Community development among toxic tailings: An interactional case study of extralocal institutions and environmental health

Community Development

Volumn 43, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 379-392

  Malin, Stephanie A ^a   Petrzelka, Peggy ^b  

^a BROWN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

community development; environmental health; interactional field theory; rural sociology

Indexed keywords

EID: 84864663170     PISSN: 15575330     EISSN: 19447485     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/15575330.2011.604424     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) Report. 1997. "Preliminary Public Health Assessment for Monticello Mill Tailings (DOE) and Monticello Radioactively Contaminated Properties (aka Monticello Vicinity Properties), Monticello". San Juan County, Utah. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services.
2. Associated Press Wire. 1 March 2008. "Monticello cancer study points to uranium mill". 1 March, 1
3. Bennett, L. 1 and 13 February 12 1997. "Effects of the cold war still felt in San Juan County: Mill study raises questions and answers". 1 and 13 February 12, San Juan Record
4. Brennan, M. and Dodd, A. 2009. Exploring citizen involvement in the restoration of the Florida Everglades. Society and Natural Resources, 22: 324-338.
5. Brennan, M. and Israel, G. 2008. The power of community. Community Development. Journal of the Community Development Society, 39(1): 82-98.
6. Brennan, M. and Luloff, A. 2007. Exploring rural community agency differences in Ireland and Pennsylvania. Journal of Rural Studies, 23(1): 52-61.
7. Bridger, J. and Luloff, A. 1999. Toward an interactional approach to sustainable community development. Journal of Rural Studies, 15: 377-387.
8. Brown, P. 2007. "Toxic exposures: Contested illness and the environmental health movement". New York: Columbia University Press.
9. Brown, P. and Mikkelsen, E.J. 1990. No safe place: Toxic waste, leukemia, and community action, Berkeley: University of CA Press.
10. Checker, M. 2005. Polluted promises: Environmental racism and the search for justice in a southern town, New York: New York University Press.
11. Creswell, J. 1994. Research designs: Qualitative and quantitative approaches, Thousand Oaks: Sage.
12. Church, L. 2005. Mill produces cancer rumors: Monticello deals with decades-old uranium mill. Salt Lake Tribune, October 3: B1-B2.
13. Clapp, R. 2002. Popular epidemiology in three contaminated communities. Annals, AAPSS, 584: 35-46.
14. Erikson, K. 1994. A new species of trouble: The human experience of modern disasters, New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
15. Gibbs, L. 1998. Love canal: The story continues, British Columbia: New Society Publishers.
16. Granovetter, M. 1973. The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78: 1360-1380.
17. Jarvik, E. 1-3, May 25 2006. "Monticello demands answers on uranium". 1-3, May 25, Deseret News Retrieved May 26, 2006, fromhttp://www.deseretnews.com
18. Kaufman, H. 1959. Toward an interactional conception of community. Social Forces, 38(1): 8-17.
19. Korsching, P. and Allen, J. 2004. Locality based entrepreneurship: A strategy for community economic vitality. Community Development Journal, 39: 385-400.
20. Korsching, P., Sapp, S. and El-Ghamrini, S. 2003. Rural telephone company adoption of service innovations: A community field theory approach. Rural Sociology, 68: 387-409.
21. Little, P.C. 2009. Negotiating community engagement and science in the federal environmental public health sector. Medical Anthropology Quarterly, 23: 94-118.
22. Matarrita-Cascante, D. and Luloff, A. 2008. Profiling participative residents in western communities. Rural Sociology, 73(1): 44-61.
23. Peer Review Committee of the Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation. 1997. "Review of the ATSDR Report Entitled "Preliminary Public Health Assessment for Monticello Mill Tailings (DOE) Monticello". San Juan County, Utah CERCLIS No. UT3890090035, December 28, 1995." Retrieved 10 January, 2007, from http:// www.cresp.org/cresp1/cresp1/Atsdr.PDF
24. Roberts, J.T. and Toffolon-Weiss, M.M. 2001. Chronicles from the environmental justice frontline, NY: Cambridge University Press.
25. San Juan Record (SJR). San Juan Record 5 April 1945. Petition Presented to VCA San Juan Record 5 April, 8
26. Sharp, J. 2001. Locating the community field: A study of interorganizational network structure and capacity for community action. Rural Sociology, 66: 403-424.
27. SJR. 6 December 1951. Hope Uranium Hunt in West Equals Goldrush of Yesteryear. SJR 6 December, 1
28. SJR. 13 February 1959. Uranium Policy Bad. SJR 13 February, 2
29. SJR. 7 March 2001. (Joe Torres letter). A Letter to President Bush. SJR 7 March, 6
30. Silver, K. 1996. The Yellowed Archives of Yellowcake. Public Health Report, 11: 16-127.
31. Theodori, G. 2005. Community and community development in resource-based areas: Operational definitions rooted in an interactional perspective. Society and Natural Resources, 18: 661-669.
32. Theodori, G. 2008. Constraints to the development of community. Community Development. Journal of the Community Development Society, 39: 91-110.
33. US Bureau of the Census. 2000. Profile of the general demographic characteristics. Geographic area, Monticello, Utah. Washington, DC: US Bureau of the Census.
34. Warren, R. 1978. The community in America, (3rd ed.), Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America.
35. Wilkinson, K. 1970. Phases and roles in community action. Rural Sociology, 35(1): 54-68.
36. Wilkinson, K. 1991. The community in rural America, Middleton, Wisconsin: Social Ecology Press.
37. Zekeri, A., Wilkinson, K. and Humphrey, C. 1994. Past activeness, solidarity, and local development efforts. Rural Sociology, 59: 216-235.