The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Popular Epidemiology and Toxic Waste Contamination: Lay and Professional Ways of Knowing
Abstract
Building on a detailed study of the Woburn, Massachusetts, childhood leukemia cluster, this paper examines lay and professional ways of knowing about environmental health risks. Of particular interest are differences between lay and professional groups' definitions of data quality, methods of analysis, traditionally accepted levels of measurement and statistical significance, and relations between scientific method and public policy. This paper conceptualizes the hazard-detection and solution-seeking activities of Love Canal, Woburn, and other communities as popular epidemiology: the process by which lay persons gather data and direct and marshal the knowledge and resources of experts in order to understand the epidemiology of disease, treat existing and prevent future disease, and remove the responsible environmental contaminants. Based on different needs, goals, and methods, laypeople and professionals have conflicting perspectives on how to investigate and interpret environmental health data.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Popay, J., Rogers, A., & Williams, G. (1998) · Qualitative Health Research · doi:10.1177/104973239800800305 · Cited by 987
The Social Construction of Illness: Key Insights and Policy Implications
Conrad, P., & Barker, K. K. (2010) · Journal of Health and Social Behavior · doi:10.1177/0022146510383495 · Cited by 888
Leung, M. W. (2004) · International Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/ije/dyh010 · Cited by 565
Merz, S., Jaehn, P., Mena, E., Pöge, K., Strasser, S., Saß, A.-C., Rommel, A., Bolte, G., & Holmberg, C. (2023) · Critical Public Health · doi:10.1080/09581596.2021.1951668 · Cited by 56
Metadata
- Authors
- Brown, P.
- Venue
- Journal of Health and Social Behavior
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1992-09
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 267
- ISSN
- 0022-1465 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2143132840
- Cited by
- 658
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 16.18
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.