APPENDIX D
Summary of Survey Responses

Where do scientists get more reliable data? In principle, there are several possible sources: the scientific literature is the most common source (76.67%) of POPs information followed by conferences (56.67%) and the Internet (43.33%). Mass media, such as magazines, newspapers, TV and radio were cited by only 30% of respondents as a source of information.


Since most pesticide POPs have not been used for many years and significant progress has been made in reducing emissions of POPs byproducts in the USA, many American participants are interested in POPs management policies aiming at new substances identified as POPs.


American participants indicated that the information and data on POPs are easily and quickly available. The Chinese participants noted that information on POPs is not easily available in China.


Participants indicated that POPs issues are not widely understood by the general public in either China or the US. POPs issues are widely understood by US government officials and by professionals and scientists in China.


Chinese respondents indicated that the lack of financial and technical supports are barriers to timely and effective information exchange. Among Chinese respondents, 27% indicated that language is an important barrier to information exchange on POPs but no Americans indicated that language was a barrier.


A complete summary of the survey responses is available in Chinese from the Ph.D. thesis (Zhang Hong, 2005) at the Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences.



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 31
Implementing the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants: Summary of a Workshop in China APPENDIX D Summary of Survey Responses Where do scientists get more reliable data? In principle, there are several possible sources: the scientific literature is the most common source (76.67%) of POPs information followed by conferences (56.67%) and the Internet (43.33%). Mass media, such as magazines, newspapers, TV and radio were cited by only 30% of respondents as a source of information. Since most pesticide POPs have not been used for many years and significant progress has been made in reducing emissions of POPs byproducts in the USA, many American participants are interested in POPs management policies aiming at new substances identified as POPs. American participants indicated that the information and data on POPs are easily and quickly available. The Chinese participants noted that information on POPs is not easily available in China. Participants indicated that POPs issues are not widely understood by the general public in either China or the US. POPs issues are widely understood by US government officials and by professionals and scientists in China. Chinese respondents indicated that the lack of financial and technical supports are barriers to timely and effective information exchange. Among Chinese respondents, 27% indicated that language is an important barrier to information exchange on POPs but no Americans indicated that language was a barrier. A complete summary of the survey responses is available in Chinese from the Ph.D. thesis (Zhang Hong, 2005) at the Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences.