Although much has been written about the physical health effects of toxic substances
and much research is underway today, there has not been a compilation of the social and
psychological effects that exposure to toxic substances
can engender. In September 1995, ATSDR co-sponsored with Emory University and
the Connecticut Department of Health, an expert panel workshop on the Psychological
Responses to Hazardous Substances. The purpose of
this workshop was to thoroughly explore and
examine all that is known about how communities
and individuals respond socially and psychologically
to hazardous substances and the possible effects
of those responses on their health.
To present a broad view of this complex and intertwined subject, many different
perspectives and viewpoints are presented. Both
community members and scientists from different
disciplines, including social, psychological, and
neurological, were invited to interact and present their
opinions. What emerged from the panels is an initial
attempt to define and discuss a newly emerging
public health issue how to respond to the
psychosocial distress in communities affected by exposures
to hazardous substances.
The approach taken during this workshop
reflects the complexity of the topic to be examined.
The workshop used the holistic biopsychosocial model as its underpinning philosophy.
This model, as opposed to the Cartesian dualistic model, which defines the body as separate
from the mind, assumes that health is an
intertwined, inseparable entity made up of
biological, psychological, and social factors. Therefore,
not only were physical factors (e.g., hazardous substances and their potential impact on
the nervous system) and the physical effects of psychological stress under discussion, but
also how psychological coping skills and social influences operating at Superfund sites can
affect the health of both individuals and communities.
The workshop consisted of three panels focusing on three sets of issues. Panel One
(Biomedical and Psychophysiological Effects) examined
the possible biological effects on the public's
health related to the chronic stress documented to
occur in communities near hazardous waste sites,
as well as how to perform neurobehavioral testing
to differentiate between neurotoxic effects of chemicals and psychological stress effects on
the nervous system. Panel Two (Community and Social Science Perspectives) discussed
how people respond psychologically to exposures to hazardous waste and the effect social and
cultural factors have on community reaction to
hazardous waste sites. Panel Three (Protecting
and Promoting Psychosocial Health) began developing public health strategies to prevent
and mitigate psychosocial distress related to exposures to hazardous substances.
The first panel had the task of examining the biological portion of the
biopsychosocial responses to exposure to hazardous substances.
This area involves many topics such as:
How does the chronic stress, described in studies of communities near hazardous
waste sites, affect public health, if at all? To what disease states would it render
people susceptible?
In cases where sufficient levels of community exposures to neurotoxins have
occurred (e.g., spills), can organic effects from exposure be differentiated from psychological effects of the trauma of being exposed to a spill or high-dose exposure?
The neurobiology panel noted the significant lack
of information available on the subjects they were given to consider. They stated that more studies
are needed on how often communities near hazardous waste sites suffer chronic stress reactions. There
is however much that is known about psychological stress and how it affects health. Psychological
stress causes both psychological changes that can
be measured by self-reports and objective tests as
well as physical changes such as increased blood pressure, heart rate, and biochemical
parameters (e.g., changes in stress hormones). Stress
reactions have been studied in both individuals
and communities near hazardous waste sites but the study of the full effect on the public's health,
in terms of specific disease outcomes, is still in
the very early stages.
The panel discussed ways to clinically examine
an exposed individual and differentiate whether or
not the results seen are from neurotoxic chemicals
or stress. The importance of careful
history-taking (especially to determine exposure parameters)
was emphasized as well as the importance of
correctly interpreting the results of neuropsychological
test batteries.
The second panel, Panel Two, was composed of psychologists, social scientists, and
community members, (along with all the other panels)
who outlined the unique aspects of the psychological
and social responses to toxic exposures and the
reasons behind these responses. One of the first and
most important points they emphasized was that the viewpoint of the exposed person is crucial
to understanding the diverse reactions that can
occur in affected communities; that community
members must be accepted as experts on their
own community. A second significant point made
was that the majority of the responses people have
to exposure to toxic substances are normal (i.e., normal people behaving normally in an
abnormal situation).
There are many reasons why psychosocial responses to hazardous substances are unique.
Unlike the damage and injuries caused by a
natural disaster, many toxic substances are invisible to
the senses. This invisibility results in feelings
of uncertainty. People cannot be sure without instrumentation if they have been exposed to a
toxin and to how much they have been exposed.
Also, due to the lag time between exposure and the appearance of a chronic disease related to
the exposure (e.g., mesothelioma as a result of
asbestos exposure), it is very difficult to relate past
exposure to subsequent disease. Health outcomes
therefore are uncertain and leave individuals with a loss
of control. Two areas where people have the most difficulty coping are with uncertainty and loss
of control.
In the face of no external cues and uncertain circumstances, each person affected by a
hazardous exposure develops their own beliefs about
the nature of the resultant harm. These beliefs are
based on the facts available to them, pre-existing
opinions, cultural factors, sensory cues, and the beliefs
of leaders and others in the community. On the
other hand, scientists tend to rely on objective
data produced by specialized testing that is subject
to statistical analysis. The results of surveys
and studies are highly technical and may be difficult
to explain to a lay audience that may not share
the same underlying beliefs and values as the
scientist. Also, technical experts may and frequently do
differ in their interpretation of the data.
