Recreation, consumption of wild game, risk, and the department of energy sites: Perceptions of people attending the lewiston, id, "roundup"

Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health - Part A

Volumn 56, Issue 4, 1999, Pages 221-234

  Burger, Joanna ^a  

^a RUTGERS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGE; ARTICLE; ATOMIC BOMB; ENVIRONMENT; FEMALE; FISHING; FOOD; HUMAN; LAND USE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RECREATION; RISK; UNITED STATES;

EID: 0033605401     PISSN: 15287394     EISSN: 10872620     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/009841099158079     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Barke, R., and Jenkins-Smith, H. 1993. Politics and scientific expertise: Scientists, risk perception and nuclear waste policy. Risk Anal. 13:425-429.
2. Burger, J. 1997. Recreation and risk: Potential exposure. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health 52:269-284.
3. Burger, J., Sanchez, J., Gibbons, J. W., Jr., and Gochfeld, M. 1997. Risk perception, federal spending, and the Savannah River Site: Attitudes of hunters and fishermen. Risk Anal. 17:313-320.
4. Census. 1990. Nez Perce County. 1990 US Census Data. U.S. Bureau of Census. http://venus.census.gov/cdrom/lookup/897840682.
5. Census. 1996. USA Counties 1996: Nez Perce, ID, General Profile U.S. Bureau of Census. http://www.census.gov/statab/USA96/16/069.txt.
6. Commission on Risk Assessment and Risk Management. 1996. Report of the Commission on Risk Assessment and Risk Management. Washington, DC: U.S. Congress.
7. Cushing, C. E. 1988. Hanford Site Environmental Policy Act(NEPA) Characterization. PNL-6415. Richland, WA: Pacific Northwest Laboratory.
8. Department of Energy. 1994. National Environmental Research Parks. Washington, DC: Department of Energy, Office of Energy Research.
9. Department of Energy. 1995a. Draft Waste Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. DOE/EIS-0200-D. Washington, DC.
10. Department of Energy. 1995b. Department of Energy Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management and Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Program Final Environmental Impact Statement. DOE/EIS-0203, 1995. Washington, DC.
11. Department of Energy. 1996a. Charting the Course: The Future Use Report. DOE/EM-0283. Washington, DC.
12. Department of Energy. 1996b. Hanford Site: Comprehensive Facility and Land Use Plan. DOE/EM-0283. Washington, DC.
13. Department of Energy. 1996c. Idaho National Engineering Laboratory: Comprehensive Facility and Land Use Plan. DOE/EM-0283. Washington, DC.
14. Dillman, D. A. 1978. Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
15. Fitzner, R. E., and Gray, R. H. 1975. The status, distribution, and ecology of wildl ife on the US DOE Hanford site: A historical overview of research activities. Environ. Monit. Assess. 18:173-202.
16. Frey, J. H., and Oishi, S. M. 1995. How to conduct interviews by telephone and in person. Vol. 4 of The Survey Kit. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
17. Geist, D. R. 1995. The Hanford Reach: What do we stand to lose? Illahee 11: 130-141.
18. Grumbly, T. P. 1996. Risk in the Republic: Comparative risk analysis and public policy. Address, Society For Risk Analysis meetings, Durham, NC, 15 November.
19. Harris, S. G., and Harper, B. L. 1998. Native American exposure scenarios and a tribal risk model. Risk Anal. 17:789-795.
20. Jacobson, S. K., and Marynowski, S. B. 1997. Public attitudes and knowledge about ecosystem management on department of defense l and in Florida. Conserv. Biol. 11:770-781.
21. Jenni, K. E., Merkhofer, M. W., and Williams, C. 1995. The rise and fall of a risk-based priority system: Lessons from DOE's environmental restoration priority system. Risk. Anal. 15:397-410.
22. Mitchell, J. 1992. Perception of risk and credibility at toxic sites. Risk Anal. 1:19-26.
23. Mitchell, R. G., Peterson, D., Roush, D., Brooks, R. W., Paulus, L. R., Martin, D. B., and Lantz, B. S. 1997. Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory Site Environmental Report. Idaho Falls, ID: Environmental Science and Research Foundation.
24. National Research Council. 1983. Risk assessment in the federal government: Managing the process. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
25. National Research Council. 1993. Issues in risk assessment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
26. National Research Council. 1994. Building consensus through risk assessment and management of the Department of Energy's Environmental Remediation Program. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
27. National Research Council. 1995. Improving the environment: An evaluation of DOE's Environmental Management Program. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
28. Sanchez, J., and Burger, J. 1998. Hunting and exposure: Estimating risk and future use at nuclear production sites. Risk: Health, Safety Environ. 9:109-118.
29. Sanger, S. L. 1995. Working on the bomb: An oral history of WWII Hanford. Portland, OR: Portland State University.
30. SAS Institute, Inc. 1985. SAS user's guide. Cary, NC: SAS Institute, Inc.
31. Slovic, P. 1987. Perception of risk. Science 236:280-285.
32. Toth, J. F., Jr., and Brown, R. B. 1997. Racial and gender meanings of why people participate in recreational fishing. Leisure Sci. 19:129-146.
33. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 1996. Annual Survey of Sportsmen. Washington, DC.