Consistency among methods of assessing concerns about the Los Alamos National Laboratory

Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health - Part A

Volumn 66, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 199-210

  Burger, Joanna ^a,b  

^a RUTGERS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b RUTGERS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ECOSYSTEM; ECOTOXICITY; ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING; HUMAN; LAND USE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; NUCLEAR ACCIDENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUESTIONNAIRE; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK MANAGEMENT; UNITED STATES;

ADULT; ATTITUDE; CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES; ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION; ETHNIC GROUPS; FEMALE; GOVERNMENT AGENCIES; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEW MEXICO; PUBLIC OPINION; QUESTIONNAIRES; RISK ASSESSMENT; SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS; UNITED STATES;

EID: 0037462455     PISSN: 15287394     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/15287390306404     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Burger, J., and Gochfeld, M. 1996. Ecological and human health risk assessment: a comparison. In Interconnections between human and ecosystem health, eds. R. T. DiGuilio and E. Monosson, pp. 127-148. London: Chapman & Hall.
2. Burger, J., Sanchez, J., Gibbons, J. W., and Gochfeld, M. 1997. Risk perception, federal spending, and the Savannah River Site: Attitudes of hunters and fishermen. Risk Anal. 17:313-320.
3. Burger, J., Sanchez, J., Gibbons, J. W., Ondrof, J., Ramos, R., McMahon, M., Gaines, K. F., Lord, C., Fulmer, M., and Gochfeld, M. 1999a. Attitudes and perceptions about ecological resources and hazards of people living around the Savannah River Site. Environ. Monit. Assess. 57:195-211.
4. Burger, J., Roush, D., Wartenberg, D., and Gochfeld, M. 1999b. Future land use and concerns about the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory: A survey of urban dwellers. Environ. Manage. 24:541-551.
5. Burger, J., Roush, D. E., Ramos, R., and Gochfefd, M. 2000a. Risk perception, land use, and the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory: Attitudes of the Shoshone-Bannock and other American Indians. Environ. Res. 83:298-310.
6. Burger, J., Roush, D. E., Jr., Sanchez, J., Ondrof, J., Ramos, R., McMahon, M. J., and Gochfeld, M. 2000b. Attitudes and perceptions about ecological resources, hazards, and future land use of people living near the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory. Environ. Monitor. Assess. 60:145-161.
7. Department of Energy. 1994. National environmental research parks. Washington, DC: Department of Energy, Office of Energy Research.
8. Department of Energy. 1996a. Charting the course: The future use report. Washington, DC: Department of Energy, DOE/EM-0283.
9. Department of Energy. 1996b. Idaho National Engineering Laboratory: Comprehensive facility and land use plan. Washington, DC: Department of Energy, DOE/EM-0283.
10. Dillman, D. A. 1978. Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
11. Dunlap, R. E. 1991. Trends in public opinion toward environmental issues: 1965-1990. Society Nat. Resources 4:285-312.
12. 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.
13. Greenberg, M. 2000. Grassroots leadership, personality, and urban neighborhood environments: A case study in New Jersey. Hum. Ecol. Rev. 7:21-29.
14. Jenni, K. I., 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.
15. Kraus, N. N., and Slovic, P. 1988. Taxonomic analysis of perceived risk: Modeling individual and group perceptions within homogeneous hazard domains. Risk Anal. 8:435-455.
16. Los Alamos National Laboratory. 1999. Threatened and endangered species habitat management plan: overview. Los Alamos, NM: Department of Energy, LALP-98/112.
17. MacGregor, D. G., Slovic, P., and Malmfors, T. 1999. "How exposed is exposed enough?" Lay inferences about chemical exposure. Risk Anal. 19:648-659.
18. McDaniels, T. M., Axelrod, L., Cavagh, N. S., and Slovic, P. 1997. Perception of ecological risk to water environments. Risk Anal. 17:341-352.
19. National Research Council. 1995. Improving the environment: An evaluation of DOE's environmental management program. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences Press.
20. National Research Council. 2001. Long-term institutional management of U.S. Department of Energy Legacy waste sites. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences Press.
21. President's Commission on Risk Assessment and Risk Management. 1997. Report of the Commission on Risk Assessment and Risk Management. Washington, DC: U.S. Congress: Presidential/Congressional Commission on Risk Assessment and Risk Management.
22. Rapport, D. J. 1992. Evaluating ecosystem health. J. Aquat. Ecosyst. Health 1:15-24.
23. Rapport, D. J. 1995. Ecosystem health: An emerging integrative science. In Evaluating and monitoring the health of large-scale ecosystems, vol. 1, eds. D. J. Rapport, C. L. Gaudet, and P. Calow, pp. 5-31. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
24. SAS Institute, Inc. 1995. User's guide to SAS. Cary, NC: SAS Institute, Inc.
25. Slovic, P. 1987. Perception of risk. Science 236:280-285.
26. Slovic, P., Kraus, N. N., Lappe, H., Letzel, H., and Malmfors, T. 1989. Risk perception of prescription drugs: Report on a survey in Sweden. Pharm. Med. 4:43-65.
27. U.S. Census Bureau. 2001.