Premium
Risk Perception and Human Health Risk in Rural Communities Consuming Unregulated Well Water in Saskatchewan, Canada
Author(s) -
Ford Lorelei,
Waldner Cheryl,
Sanchez Javier,
Bharadwaj Lalita
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
risk analysis
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.972
H-Index - 130
eISSN - 1539-6924
pISSN - 0272-4332
DOI - 10.1111/risa.13335
Subject(s) - risk perception , environmental health , tap water , perception , risk assessment , health risk , occupational safety and health , water supply , arsenic contamination of groundwater , medicine , psychology , environmental engineering , environmental science , arsenic , computer security , materials science , pathology , neuroscience , computer science , metallurgy
Rural communities dependent on unregulated drinking water are potentially at increased health risk from exposure to contaminants. Perception of drinking water safety influences water consumption, exposure, and health risk. A community‐based participatory approach and probabilistic Bayesian methods were applied to integrate risk perception in a holistic human health risk assessment. Tap water arsenic concentrations and risk perception data were collected from two Saskatchewan communities. Drinking water health standards were exceeded in 67% (51/76) of households in Rural Municipality #184 (RM184) and 56% (25/45) in Beardy's and Okemasis First Nation (BOFN). There was no association between the presence of a health exceedance and risk perception. Households in RM184 or with an annual income >$50,000 were most likely to have in‐house water treatment. The probability of consuming tap water perceived as safe (92%) or not safe (0%) suggested that households in RM184 were unlikely to drink water perceived as not safe. The probability of drinking tap water perceived as safe (77%) or as not safe (11%) suggested households in BOFN contradicted their perception and consumed water perceived as unsafe. Integration of risk perception lowered the adult incremental lifetime cancer risk by 3% to 1.3 × 10 −5 (95% CI 8.4 × 10 −8 to 9.0 × 10 −5 ) for RM184 and by 8.9 × 10 −6 (95% CI 2.2 × 10 −7 to 5.9 × 10 −5 ) for BOFN. Probability of exposure to arsenic concentrations >1:100,000, negligible cancer risk, was 23% for RM184 and 22% for BOFN.