Environmental hazards truly affecting health status in the country are not those receiving the highest attention, whether measured by public opinion polls , news coverage, congressional actions ,or government expenditures.
环境危害影响国家的健康状况而不是真正接受的最高关注,是否以民意调查来衡量,新闻报道,国会行动,或政府支出。
Indoor air pollution ,in its various forms, receives relatively little attention compared with outdoor sources and yet probably accounts for as much ,if not more, poor health .Hazards waste dumped ,on the other hand, which are difficult to associate with any measurable ill health ,attract much attention and resources .The same chemicals in the form of common consumer
products
,such
as
household
cleaners ,pesticides, and fuel (gasoline), account for much more exposure and ill health and yet comparatively little concern from the public.
室内空气污染,各种形式,得到相对较少的关注与室外来源,但
可能占一样多,如果不是更多,健康状况不佳。危险废物倾倒,另一方面,很难将其与任何可测量的不健康,吸引了太多的关注和资源。相同的化学物质的形式共同的消费产品,如家用清洁剂、杀虫剂,和燃料(汽油),占更多的暴露和健康不良,但相对小公众的关注。
Several explanations exist for this difference in perceptions ,the major ones relating to the fact that the public uses a number of criteria other than health risk to establish its concerns .However ,this mismatch between real and perceived risks has significant consequences .In a world of finite financial resources ,when money is used to reduce risks that have little measurable health impact ,there is less to spend on interventions that address more significant risks. 几种解释这种差异存在于认知,主要的影响因素,公众使用许多健康风险以外的标准建立的担忧。然而,这和现实之间的不匹配风险具有显著的后果。在金融资源有限的世界,金钱是用来减少几乎没有可衡量的健康影响的风险,减少花在干预措施,解决更重要的风险。
Some researchers argue that the public is frequently misled by the politics of public health and environmental safety .This is understandable since many prominent people become involved in such issues and use their public image to encourage people to look at issues from a particular point of view.
一些研究人员认为,公众经常误导了公众健康和环境安全的政治。这是可以理解的因为许多名人参与等问题,并使用他们的公众形象鼓励人们从特定的角度看问题。
Whatever the issue , it is hard to ignore the will of the people ,particularly when sentiments are firmly held and not easily changed. A fundamental issue surfaces concerning the proper role of government and other organizations in a democracy when it comes to matters of risk. Should the government focus available resources and technology where they can have the greatest tangible impact on human and ecological well-being, or should it focus them on problems about which the public is most upset ?What is the proper
balance ?For example ,would adequate prenatal health care for all pregnant women have a greater effect on the health of children than removing asbestos from all school buildings?
不管是什么问题,很难忽视人民的意愿,特别是当情绪都很坚定,不会轻易改变。一个根本性的问题关于政府角色的适当的表面和其他组织在一个民主国家的问题时的风险。应该政府集中可用的资源和技术,他们可以对人类和生态健康最切实的影响,或者他们应该关注公众问题最难过?适当的平衡是什么?例如,适当的对所有孕妇产前保健会影响儿童的健康大于清除石棉从所有学校建筑吗?
Obviously, there are no clear answers to these questions .Experts and the public ,however ,are both beginning to realize that they each have something to offer to the debate .Many risk experts who have been accustomed to looking at numbers and probabilities are now conceding that a rationale exists for looking at risk in broader terms .At the same time ,the public is being supplied with more data to enable them to make