Communicating About Residential Exposures

  • Scott Baker
  • Jeffrey Driver
  • David McCallum

Abstract

Residential exposures are unique in that they are influenced by residents preferences and practices as well as the characteristics of products and their delivery systems. For these products the traditional risk management team of state and local government officials and industry product specialists should be augmented to include intermediaries such as lawn care professionals and the end use consumer.

Keywords

Ozone Tuberculosis Cocaine Lime Smoke 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bastrom, A., B. Fischoff, and M.G. Morgan. 1992. Characterizing mental models of hazardous processes. J. Social Issues. 48:85–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Flay, B.R. and D. Burton. 1988. Effective mass communication campaigns for public health. In: Mass media and health: Complexities and conflicts. Rancho Mirage, California. September 17–19, 1988.Google Scholar
  3. Freimuth, V.S. and J.R. Van Nevel. 1981. Reaching the public: The asbestos awareness campaign. J. Communications 31:155–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Hammond, S. 1990. Issue involvement and the elaboration likelihood model: A field experiment using environmental risk messages. University of Maryland. College Park, Maryland.Google Scholar
  5. Klaidman, S. 1991. Health in the headlines: The stories behind the stories. Oxford University Press. New York, New York.Google Scholar
  6. McCallum, D.B. 1989a. Semantics of prescription drugs. Videotape program on risk communication. Institute for Health Policy Analysis. Georgetown University Medical Center. Washington DC.Google Scholar
  7. McCallum, D.B. 1989b. Communicating the benefits and risks of prescription drugs. With S. Yenney. Institute for Health Policy Analysis. Georgetown University Medical Center. Washington DC.Google Scholar
  8. McCallum, D.B. 1992. Physicians and environmental risk communications. Health and Environmental Digest April 1992. Pages 3–5.Google Scholar
  9. NHLBI (National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute). 1987. Seminar results: Fear as a persuasion technique. Unpublished proceedings of a conference on Fear Communications. December 1987.Google Scholar
  10. Roper Organization. 1990. The environment: Public attitudes and individual behaviors. Report commissioned by S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. July 1990.Google Scholar
  11. Santos, S.L. and D.B. McCallum. 1993. Kanawha Valley health effects study: Risk communication research project. Focus group and key interview project. Focus Group. Medford, Massachusetts. April.Google Scholar
  12. The White House. 1989. National Drug Control Strategy. Washington DC.Google Scholar
  13. USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1989. Toxic and hazardous substances, Title III and communities. An outreach manual for community groups. C. McNeil, E.B. Arkin, and D.B. McCallum.Google Scholar
  14. USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1991. Evaluation of effective risk communications. In: A. Fisher, M. Pavlova, and V. Covello (eds.). Proceedings of a workshop. January 1991. Interagency Task Force on Environmental Cancer and Heart and Lung Disease. Report number EPA/600/9–90/054. Washington D.Google Scholar
  15. USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1993. Public knowledge and perceptions of chemical risks in six communities: Follow up survey results. Report by D.B. McCallum and S.L. Santos.Google Scholar
  16. Washington Post. 1994. Illicit drug use rises among U.S. teenagers. Pierre Thomas. February 1, 1994. Page A–l.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Scott Baker
    • 1
  • Jeffrey Driver
    • 2
  • David McCallum
    • 3
  1. 1.International Copper AssociationNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.infoscientific.com, Inc. and risksciences.netManassasUSA
  3. 3.FOCUS GROUPTilghman IslandUSA

Personalised recommendations