It would be easy for someone to draw the conclusion that there should be no big public relations challenges for organisations moving nuclear material. After all, nuclear material has been safely transported around the globe for over fifty years. But, as we all know, there is a huge public perception gap, significant concerns do prevail, and the industry’s communications, therefore, need to be comprehensively addressed. When professional communicators analyse an issue, they begin by identifying the realities that surround it. When planning communications for transports of spent fuel or similar materials, we first have to recognise that they are hazardous. We cannot deny the underlying hazard without undermining our credibility as messengers and operators. Malcolm Grimston (see Packaging, Transport, Storage and Security of Radioactive Material, Vol. 18, No. 4) has argued that the rational reaction of members of the public when they are told that radioactive material is protected by almost indestructible packaging is to conclude that it must be really dangerous. This is likely to be true for some people although my experience is that the robust packaging generally creates a level of reassurance, particularly among the better-educated and those who have the power to influence the general public, such as politicians, government officials and science writers. But the more important point here is that we are where we are. IAEA recommendations, with their package test criteria, are applied internationally. Nobody is going to change the basic regulatory structure surrounding nuclear transportations. Communicators need to recognise and work within the fundamental parameters that exist in any industry. Taking this point one step further, would we be in a better or worse position today if the regulations had been less demanding historically and there had been several accidents involving spent fuel that had caused a release of radioactive material? My guess is that we would be in a worse position, with constantly ratcheted regulations and greater public distrust in the industry’s (and governments’) ability to ensure that nuclear material is moved safely. The regulations have, therefore, helped public acceptance, not worked against it. Nevertheless, the industry does need to think carefully about the messages it sends by its actions as much as those it purposely disseminates to the public. For example, if we carry out ‘real life’ package tests to demonstrate the efficacy of safety standards, will this reinforce the credibility of the regulations or undermine faith in them? If we undertake tests that push packages to their point of failure, are we helping to communicate their robustness or raising public concerns that they can fail? We therefore need to be careful not to apply technical solutions to solve communications problems. This is partly because we could be wasting money and partly because we may not generate the expected and hoped for impact on public perceptions. While people will demand better safety measures in a whole host of areas, from children’s toys to automobile standards, it doesn’t mean they will be satisfied when they get them. They may well just ask for more. One area that we have to be careful about, however, is risk perception. To talk about risk in popular parlance is to talk about something that might well happen. Most people have little comprehension of the different risks we all face and they draw distinctions between voluntary and involuntary ones. As Malcolm Grimston writes, someone always wins the lottery despite the poor odds each individual faces. In a perfect world, people would have a more informed and rational view of risk but, unfortunately, the level of technical knowledge among the public is another of the parameters we have to work within. Just as the regulatory regime is a given, so is the basic level of public comprehension. It is not something we can realistically hope to change. This is not to say that public education programmes have no value. On the contrary, it is important for nuclear transportation experts to provide educational information to students. At the very least, this will challenge the misinformation put out by nuclear opponents. But we should be realistic about what these initiatives can achieve and we should recognise that they need to be ongoing. One factor that has changed markedly over the last fifty years is the cultural background against which industrial activities take place. Today, there are a myriad of campaign groups as well as a different style of media and instant global communication of information, opinion and anecdote. Add to this the growth in public consultation over planning and development issues and our modern participatory politics and it should be clear that almost any industrial activity has the potential to be curtailed or restricted as a result of a poor image, whether or not that image is based on facts or misperceptions. Journalists would deny it, but in many ways the media has become a fear generating industry, creating or magnifying concerns on just about every issue: international conflicts, diet, climate, species extinction, medicines, diseases, travel, discrimination, industrial development, finance, etc. The list is endless. The time when news was simply reported is history. President, Gavin Carter and Associates, P. O. Box 15349, Alexandria, VA 22309, USA