Home Page Virtual Tour Departments Personnel Projects Website Index

Table 25. Prevalence of Radiation Therapy Received in Past 3 Months by Adults
Surveyed in Carlsbad, Loving-Malaga, and Hobbs, New Mexico

  Carlsbad   Loving-Malaga   Hobbs
Category n (percent)   n (percent)   n (percent)
                 
Had radiation therapy                
Yes
29
(4.0)
  
5
(2.2)
  
7
(2.0)
No
686
(95.4)
  
219
(97.3)
  
340
(98.0)
Don't know / declined
4
(0.6)
  
1
(0.4)
  
0
(0.0)
                 
Type of treatment                
Radiation therapy
4
(13.8)
  
1
(0.2)
  
0
(0.0)
Injection of tracer
10
(34.5)
  
1
(0.2)
  
0
(0.0)
Ingestion of tracer
4
(13.8)
  
1
(0.2)
  
2
(28.6)
Other
11
(37.9)
  
2
(0.4)
  
5
(71.4)
                 

Table 26. Prevalence of Adults in Carlsbad and Loving-Malaga, New Mexico Who Reported Ever Having Been Employed in Occupations With a Potential for Exposure to
Radioactive or Chemically Hazardous Materials

Occupation / Industry Men (total n=354) Women (total n=587) Wore Dosimeter Urine tested
         
Underground uranium mining
10
3
1
1
Underground coal mining
10
3
1
1
Underground potash mining
121
9
2
0
Other underground mining
30
4
1
1
Above ground mining
68
14
1
1
         
Military service
118
12
5
6
Military weapons operations
48
1
5
3
Military weapons testing
10
0
2
1
Military waste handling
3
0
2
0
Military power reactors
8
0
5
2
         
Medical / dental occupations
25
92
9
4
         
Oil and gas exploration / production
72
13
3
5
Geological work
24
6
2
1
         
Haz. waste handling / disposal
36
12
8
6
         
Rad. waste handling / disposal
15
8
3
1
         
Nuclear fuel production
2
1
2
1
Commercial nuclear power plant
4
4
1
1
         
Nuclear weapons prod. / testing
5
2
1
1
National laboratories
6
3
1
1
         
Biomedical research
1
0
0
0
         

 

Table 27. Prevalence of Adults in Hobbs, New Mexico Who Reported Ever
Having Been Employed in Occupations With a Potential for Exposure to
Radioactive or Chemically Hazardous Materials

Occupation / Industry Men (total n=124) Women (total n=211) Wore Dosimeter Urine tested
         
Underground uranium mining
0
2
0
0
Underground coal mining
1
2
0
0
Underground potash mining
8
2
0
0
Other underground mining
2
2
0
0
Above ground mining
6
1
0
0
         
Military service
38
3
3
2
Military weapons operations
17
0
0
0
Military weapons testing
2
0
0
0
Military waste handling
1
0
0
0
Military power reactors
1
0
0
0
         
Medical / dental occupations
11
41
4
1
         
Oil and gas exploration / production
74
14
10
3
Geological work
14
0
0
0
         
Haz. waste handling / disposal
20
2
1
0
         
Rad. waste handling / disposal
4
0
1
0
         
Nuclear fuel production
1
2
1
0
Commercial nuclear power plant
1
0
1
1
         
Nuclear weapons prod. / testing
1
1
0
0
National laboratories
1
1
1
0
         
Biomedical research
4
1
0
0
         

 

Table 28. Perceptions of Quality of Life and Environment Among Adults Surveyed
in Carlsbad, Loving-Malaga, and Hobbs, New Mexico

  Percent
Perception Poor 1 Fair 2 Good 3 Very good 4 Excellent 5 Don't know
             
Community as a place to live            
Carlsbad 2.2 7.2 25.0 40.9 24.1 0.6
Loving-Malaga 1.8 7.1 34.7 32.9 23.1 0.4
Hobbs 3.2 21.3 32.9 30.8 11.5 0.3
             
