written or spoken statements should clearly indicate the extent to which they represent the views of others.
Risk-communication efforts concerning waste-incineration facilities should be designed and conducted with an understanding that citizens and experts may have different values, not simply different levels of knowledge and understanding, and that the phenomenon of social distrust is broad, intense, and likely to continue.
Continued communication concerning a facility—during its development and operation, as well as in the proposal stage—may best be conducted with a citizens advisory group. However, small-group exchanges should supplement, not supplant, participatory opportunities for the general public.
Proponents of an incineration facility should assume, in their interactions with local communities, that they (the proponents) should make the case for the new or expanded facility, especially if a waste combustor is not used solely within a manufacturing facility to incinerate waste on site.
If a new or expanded facility is contemplated, local citizens might consider conducting their own assessments of the proposed facility and its effects through various approaches, including, for example, hiring independent consultants that members of the community trust, seeking technical-assistance grants from the government, or finding technical advisors who are acceptable to both sides.
Particular attention should be paid to equity issues when a facility is to be placed in a community that is already experiencing disproportionate health, environmental, and socioeconomic burdens.
Participatory programs should be evaluated by the participants and external researchers to identify elements that can be used with benefit elsewhere and elements that should be avoided.