Communication In Water Contamination Events

  Are these materials able to be under-stood? Are they useful?

Findings: Materials: Comprehensibility

The handout given to residents at the September 25th meeting is the most important document to consider, since it was given to the most people and sums up many of the messages that HEALTH repeated throughout the contamination. The handout is fairly comprehensible; it is an advisory, and does not require a great deal of background knowledge to understand it. Difficult concepts, such as measurements in parts per billion, are included, but aided by a relevant analogy.

The most incomprehensible part of this document deals with the concept of "federal risk levels.”


This section is seemingly contradictory on a first reading, and requires a fairly deep understanding of what “risk levels” are. Understanding how different groups can have different risk levels also asks for further background knowledge. When explored in focus groups, the concept of these risks levels was also problematic. Participants took from this passage the idea of conflicting standards, and wondered why the state did not agree with the federal government standards. Though the state standards were ultimately stricter than the federal standards, the conflict resulted in a general lack of trust in all the standards. The idea that federal guidance can be "inconsistent" does not do much for inspiring trust in officials.

Another major problem with the document is that of internal consistency. The goal of the text seems to swing between advising concern and advising calm.

The handout seems to say that:

Calm Concern

-the real quantity is of MTBE is very small

-exposures don't exceed federal risk levels

-exposures are still very low

 

-but MTBE levels are still unacceptable

-but don't use the water anyway for drinking, cooking, etc.

-but there are three different routes of exposure and not all are covered by the advisory guidelines

These conflicts make it more difficult to gather the overall message from this advisory.

The main problem with the advisory is its lack of attention to resident concerns. Approximately the same amount of space is devoted to resident health concerns as to advising residents to "protect their water supply from contamination" in the future. Not addressing the concerns of the residents in an open manner was not an effective communication strategy, as was shown by the ES 126 study.

 

"MTBE levels in Pascoag water (as high as 600 ppb) exceed the RI Department of Health (HEALTH) maximum of 40 ppb. Even at this high level, the contamination amounts to only 1 oz of MTBE in a typical, backyard swimming pool (24ft diameter, 4ft deep)."
(www..healthri.org/
environment/
risk/mtbe/factsheet.htm)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“That would be a very strange announcement, because on the one hand they’re saying don’t drink the water, and then on the other hand, they’re just basically saying we don’t agree with the federal guidelines.” --focus group participant

 

 

Was this information readable?

What would make this information better accomplish its communication goals?

Jessica Galante

Center for Environmental Studies, Brown University Last Updated 5/10/03