{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.017191977077363897, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0014326647564469914, 'mean_word_length': 5.236607142857143, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Communications Challenges in Crisis and Transition.

Over the last 5 y, the federal community has made significant progress in preparing for coordinated and efficient public communication efforts during a radiological response. Preparations include the development of pre-scripted messages and plume simulations in the event that there is detonation of an improvised nuclear device or a radiological release from a nuclear power plant. However, challenges remain for improving crisis communications across federal agencies.Interagency language barriers, as well as variances in federal-to-local vernacular, lead to communications challenges that in times of calm can be confusing but in times of crisis could cause major disruptions. In addition to dealing with language barriers, the federal community continues to work on overcoming the "stay in your lane" mentality that could impact the ability to identify a lead voice during a crisis. Federal exercises over the past 2 y have identified the lack of a "lead" federal voice during an incident as a major challenge. They have attributed the problem to the nature of the federal agencies' response structures and the desire of state and local leaders to maintain authority of an incident in their communities. In a transition year, it will be key to review current guidelines based on law and the new administration's communications procedures.