Risk, defined precedence

Defining the risk assessment problem to be evaluated should precede entering the four-step process set out in Figure 7.1, Chapter 7. This means identifying the population that is to be the subject of the assessment, and specifying the conditions under which it is or may come to be exposed to a chemical or mixture of chemicals. Formulations of the problem might be similar to any of the five examples offered at the beginning of Chapter 7. 

The recommendations on waste classification should focus on concepts, principles, and approaches to implementation. Recommendations on approaches to using assumed limits on risk or dose to establish quantitative boundaries of waste classes expressed as limits on concentrations of hazardous substances would be presented, and precedents that could be used to define the assumed limits on risk or dose and to assess risk or dose for purposes of waste classification would be discussed. However, specific recommendations on values of any such limits and many of the considerations involved in establishing them would not be given, because this is properly the role of policy makers and regulatory authorities. 

Furthermore, the scientific proof of a negative is virtually impossible when fewer than an infinite number of patients have been studied. The more elusive problem, then, is to define acceptable uncertainty. Some of these decisions are based upon precedent rather than observation. Pharmacoepidemiology is often a useful source of precedents, as well as available for further, future study in the post-approval period to clarify residual questions and/or reduce the remaining uncertainty. While many of the activities described can then be orientated towards support of registration with fair and balanced labeling or education that is useful to the prescriber, recently regulators have requested and sponsors have proposed programs of risk... 

In defining clinical risk it should also be pointed out that the term varies its meaning depending on whether the definite or indefinite article precedes it. The definition presented above holds true when one talks about the clinical risk but from time to time we use the phrase a clinical risk to describe something which could give rise to harm. For example, We believe that the incorrect information on this screen represents a clinical risk . In most cases a more correct term would be hazard (i.e. a potential source of harm ). Nevertheless clinical risk is used so frequently in this way that to deem it incorrect invariably elicits an accusation of pedantry. Still, hazard is a preferable term in formal text to avoid any ambiguity especially when faced with awkward phrases such as the clinical risk of the clinical risk is low . 

The immediate causes of accidents are circumstances that immediately precede the contact with the source and flow of energy. They usually can be seen or sensed. Frequently they are called unsafe acts (behaviors that could permit the occurrence of an accident) and unsafe conditions (circumstances that could permit the occurrence of an accident). Modern managers tend to think a bit more broadly, and more professionally, in terms of high-risk practices and high-risk conditions, which are defined as deviations from an accepted standard or practice. 

The preceding description of LCIA alludes to risk characterization steps however, LCIA differs from risk assessment in several important respects [1]. LCIA seeks to link a system, as defined in the LCA, with potential effects in order to allow for a relative comparison of the potential impacts from alternative products or processes. LCIA is not designed to quantify accurately the risk of actual harm to an exposed population, ecosystem, or resource. 

---