Where there’s smoke, there’s fire: focal points for risk communication

Figures & data

Figure 1. Composite expert and lay mental model of the processes contributing to risk and management of major fires.

Table 1. Socio-demographic characteristics of the interview sample (n = 15).

Label	Gender	Level of education ^a	Age	Region ^b	Profession/ main daily activity
L01	Male	Intermediate	60	Moerdijk	–
L02	Female	Intermediate	36	Moerdijk	Communications assistant
L03	Male	High	67	Moerdijk	Farmer
L04	Male	Intermediate	49	Moerdijk	Web advisor
L05	Female	Low	57	Moerdijk	–
L06	Male	Intermediate	40	Groningen	Logistics worker
L07	Female	High	59	Groningen	Manager HBO
L08	Male	Intermediate	27	Groningen	Student HBO
L09	Female	Intermediate	64	Groningen	Office worker
L10	Female	Intermediate	35	Groningen	Office worker
L11	Female	High	55	Amsterdam	–
L12	Female	Intermediate	54	Amsterdam	Auxiliary nurse
L13	Male	Intermediate	60	Amsterdam	Bank clerk
L14	Female	High	46	Amsterdam	Mother
L15	Female	Intermediate	49	Amsterdam	Office worker

^a Low = no or primary education, Intermediate = secondary education, High = tertiary education.

^b The 5 interviewees living in the potentially exposed area of the Moerdijk fire in 2011 were recruited from the population that contacted the Public Health Services either because of concerns or health complaints attributed to the exposure to smoke during and following the fire.

Table 2. Population characteristics of the online panel.

	N (%)
Number of participants	437 (100)
Male	234 (53.5)
Age 49.0 ± 16.0 (18–85)
Personally experienced a major fire in immediate vicinity	119 (27.2)
Level of education
Low	154 (35.2)
Intermediate	175 (40.0)
High	108 (24.7)

Table 3. Lay knowledge and beliefs about major fires –responses to expert (E) and lay (L) statements (n = 437).

	Don’t know n (%)	Probably or definitely true n (%) ^a	Probably or definitely not true n (%) ^a
I. Causes and exposure
1. Most major fires in the Netherlands are the result of human error. (E)	56 (12.8)	355 (81.3)	26 (5.9)
2. Wildfires result mainly from natural causes, such as lightning and heating. (E^False )	45 (10.3)	116 (26.5)	276 (63.2)
3. The concentration of harmful substances in fire smoke quickly diminishes with increasing distance to the fire. (E)	86 (19.7)	242 (55.4)	109 (24.9)
II Effects
4. White smoke is less harmful to health than black smoke. (E^False )	137 (31.4)	137 (31.3)	163 (37.3)
5. Smoke from a forest fire is as harmful as smoke from a chemical fire. (E)	59 (13.5)	75 (17.2)	303 (69.3)
6. It depends mainly on the amount of fire smoke inhaled, whether health will be affected adversely. (E)	23 (5.3)	299(68.4)	115 (26.3)
7. Sometimes people experience persisting symptoms following smoke inhalation. (L)	55 (12.6)	375(85.8)	7 (1.6)
8. There’s a big chance of getting cancer due to inhaling forest fire smoke. (E^False )	216 (49.4)	82 (18.8)	148 (31.8)
9. Smoke from a wildfire often adversely affects health even at a great distance from a forest fire. (E^False )	128 (29.3)	198 (45.3)	111 (25.4)
10. There’s a big chance of getting cancer due to inhaling chemical fire smoke. (L)	81 (18.5)	337 (77.1)	19 (4.3)
11. Smoke from a chemical fire often affects health adversely even at a great distance from a chemical fire. (L)	52 (11.9)	367 (84.0)	18 (4.1)
C. Response
12. It is often better to allow the fire to burn until all the fuel is consumed than to extinguish the fire with water. (E)	156 (35.7)	194 (44.4)	87 (19.9)
13. It is possible to assess within a day whether harmful substances are present in the deposited soot particles. (E^False )	77 (17.6)	293 (69.4)	57 (13.0)
14. Monitoring the components of smoke provides clarity on the health risk. (E^False )	39 (8.9)	379 (86.3)	21 (4.8)
15. In the case of a major fire, the mayor should ensure that communications with the public takes place. (E)	30 (6.9)	394 (90.1)	13 (3.0)
16. Harmful substances should immediately be monitored in the fire smoke in the case of a chemical fire. (L)	13 (3.0)	421 (96.3)	3 (0.7)
17. An expert doesn’t need the results of measurements to be able to assess potential health effects caused by a chemical fire. (E)	73 (16.7)	215 (49.2)	149 (34.1)

^a Participants were asked to indicate whether they thought the statements were true using 5 response categories ‘definitely true’, ‘probably true’, ‘definitely false’, ‘probably false’, and ‘don’t know’.

E^False False expert statement: to avoid response bias, we phrased some of the expert statements so that the statement was contrary to the expert consensus.

Statements in Italics: a significant greater proportion of participants that reported to have experienced a major fire in their immediate vicinity thought the statement to be probably or definitely true compared to those that did not.

Table 4. Expected health effects of fire smoke inhalation.

According to you what are the most important physical effects of inhaling smoke of fires? ^a	N (%)
1. Transient irritation of eyes and airways	381 (87.2)
2. Headache	341 (78.0)
3. Persisting airways complaints	331 (75.7)
4. Cancer	181 (41.4)
5. Adverse health effects of unborn child	139 (31.8)
6. Cardiovascular complaints	82 (18.8)
7. Allergy	60 (13.7)
8. Complaints of the bowels	24 (5.5)
9. Other ^b …	9 (2.1)

^a Multiple options possible.

^b Respiration difficulties, dizziness and loss of consciousness, effects everything, exacerbation of COPD, inside burns, lungs, irritation of eyes, damage to airways, reduced lung capacity.