• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Risk analysis >Public Views On Drinking Water Standards As Risk Indicators
【24h】

Public Views On Drinking Water Standards As Risk Indicators

机译：公众对饮用水标准作为风险指标的看法

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Government agencies often compare contaminant levels to standards and other regulatory benchmarks to convey relative risk to public audiences, as well as for enforcement. Yet we know little of how citizens interpret these risk indicators or factors influencing interpretations. Owners of private residential wells in New Jersey were surveyed by mail. A majority appreciated this comparison, trusted the standard, and could effectively compare the contaminant level to the standard. Most people who recalled that their own well water quality was unsatisfactory simply installed treatment systems. However, there was also a surprising amount of inability to tell whether pollution levels were better or worse than the standard, perhaps exacerbated by confusing institutional language to summarize the comparison (e.g., pollution "exceeds" or is "less than" the standard) and innumeracy. There was also substantial skepticism about the degree to which pollution levels below, or (to a lesser extent) above, the standard are harmless or harmful, respectively. Skepticism was variously due to distrust of standards, disbelief in thresholds for health effects, inability to accurately compare standards and contaminant levels, information processing, and demographics. Discontinuity in reactions below versus above the standard did not exist in the aggregate, and rarely among individuals, contrary to some previous findings. At identical standards and contaminant levels, familiar toxins (mercury, arsenic, lead) elicited higher risk ratings than less familiar ones. Given the wide institutional use of this risk indicator, further research on how to improve the design and use of this indicator, and consideration of alternatives, is warranted.
机译：政府机构经常将污染物水平与标准和其他监管基准进行比较，以将相对风险传达给公众以及执法。然而，我们对公民如何解释这些风险指标或影响解释的因素知之甚少。通过邮件调查了新泽西州私人住宅井的所有者。大多数人赞赏这种比较，相信标准，并且可以有效地将污染物水平与标准进行比较。多数人回想起自己的井水质量不能令人满意，只是安装了处理系统。然而，还有令人惊讶的无法说明污染水平是好于还是差于标准的程度，也许是由于混淆机构语言来总结比较而加剧了（例如，污染“超过”或“低于”标准），并且无数。对于低于或低于（或稍低于）该标准的污染水平是无害还是有害的程度，人们也抱有很大的怀疑态度。各种不同的怀疑态度归因于对标准的不信任，对健康影响阈值的怀疑，无法准确比较标准和污染物水平，信息处理和人口统计。与先前的一些发现相反，总体上不存在低于或高于标准的反应不连续性，并且在个体中很少出现。在相同的标准和污染物水平下，熟悉的毒素（汞，砷，铅）引起的风险等级要高于不那么熟悉的毒素。考虑到该风险指标在机构中的广泛使用，因此有必要对如何改进该指标的设计和使用以及替代方法进行进一步研究。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号