This lack of external validity makes a shared community consensus (i.e., a common point
of view) difficult to achieve. Many sociologists
have noted that communities affected by hazardous exposures tend to split into factions
centered around shared viewpoints.
The generally long life cycle of a hazardous
waste site and slow response for clean up can also strain
a community's patience and lead to much
frustration. At the beginning or incubation period, the
threat exists but it is not recognized. During the
discovery phase, the hazard is discovered and the
community learns of its existence. At this point, unlike a
natural disaster, which hits and has a low point after
which recovery can begin, the response to a
hazardous waste site can take 12 to 20 years. The length
of this response tends to embed communities in a cycle of discovery, warning, threat, and impact
with eventual recovery taking place over a very
long period of time.
One theme repeatedly mentioned by community members and social scientists was the
importance of understanding how each community is
affected individually by its nearby hazardous waste
site. Culture can have a strong effect both on how government agencies involved in the
Superfund process are perceived and on how the
community responds to the contamination. For
example, contamination may disrupt traditional lifestyles
and ties to the land and result in much more than physical or economic damage to a community
or tribe. Cultural considerations also must be
taken into account in communicating and working
with communities.
The third panel, Panel Three, was composed of psychologists, disaster relief specialists,
and community members and looked at solutions to
the problems facing communities and tribes affected
by toxic substances. One cause of the
demoralization found in Superfund communities is a feeling
of isolation because many people have not shared
the experience of what possible exposure to toxic substances is like. Another cause is the difficulty
of working with and trusting a complicated, multi-agency cleanup process. Panel Three made
many suggestions for solutions based on past
experience with disaster relief work:
A community needs assessment based on listening to the desires of a community is the critical first step in shaping the design of intervention and adapting an intervention to fit a community. The community's permission and input should be obtained before implementing any interventions to reduce stress in the communities.
The 14 key concepts of disaster mental health are crucial to guiding interventions in communities near hazardous waste sites. The key concept of disaster relief is that disaster stress is a normal response to an abnormal situation and that most people involved in a disaster require practical assistance dealing with problems engendered by the disaster. There needs to be recognition of the special problems of Superfund communities.
There are specific strategies that have been used in relief work for natural disasters for many years that could be modified to use with communities affected by
hazardous substances. These include early intervention, validation of the reality of disaster-related stress, educating people about the normality of disaster-related stress, allowing people to tell their story, and involving the community in the design of disaster relief activities.
A primary way to prevent or lessen demoralization in these situations is to help citizens gain a true sense of control over their situation. As much as possible, residents need to be involved in the decision-making and problem-solving processes involved in the public health response to and the cleanup of their community.
Education regarding the normality of stress related to hazardous substance exposures needs to be given to both community members
and responders from the various agencies involved.
Disagreement existed among the experts
regarding the amount of data available on the range
of psychosocial reactions at hazardous waste
sites. Some felt the evidence was overwhelming,
others felt there was a need for more precise epidemiological studies measuring the levels
of stress in communities near hazardous waste
sites. Panel One outlined many data gaps, which, if
filled, would clarify the public health significance
of psychosocial distress following exposure to hazardous waste sites. To fill these
gaps, instruments are needed to
measure stress in communities affected by hazardous exposures;
determine how special populations such as the elderly, children, and ethnic groups
respond psychologically to hazardous exposures;
estimate the time course of the chronic stress reaction at these sites;
determine how health outcomes related to the stress of the exposures can be
quantified;
establish long-term studies of the physical effects of neurotoxic substances on the
developing nervous system; and
understand how aging affects the nervous system's response to
neurotoxins.
Panel Two emphasized the strong need to understand how culture affects an individual's
and community's psychosocial responses to
hazardous substances and to the chance of exposure to
toxins due to different lifestyles. This panel also stated
the need to respect each community's values. The
third panel identified program evaluation as an
important area to develop when implementing public
health intervention strategies designed to reduce stress.
At the conclusion of the workshop, ATSDR identified five future steps to address the issue
of psychosocial effects in communities near
hazardous waste sites:
Produce a proceedings of this expert panel workshop,
Publish articles in the scientific literature regarding the psychosocial effects found in
communities exposed to hazardous substances,
Write a training handbook for local and state public health officials on ways to minimize stress
in Superfund communities,
Develop direct interventions in communities faced with exposures to hazardous substances,
and
Develop and implement an overall public health strategy to help prevent and mitigate
psychosocial distress found in Superfund communities.
This workshop was the first step in the implementation of ATSDR's Division of
Health Education and Promotion's Psychological
Effects Program. The Program comprises a 4-phased approach: Phase 1-Define current science and practice, Phase 2-Develop an action plan, Phase
3-Implement a public health action plan, Phase
4-Build capacity and evaluation efforts.
The Psychological Effects Program will provide communities with the basic information necessary
to help them cope with the stress of environmental contamination and potential relocation because
of environmental hazards. The Program will also provide training for health care providers,
social workers, and others to ensure they have the information needed to help reduce adverse
health effects associated with the stress from exposure
or possible exposure to hazardous substances.