Threshold of unacceptability

As a basis for the determination of risk it must be assumed that the colorants are properly handled and applied. It is not appropriate to estimate risk primarily on the basis of exposure values obtained under improper working conditions, or where appropriate plant and equipment are not available. Ensuring satisfactory operating conditions and training of operatives to handle products correctly is essential nowadays for technological success as well as for health and safety requirements. In this way, exposure levels can be kept below the threshold of unacceptable risk. It is reasonable to accept that for practical purposes levels of exposure exist below which the risk becomes trivial [67]. 

Reducing uncertainty is usually expensive. Therefore, an iterative process should be used to conduct the minimal amount of analyses that are necessary to characterize and reduce uncertainty to the point where an informed decision can be made. The point where a decision can be made with acceptable uncertainty will depend on the threshold of acceptability and threshold of unacceptability. ... 

Communication between risk managers, risk assessors, and analysts is essential from the start of the assessment process, not just in communicating results. For example, the choice of uncertainty analysis methods will be dependent on 1) the questions posed by decision makers, 2) the closeness of the risk estimate and its bounds to thresholds of acceptability or unacceptability, 3) the type of decision that must be made, and 4) the consequences of the decision. 

The general scheme for the technical evaluation is to take each receptor and to describe the level of risk that is presented to it by sources within the site. This leads to a set of key pollutant linkages that drive the overall risk from the site. By reviewing the criteria for identification of unacceptable risk for these key linkages—in terms of the certainty of threshold values, the impact of wrong risk assessment decisions on costs and the quality of site-specific information—a robust risk evaluation framework can be set for identifying unacceptable risk. 

A peak sound pressure of above 200 pascals or about 120dB is considered unacceptable and 130dB is the threshold of pain for humans. If a person has to shout to be understood at 2 metres, the background noise is about 85 dB. If the distance is oniy 1 metre, the noise level is about 90dB. Continuous noise at work causes deafness, makes people Irritable, affects concentration, causes fatigue and accident proneness, and may mask sounds which need to be heard in order to work efficientiy and safely. 

The Failure transition will be fired based upon the criteria of unacceptable system performance. This is set at a lifetime of less than 5000 hours with more than a 5% drop in cell performance over that time as per the US DoF target discussed in section 1.2. If this target threshold is exceeded, the transition will fire into the Failed state and end the simulation run. 

If desalinated seawater that contains bromide of levels above 0.2 mg/L is disinfected by ozonation, the ozonated water contains unacceptably high levels of bromate and is typically above the threshold of 10 mg/L, considered suitable for human consumption. Another... 

Acknowledgment that mixtures may cause risks that are not fully covered by single compound evaluations does not automatically imply that mixture assessments should be performed for all potential mixture exposures. This depends on the problem at hand, the specific exposure situation, and the available information. If a regulator must make a decision about the remediation of 1 contaminated soil plot, and it is already known that one of the mixture components exceeds the remediation threshold, and this fact results in a need for remedial action itself, then a mixture assessment is redundant. Mixture assessment for contaminated soils (and other compartments and exposure routes) is useful if the known individual components do not exceed their respective thresholds, but if it is suspected that the overall mixture may still cause unacceptable adverse effects, and in case risk managers have a limited budget for a large number of contaminated sites, that is, when they have to prioritize the most hazardous sites to be remediated first, while other sites should possibly be subject to simple risk reduction measures. The situation is different for mixture emissions. Here, potential mixture effects should always be addressed because the aim was and is to establish an emission level that is lower than a certain (acceptable) effect level. 

Perceptual defenses are a form of defense mechanism that works to keep us unaware of events in the outside world that would arouse unpleasant or unacceptable emotions in us. The effect was first noticed experimentally in some studies of perceptual thresholds. If a word is... 

An alternative explanation for these higher thresholds was not that they took greater stimulus intensity (longer flashes) to perceive but that the social unacceptability of the words made the subjects more reluctant to voice them until they were quite certain. Further research showed that this accounts for part of the delay, but there is still a perceptual defense factor. More direct evidence for perceptual defense comes from the fact that physiological reactions associated with emotions, like quick changes in the electrical resistance of the skin, can sometimes be seen when emotionally threatening words are presented that are well below a subject s conscious perception threshold. 

Decide on an evaluation scheme for each source, stressor, and habitat to allow the calculation of risk to the assessment endpoints. There has to be a scheme for evaluating sources, stressors, and habitats and translating this into a risk calculation. There are many methods, typically using quotients between an observed concentration and a concentration deemed as a threshold above which an unacceptable effect will occur. As previously discussed, this quotient method has drawbacks. Ranking methods are also available as previously discussed. 

The (unacceptable) linear extrapolation model of radiation risk represents only one of several examples showing that the old dogma based on the assumption of no threshold for genotoxic carcinogens does not hold true in all cases. Such considerations stimulated opposition against the no threshold assumption inherent in extrapolating risk linearly to the zero dose intercept. Several examples have been published in Science ... 

---