             
  Very dirty
1		 2 3 4 Very Clean
5		 Don't know
             
Cleanliness of air            
Carlsbad 0.7 2.1 14.3 36.7 44.4 1.8
Loving-Malaga 3.1 3.1 12.4 30.7 50.2 0.4
Hobbs 4.0 8.1 27.7 33.4 25.4 1.4
             
Cleanliness of water            
Carlsbad 1.5 5.0 21.4 32.4 38.4 1.3
Loving-Malaga 4.4 9.3 18.2 29.3 38.2 0.4
Hobbs 3.2 7.8 25.9 37.2 23.6 2.3
             
Cleanliness of soil            
Carlsbad 2.5 5.1 22.1 31.8 28.8 9.6
Loving-Malaga 2.2 2.2 27.6 24.4 37.8 5.8
Hobbs 2.6 9.8 26.8 33.7 19.3 7.8
             
             

Table 29. Levels of Concern on Issues of Environmental Quality and Health as Expressed
by Adults Surveyed in Carlsbad, Loving- Malaga, and Hobbs, New Mexico

  Percent
  Not at all concerned       Very concerned Don’t know/refused 
  1 2 3 4 5  
             
Pollution in the environment            
Carlsbad
6.7
4.0
18.2
20.6
48.4
2.1
Loving/Malaga
9.3
4.4
12.0
16.4
56.9
0.9
Hobbs
6.9
5.5
19.1
19.1
49.4
0.9
Possibility of getting cancer             
Carlsbad            
Loving/Malaga
12.5
8.5
21.0
14.3
40.6
3.1
Hobbs
11.6
6.2
13.8
15.6
51.1
1.3
Toxic waste
14.7
7.8
17.1
13.6
45.1
1.7
Carlsbad            
Loving/Malaga
14.9
8.2
16.7
16.3
41.4
2.5
Hobbs
12.9
8.0
16.0
11.6
49.3
1.8
Chemicals in your food
9.0
8.7
17.9
14.2
47.7
2.6
Carlsbad
Loving/Malaga
13.9
6.7
20.2
20.9
36.6
1.8
Hobbs
8.7
8.1
20.2
19.1
41.6
2.3
Possibility of having a heart attack 
9.3
7.6
19.1
14.2
46.7
2.7
Carlsbad            
Loving/Malaga
19.2
12.7
20.7
14.9
31.6
1.0
Hobbs
15.6
9.8
17.3
18.2
37.8
0.9
Contaminants in your water 
16.5
14.7
17.9
12.1
38.2
0.6
Carlsbad            
Loving/Malaga
17.2
11.8
19.3
17.2
31.8
2.5
Hobbs
16.4
8.4
16.4
13.8
43.6
0.9
Risk of birth defects 
13.9
9.0
22.0
16.2
37.3
1.7
Carlsbad            
Loving/Malaga
39.2
7.6
15.4
8.6
26.3
2.8
Hobbs
34.7
8.4
11.6
10.7
32.0
2.2
Radioactive waste
32.4
10.1
11.8
6.6
35.8
3.2
Carlsbad            
Loving/Malaga
22.3
11.4
15.9
14.2
33.7
2.6
Hobbs
18.7
7.6
18.7
8.9
42.2
3.6
Use of pesticides
16.5
10.4
17.3
12.1
41.3
2.3
Carlsbad            
Loving/Malaga
15.7
11.1
24.1
20.0
27.7
1.4
Hobbs
17.8
8.9
18.2
17.8
34.2
2.7
 
13.6
10.4
22.5
18.8
32.9
1.7
             

 

Table 30. Proportions of Adults Willing to Give Samples of Blood or Urine Among Households Surveyed in Carlsbad, Loving-Malaga, and Hobbs, New Mexico

