Communication with risk managers

The exposure of the target population to PBLx has been assessed by a group of internationally recognized experts. The estimate of the exposure is 0.34 pg/kg body weight per day (see Appendix l). Normally, this value is communicated with an estimate of toxicity or together with toxicology-based target values, such as, for example, reference dose (RfD) or acceptable daily intake (ADI). 

The estimated exposure is based on some conservative assumptions, but it is not possible to specify the degree of conservatism, owing to the limitations of the available data. 

It is clear that the factors impacting exposure are much more complex than those described in the conceptual model. However, simplification was necessitated by limitations of the available data. 

As part of this exercise, the extent to which the different uncertainties may interact was considered. Therefore, although the level of uncertainty of the model assumptions, structure and details was characterized as Low when considered in isolation, the uncertainty of subsequent considerations (i.e. model extrapolations, chemical-specific exposure data, non-chemical-specific exposure data and exposure assessment result) was considered to be a function primarily of limitations (i.e. simplicity) of the conceptual model. 

The uncertainty varies according to the considered sources and characteristics of uncertainty, as shown in Table Al.2. 

---

This model has been extensively used to assess all human health risks, including reproduction and developmental toxicity (USEPA, 1991 IPCS, 1999a, 200Id) and neurodevelopmental toxicity (USEPA, 1998 IPCS, 2001b). The importance of the interactions of risk assessment with risk management and risk communication has been recognized (NRC, 1994 Renwick et al., 2003). 

Other situations of gradual risk do not involve health but the environment at large, with costs pending on one group of citizens or industries in the acid rain case, conservation of forests and lakes is traded off against increased costs of electricity or energy for the community. The risk management step of any public health problem is thus faced with choices and priorities simultaneous decisions have to be taken by an authority. 

Clear communication by risk managers, in collaboration with ecological risk assessors, to the public of the scientific basis and ecological relevance of the assessment endpoints used in ERA, and the measures used to determine whether risks present are acceptable or unacceptable. 

LindeU s work discussed the fact that people do not take information from expert sources at face value and introduced a need to consider both information about earthquake risk and preparedness and the qualify of the (communication) relationship between the sources and recipients of earthquake risk information. An important contextual element of this relationship is that it occurs under conditions of uncertainty. People may have no or limited experience of earthquakes, and the infrequent nature of earthquake activity makes it impossible for them to independently test the validity of the information about risk and preparedness. Under these circumstances, an important aspect of the relationship between source of information and its recipients is the degree to which recipients trust sources of information. Levels of risk acceptance and people s willingness to take responsibility for their own safety is increased, and decisions to take steps to actively manage their risk more likely, if people believe that their relationship with risk management agencies is fair and empowering (e.g., agencies are perceived as trustworthy, as... 

In essence, the earlier components of this overall assessment process are mainly deterministic in character (albeit with some probabilistic elements), whereas the later stages are mainly probabilistic. Not all elements of the process are quantifiable (with any degree of confidence), however and the socicii-political-cultural context of any downstream decision-making process may be intensely uncertain. Such uncertainties make the process of risk communication and debate a complex and sometimes unpredictable undertaking. It is essential therefore that those elements of the risk management process that cein be objectively einalysed and evaluated (either qualitatively or quantitatively, as appropriate) are so assessed. 

An important part of the risk management process involves informing consumers, industry and other stakeholders of the decisions made by regulatory authorities. However, this is a narrow view of risk communication that does not take into account the potential for dialogue between interested parties that can result in better decision-making. Understanding how consumers view the potential risks associated with food additives can help to avoid either under- or over-regulation. 

A short synopsis of the overall emergency management structure, how other industrial emergency response, contingency, and risk management plans fit into the ERP for chemical emergencies, and applicable policies, procedures, actions plans, and reference documents should be cited. Policies should include interconnect agreements with adjacent communities and just how the ERP may affect them. 

ENDS Report 308, September 2000. NEC unveils circuit boards free of halogen or phosphorus compounds ENDS Report 308, September 2000. NEC unveils circuit boards free of halogen or phosphorus compounds Personal communication with Magnus Bjork, IKEA, at Brominated Flame Retardants and Foam Furniture Conference and Roundtable EPA 9. San Francisco, April 2003 Personal communication with HP, H M, Boots and Sainsbury, May-June 2003 Skanska (2004) Press release from Johan Gerklev, Environmental Manager, Skanska Sweden, December 12004 Skanska (2002). Brandforsk project 706-021. See www.skanska.se UBA (2003). Precautionary Risk... 

Risk management combines the risk assessment with economic, political, public opinion, and other considerations to determine a course of action. These judgments seldom satisfy everyone. The principles of toxicology form the foundation for the risk assessment and ultimately for the risk management decisions. Individual and community involvement in the decision-making process is a critical part of developing sound policies to minimize risks to people and the environment. 

Risk management is the process of deciding what to do to reduce a known or suspected risk. Risk management balances the various community demands with the scientific information generated from the risk assessment. Public perception of risk is also considered. Table 19.2 characterizes some of the factors that influence perception of risk. An individual s perception of risk is sometimes very different from a risk... 

Questions 2 and 3 imply a choice between expressing effects in terms of magnitude, frequency, and certainty. In practice, the assessment endpoint may often need to be dehned in terms of 2 or 3 of these dimensions. For example, it may be desirable to estimate the proportion of species (frequency) that will experience different levels of mortality (magnitude), and to provide confidence limits (certainty). Indeed, the risk manager s questions may imply an assessment endpoint with more than 3 dimensions, for example, if it is desired to express frequency in terms of space (e.g., number of hectares) and time (proportion of years). The dimensionality of the assessment endpoint will have major implications for all aspects of the analysis and for communication of results, so it is essential to discuss it carefully with the risk manager at the outset to ensure it meets their needs. 

The analysis plan should specify not only how the analysis will be conducted, but also how the results will be presented. Indeed, the way results will be communicated will usually influence the choice of both model structure and analysis method and is ultimately driven by the information needs of risk managers and other stakeholders and their management goals (see Figure 2.2). Careful advance planning for the communication of results is especially important for probabilistic assessments because they are more complex than deterministic assessments and less familiar to most audiences. It may be beneficial to present probabilistic and deterministic assessments together, to facilitate familiarization with the newer approaches. 

Irrespective of the risk, assumptions and decisions will have to be made because of uncertainty. Implications of attempting to characterize all variability and uncertainty in the risk assessment need to be considered. For example, exaggerating uncertainties can obscure the scientific basis of risk management decisions, leaving the impression that the decision has been arbitrary in nature (NRC 1989). The purpose of the uncertainty factor together with the type of assessment (e.g., deterministic or probabilistic, protective or best estimate) must be clearly communicated. Uncertainty factors can be described in 3 categories ... 

---