , 1998, Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.

[2]  J. Sørensen Risk communication and terrorism. , 2004, Biosecurity and bioterrorism : biodefense strategy, practice, and science.

[3]  A. Strauss,et al.  The Discovery of Grounded Theory , 1967 .

[4]  Nicholas Frank Pidgeon,et al.  Difficulties in evaluating public engagement initiatives: reflections on an evaluation of the UK GM Nation? public debate about transgenic crops , 2005 .

[5]  A. Leiserowitz Climate Change Risk Perception and Policy Preferences: The Role of Affect, Imagery, and Values , 2006 .

[6]  D. Persell,et al.  Biological, chemical, and nuclear terrorism readiness: major concerns and preparedness of future nurses. , 2004, Disaster management & response : DMR : an official publication of the Emergency Nurses Association.

[7]  B. Roe,et al.  Telephone or face-to-face interviews?: a decision made on the basis of a pilot study. , 1998, International journal of nursing studies.

[8]  S. Wessely,et al.  Resilience or panic? The public and terrorist attack , 2002, The Lancet.

[9]  R. Wray,et al.  What does the public want to know in the event of a terrorist attack using plague? , 2004, Biosecurity and bioterrorism : biodefense strategy, practice, and science.

[10]  A. Levitt,et al.  Biological and chemical terrorism: strategic plan for preparedness and response. Recommendations of the CDC Strategic Planning Workgroup. , 2000, MMWR. Recommendations and reports : Morbidity and mortality weekly report. Recommendations and reports.

[11]  I. Wilkinson The House Of Lords Select Committee for Science and Technology. Their report on complementary and alternative medicine and its implications for reflexology. . . , 2002, Complementary therapies in nursing & midwifery.

[12]  B. Wynne,et al.  Misunderstanding science? : the public reconstruction of science and technology , 1996 .

[13]  Vincent T. Covello,et al.  Risk communication, the West Nile virus epidemic, and bioterrorism: responding to the commnication challenges posed by the intentional or unintentional release of a pathogen in an urban setting , 2001, Journal of Urban Health.

[14]  Chemical (VX) terrorist threat: public knowledge, attitudes, and responses. , 2004, Biosecurity and bioterrorism : biodefense strategy, practice, and science.

[15]  C. Brooks Climatic Change , 1913, Nature.

[16]  T. Glass,et al.  Bioterrorism and the people: how to vaccinate a city against panic. , 2002, Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

[17]  D. Krewski,et al.  Terrorism preparedness in Canada: a public survey on perceived institutional and individual response to terrorism , 2007 .

[18]  E. Vaughan,et al.  Communicating the risks of bioterrorism and other emergencies in a diverse society: a case study of special populations in North Dakota. , 2005, Biosecurity and bioterrorism : biodefense strategy, practice, and science.

[19]  G. Rowe,et al.  Public Participation Methods: A Framework for Evaluation , 2000 .

[20]  D. Krewski,et al.  Public Perception of Terrorism Threats and Related Information Sources in Canada: Implications for the Management of Terrorism Risks , 2006 .

[21]  M. Siegrist,et al.  Perception of Hazards: The Role of Social Trust and Knowledge , 2000, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[22]  P Slovic,et al.  Adolescent health-threatening and health-enhancing behaviors: a study of word association and imagery. , 1995, The Journal of adolescent health : official publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine.

[23]  Alexander J. Rothman,et al.  Treating people with information: an analysis and review of approaches to communicating health risk information. , 1999, Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs.

[24]  E. Arkin Cancer risk communication-what we know. , 1999, Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs.

[25]  C. K. Mertz,et al.  Health-risk perception in Canada , 1993 .

[26]  C. Brewin,et al.  Psychological and behavioural reactions to the bombings in London on 7 July 2005: cross sectional survey of a representative sample of Londoners , 2005, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[27]  V.M Bier,et al.  On the state of the art: risk communication to the public , 2001, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[28]  V. Folkes,et al.  The Availability Heuristic and Perceived Risk , 1988 .

[29]  B. Fischhoff,et al.  Judged frequency of lethal events , 1978 .

[30]  D. Krewski,et al.  Differential perception of chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear terrorism in Canada , 2007 .

[31]  Louise Lemyre,et al.  Terrorism threats and preparedness in Canada: the perspective of the Canadian public. , 2007, Biosecurity and bioterrorism : biodefense strategy, practice, and science.

[32]  J.-P. Brodeur,et al.  Terrorism Old and New: Counterterrorism in Canada1 , 2005 .

[33]  L. Frewer The public and effective risk communication. , 2003, Toxicology letters.

[34]  P. Slovic Perception of risk. , 1987, Science.

[35]  Steven M Becker,et al.  Emergency communication and information issues in terrorist events involving radioactive materials. , 2004, Biosecurity and bioterrorism : biodefense strategy, practice, and science.