  Frequency (Percent)
  Yes   No   Don't know/refused
  n (percent)   n (percent)   n (percent)
                 
Carlsbad
445
(61.9)
  
246
(34.2)
  
28
(3.9)
Loving/Malaga
143
(63.6)
  
78
(34.7)
  
4
(1.8)
Hobbs
195
(56.2)
  
137
(39.5)
  
15
(4.3)
                 
                 

 

Table 31. Authenticity and Level of Agreement for Supervisor Call-backs to Households
Surveyed in Carlsbad, Loving-Malaga, and Hobbs, New Mexico

Carlsbad and Loving-Malaga Agreement
  Frequency (n)* (Percent)
     
Authentic call 150 / 150 100
     
Height 150 / 150 100
     
Ever smoked cigarettes 147 / 150 98.0
     
Willingness to give samples of urine and blood 149 /150 99.3
     
     
Hobbs Agreement
  Frequency (n)* (Percent)
     
Authentic call 25 / 25 100
     
Height 23 / 25 92.0
     
Ever smoked cigarettes 22 / 25 88.0
     
Willingness to give samples of urine and blood 21 / 25 84.0
     
 * The denominator size varies according to the original response of the subjects and the number of reasons cited in the open-ended request for rationale for their answers.   Table 32. Level of Acceptance of Survey Estimated from Supervisor Call-backs to 150 Households Surveyed in Carlsbad and Loving-Malaga, New Mexico
Agreement
  Frequency (n)* (Percent)
     
Acceptance of occupation question    
Fine, reasonable, helpful to researchers, neutral 175 / 214
81.8
Question did not apply to me, I do not work 26 / 214
12.1
Question seemed irrelevant, too personal 18 / 214
6.1
List of occupations was too long 0 / 214
0.0
     
Reasons willing to give samples    
Help researchers, community, environment 97 / 117
83.0
Help self 12 / 117
10.2
Convenient; no reason not to give; nothing to hide 8 / 117
6.8
     
Reasons unwilling to give samples    
Medical condition prohibits or too old 21 / 45
46.6
No personal need for test 14 / 45
31.1
Concern with confidentiality 7 / 45
15.5
Too busy 3 / 45
6.8
     
Interest in answering our questions    
Very interested 45 / 150
30.0
Somewhat interested 69 / 150
46.0
Neither interested or disinterested 18 / 150
12.0
Somewhat disinterested 9 / 150
6.0
Very disinterested 6 / 150
4.0
Don't know / refused 3 / 150
2.0
     
Reasons cited for being interested in survey    
Help with health, help the community 44 / 120
36.6
Interested in the environment 31 / 120
25.8
Curiosity about the study 23 / 120
19.2
Interviewer was courteous and concise 11 / 120
9.2
Other reasons 11 / 120
9.2
     
Reasons cited for being disinterested in survey    
No interest in the study topic 24 /39
61.5
No real interest but still willing to help researchers 8 / 39
20.5
Too old to be interested 4 / 39
10.4
No particular reason 3 / 39
7.6
     
 * The denominator size varies according to the original response of the subjects and the number of reasons cited in the open-ended request for rationale for their answers.
 
 

Table 33. Level of Acceptance of Survey Estimated from Supervisor Call-backs to 25 Households Surveyed in Hobbs, New Mexico

  Agreement
  Frequency (n)* (Percent)
     
Acceptance of occupation question    
Relevant to survey, don't remember question, neutral 19 / 25
76.0
Seemed to be about the WIPP, about if I'm contaminated 4 / 25
16.0
Question seemed irrelevant, not specific enough 2 / 25
8.0
List of occupations was too long 0 / 25
0.0
Reasons willing to give samples    
Help researchers, community, environment 10 / 16
62.5
Convenient, no reason not to give 5 / 16
31.3
Interested in personal health information 2 / 16
12.5
Don't know 1 / 16
6.3
     
