ATSDR/CDC risk-communication module outlines Seven Cardinal Rules and message-mapping approach

Laurel, a presenter in Module 3 of the Land Reuse training series, outlined core practices for communicating environmental and health risks and walked participants through message-mapping techniques used to inform and protect communities. The session emphasized early public involvement, plain language, partner coordination and post-contact follow-up.

The module’s nut graf explained why the guidance matters: clear, two-way risk communication helps people make informed choices about exposures, reduces confusion during remediation, and builds trust between communities and public health agencies. Presenters used two case studies — a fictitious daycare with arsenic-contaminated playground soil and a mock asbestos mine — to show how to craft short, actionable messages and coordinate across agencies.

Module presenters described Covello’s Seven Cardinal Rules of Risk Communication as adapted for contemporary public health practice. They summarized the rules as: accept and involve the public; listen to the audience; be honest and open; coordinate with credible sources; meet the needs of the media; speak clearly and with compassion; and plan carefully and evaluate performance. The training stressed practical steps: state credentials, admit uncertainty when appropriate, offer to find answers, and follow up in a timely way.

Presenters emphasized audience research and message tailoring. Huda noted communicators should consider demographic and cultural factors, preferred communication channels by age (for example, fact sheets for older audiences and social media for younger audiences), language needs and local norms. A concrete technical example used in the presentation stated that, for one ethylene oxide site, community members believed the contaminant affected people 10 miles away but that the briefing explained the plume traveled about 1½ miles in that case; presenters used that point to illustrate the need to explain contaminant‑specific exposure distances rather than rely on general assumptions.

The module introduced message maps as a structured three-part format: one concise primary message, two supporting messages, and up to three supporting facts per message. Presenters advised keeping key messages short (roughly nine words each when possible) and developing one map per prevalent community concern. A downloadable template and course materials were provided on ATSDR’s site and the Land Reuse training page.

Two case studies illustrated application. In the daycare example, officials found high arsenic levels in playground soil that had not been sampled after the site’s prior industrial use. Local environmental professionals coordinated testing with the property owner, removed and screened contaminated soil, placed clean fill and a wood-chip layer across the playground, and planned ongoing screening (presenters described biannual soil screening in the example) to reassure parents that children no longer had direct contact with contaminated soil.

In the asbestos-mine example (a mock ABC Site), presenters described how chrysotile tailings and runoff contaminated wetlands and surface water and how recreational access could disturb tailings and release airborne fibers. They summarized exposure factors that influence health risk — duration and frequency of exposure, time since exposure, fiber size, smoking and pre-existing lung conditions — and recommended restricting access, fencing the site, banning reuse of tailings, and discouraging camping or recreation in downstream wetlands.

Throughout, presenters urged coordination with local partners (health departments, universities, community groups) and stressed meeting media needs with tailored graphics and clear factual messages. The training also listed resources for practitioners, including CDC plain-language guidelines, the National Center for Environmental Health/ATSDR Clear Writing Hub, and ATSDR’s Communication Toolkit. Contact information and links were provided for course materials and continuing education.

The presentation concluded with knowledge checks reaffirming key points (for example, that communities have a right to participate in decisions about sites and that staff should be trained in communication skills) and a reminder to pretest messages, disclose uncertainties where appropriate, and follow up with communities.

The module ended with contact information for further questions (atsdr.landreuse@cdc.gov) and links to the message-mapping template and agency toolkits.