number and many miles apart from each other. No industrial facilities were near the contaminated houses. None of the houses were built on top of an old industrial or hazardous waste site. Investigators could not find an explanatory pattern.
Investigators did determine that the toxic substances found in the basements matched toxic substances found at an abandoned industrial site more than 50 miles away. The site was surrounded by a tall, barbed wire fence, and posted every 25 yards were signs with the following messages: “Hazardous Waste Site. Danger from Possible Exposure to Toxic Substances. Absolutely No Trespassing. Trespassers Will Be Prosecuted.” The site was also posted with the traditional warning of danger image, particularly regarding poisonous substances – the skull‐and‐crossbones symbol (
Despite the long distance from the contaminated homes to the abandoned industrial site, the government environmental detectives tested the groundwater under the industrial site for leaks. Numerous monitoring wells were drilled, but no leaks were found. The government tested the groundwater and well water in areas nearby the industrial facility but found no evidence of toxic substances. Interviews with homeowners provided no suspected sources. The abandoned industrial site sat in a lowland area. A leak of toxic waste from the area would need to travel uphill for more than 50 miles – a highly unlikely physical phenomenon. Discussions between the government agency and the homeowners had reached an impasse.
I met with the residents. I listened to their concerns about their health, their children’s health, and their diminished property values. In our chats, the homeowners often talked about their gardens and the happiness their gardens gave them. I had noticed the gardens when first entering the homes. They were typically much nicer than their neighbors. I engaged them by asking them their secrets of gardening, noting that I had a garden and had once written a book on one of my hobbies: a specialized type of Japanese gardening. Oddly, their responses to my questions about gardening were convoluted and confusing.
I revisited the abandoned industrial site where the scientists had found the same toxic substances oozing into the homeowner’s basements. I noticed something unusual. Many of the plants growing at the abandoned industrial site were identical to those in the gardens of the homeowners with contaminated basements. I did research on the plants. To my surprise, I found that some plants grow well in toxic soil, such as soil containing arsenic. A light bulb went on in my head. Since it was exceedingly unlikely that the toxic substances at the abandoned industrial site had moved uphill and underground for more than 50 miles to several isolated homes, I adopted a principle I remembered from the casebooks of Sherlock Holmes: once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, is likely to be true.
I communicated my hypothesis to the homeowners: perhaps the soil at their homes was the same type of soil found at the abandoned industrial site. If my hypothesis was correct, how did the soil get into their backyards? The homeowners grudgingly said I was correct and told me they had taken the soil and plants for their gardens from the abandoned industrial site. They did not believe the signs. How could healthy plants be growing in toxic soil?
In my conversations with the homeowners, I empathized with their reasoning. They agreed to work with me and talk with the government agency. The government agency took responsibility for not engaging the community in discussing what was at the abandoned industrial site and not explaining the dangers it presented. The homeowners acknowledged responsibility for breaking into the site and taking the soil and plants. After considerable negotiation, the homeowners and government agency agreed to a clean‐up plan that was acceptable to all.
This case diary illustrates the complexity of stakeholder engagement and the need to engage in active listening, demonstrate understanding, and pursue constructive dialog. It also illustrates the importance of using risk communication principles and strategies in developing warnings and involving the community in developing education programs about potential dangers.
3.2 Challenges and Difficulties Faced in Communicating Risk Information
Over the last five decades, the literature on risk communication has skyrocketed. Hundreds of articles and books have been published. Many of the first studies focused on risks associated with exposures to health, safety, environmental, and occupational risk agents. However, it quickly became apparent that the focus on health, safety, and environmental issues was too narrow. Researchers expanded the boundaries of the field to include risks and threats created by virtually any high stress or an emotionally charged issue or situation.
A substantial part of the risk communication literature has focused on challenges and difficulties faced by leaders; risk managers; and technical, engineering, and scientific professionals in effectively communicating technical information to nonexperts. I have organized these challenges and limitations into five categories: (1) characteristics and limitations of scientific and technical data about risks; (2) characteristics and limitations of spokespersons in communicating scientific and technical information about risks; (3) characteristics and limitations of risk management regulations and standards; (4) characteristics traditional media channels in communicating information about risks; (5) characteristics of social media in communicating risk information; and (6) characteristics and limitations of people in evaluating and interpreting risk information.
3.2.1 Characteristics and Limitations of Scientific and Technical Data about Risks
One source of difficulty in communicating information about risks is the uncertainty and complexity of the data generated by risk assessments. Risk assessments are the theories and methods used to determine the risks posed by a particular hazard or event that may have a negative impact on individuals, groups, or the environment. Many organizations conduct risk assessments to characterize the nature and magnitude of health, safety, and environmental risks. Organizations also conduct risk assessments to characterize the nature and magnitude of legal and financial risks.
Despite their strengths, risk assessments seldom provide exact answers. Because of limitations in scientific understanding, data, models, and methods, the results of most assessments are approximations. The resources needed to resolve these uncertainties are seldom adequate to the task. Table 3.1 lists sources of uncertainty in risk assessments.
Table 3.1 Sources of uncertainty in risk assessments.
|
Have the study results or claims been successfully tested using more than one method?Have the results or claims been re‐evaluated using different measurement or statistical techniques?Do the study results or claims test high for statistical significance?Is the probability so small that the same effect could have occurred by chance alone?What is the statistical strength of the study result or claim?How substantial is the strength of association?Are the claims of a strong or clear effect supported by a strong strength of association?Are the study results or claims specific as to health effects of the risk agent or are they general in nature?Can the study results or claims be explained by confounding factors or other relationships?What is the amount of detail in describing data and possible weaknesses in the study?What types of data are missing and how important are the gaps?What variables are missing?How significant are the missing data or variables?What are the greatest sources of uncertainty in the results?What does the investigator feel is known well and what is not known?Are the conclusions clearly stated?Are the conclusions of the study justified by the findings and substantiated by the evidence presented? Which ones are? Which ones are not?Are the conclusions linked to the original objectives of the study?Are the generalizations confined to the populations from which the sample was drawn? If not, why not?What are the implications of the study?What action does the study suggest?What additional studies are needed?Could this study be replicated?
|