Reasons unwilling to give samples    
Too busy 3 / 8
37.5
Don't want to 3 / 8
37.5
Don't know, don't remember question 1 / 8
12.5
Invasion of privacy 1 / 8
12.5
     
Interest in answering our questions    
Very interested 6 / 25
24.0
Somewhat interested 12 / 25
48.0
Neither interested or disinterested 4 / 25
16.0
Somewhat disinterested 1 / 25
4.0
Very disinterested 1 / 25
4.0
Don't know / refused 1 / 25
4.0
     
Reasons cited for being interested in survey    
Topic interesting/important 8 / 18
44.4
Improve community health and the environment 6 / 18
33.3
Felt their opinion was important 1 / 18
5.6
Survey was professional 1 / 18
5.6
Other reasons 3 / 18
16.7
     
Reasons cited for being disinterested in survey    
No personal meaning/interest 3 / 7
42.9
Too long 2 / 7
28.6
Interviewer pushy/impatient 2 / 7
28.6
Survey was intrusive 1 / 7
14.3
Don't know 1 / 7
14.3
 * The denominator size varies according to the original response of the subjects and the number of reasons cited in the open-ended request for rationale for their answers.
 
 

Table 34. Characteristics of Households and Adults Surveyed in Carlsbad, Loving-Malaga,
and Hobbs, New Mexico, and 1990 Census Figures for Residents of Carlsbad, Hobbs,
and Loving, New Mexico


Survey 1990 Census
Carlsbad   Loving-Malaga Hobbs City Carlsbad Loving-Malaga Hobbs City
(percent)   (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent)
Gender**
Male: 36.9   39.6 38.6 48.0 53.5 48.4
Female: 62.7   60.4 61.4 52.0 46.5 51.6
Ethnicity**              
Hispanic white: 9.7   35.6 13.3 33.4 77.8 30.1
non-Hispanic white: 83.2   55.1 77.5 63.0 21.2 61.5
Age 60 or over**: 44.3   27.1 33.1 33.7 24.9 20.4
Homes              
Freestanding/single family: 81.2   72.5 79.5 77.9 80.6 73.0
Mobile: 10.6   23.6 12.1 6.5 15.9 10.4
3 or more bedrooms: 66.9   65.6 76.3 50.4 46.3 54.5
Built in 1950 or later: 72.5   69.1 75.4 75.6 78.5 89.0
Water Source              
Municipal: 82.5   75.8 62.2 99.8 100.0 98.4
Private well: 5.0   5.5 26.0 1.1 0.0 1.6
Neighborhood well: 5.5   9.9 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0
Bottled: 6.6   7.1 9.4 0.0 0.0 0.0
Education beyond high school**: 53.2   40.4 53.9 23.4 7.0 23.0
Employment* **              
Employed: 45.1   54.2 55.6 91.5 89.3 92.4
Unemployed: 16.4   19.6 15.0 8.5 10.7 7.6
Occupation/Industry**              
Mining: 17.1   17.6 4.1 14.9 14.5 18.9
Mgmt/professional: 29.1   18.7 36.7 23.2 9.3 22.7
Tech./sales/admin.: 15.2   8.0 19.4 26.4 21.4 26.4
Farm/forestry/fishing: 1.5   12.4 0.3 1.7 6.6 1.6
Service: 12.4   16.9 9.2 15.0 22.6 10.8
* Employment figures for 1990 Census are for individuals 16 years or older. Survey figures are for individuals 18 years and older.
** Survey figures reported by all participating adults.

 

Table 35. Reported Frequencies of Households with Published and Unpublished Telephone Numbers
by Ethnicity Among Survey Participants in Hobbs, New Mexico
 

  Published   Unpublished
Ethnicity n percent   n percent
           
Hispanic White 28 13.1   21 29.6
           
Non-Hispanic White 174 81.3   48 67.6
           
Other 12 5.6   2 2.8
           

Tables 1 - 12
Tables 13 - 24
Main Report