Search

In this paper, we examine discourse in public deliberations in pre-development locales in the UK and US about advantages and disadvantages of future shale development ('fracking'). We aimed to understand how people anticipate potential health effects, broadly construed, of environmental toxicity and disturbance in the context of planned, but not yet implemented, energy development. In day-long deliberations with small, diverse groups in two cities in each country (London, Cardiff in the UK; Los Angeles, Santa Barbara in the US), participants discussed impacts on health and well-being using three main rubrics: 'It's money or health', 'Why take chances?' and 'Beyond the tipping point'. Throughout, participants framed health as an intrinsically moral issue, with collective responsibility as a dominant normative frame. We identify the concept of compound risk to underscore effects of multiple risks and hazards on people's sensibilities about anticipated future health and environmental harm. The findings demonstrate how and why diverse publics in pre-impact sites in both countries saw shale extraction as high stakes development that poses significant, often unacceptable, risks to human and environmental health and well-being. Risks extended beyond toxicity to broad threats to health, including, for some, the end of life as we know it on the planet. Overall, participants' discussions of health were more connected to social categories and their underlying moral principles than to technological details. This work contributes evidence of blurred boundaries between environment and health as well as the importance people place on social risks in the context of proposed energy system change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study examines the demographic, economic, and psychographic characteristics of 324 blue-collar workers who were offered four options for either retirement or severance from the organization. Consistent with previous research, individuals who accepted retirement options have more organizational tenure and believed that the packages would provide stable financial futures. A key finding for those who accepted the nonretirement options is that comparable employment would be available. The study concludes with research limitations and suggestions for future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The overall nutritional quality of foods/drinks available at urban food pantries is not well established. In a study of 50 pantries listed as operating in the Bronx, NY, data on food/drink type (fresh, shelf-stable, refrigerated/frozen) came from direct observation. Data on food/drink sourcing (food bank or other) and distribution (prefilled bag vs. client choice for a given client's position in line) came from semi-structured interviews with pantry workers. Overall nutritional quality was determined using NuVal® scores (range 1-100; higher score indicates higher nutritional quality). Twenty-nine pantries offered zero nutrition at listed times (actually being closed or having no food/drinks in stock). Of the 21 pantries that were open as listed and had foods/drinks to offer, 12 distributed items in prefilled bags (traditional pantries), 9 allowed for client choice. Mean NuVal® scores were higher for foods/drinks available from client-choice pantries than traditional pantries (69.3 vs. 57.4), driven mostly by sourcing fresh items (at 28.3% of client-choice pantries vs. 4.8% of traditional pantries). For a hypothetical 'balanced basket' of one of each fruit, vegetable, grain, dairy and protein item, highest-NuVal® items had a mean score of 98.8 across client-choice pantries versus 96.6 across traditional pantries; lowest-NuVal® items had mean scores of 16.4 and 35.4 respectively. Pantry workers reported lower-scoring items (e.g., white rice) were more popular—appeared in early bags or were selected first—leaving higher-scoring items (e.g., brown rice) for clients later in line. Fewer than 50% of sampled pantries were open and had food/drink to offer at listed times. Nutritional quality varied by item type and sourcing and could also vary by distribution method and client position in line. Findings suggest opportunities for pantry operation, client and staff education, and additional research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]