Understanding risk

Risk can be considered as the potential for adverse effects to result from an activity or an event. The risk in placing a bet on a horse race or buying a Lotto ticket is not in how much you are likely to win, but rather how much you are likely to lose. Generally, the acceptable level of risk is determined by what is prepared to be lost, balanced against possible gairts. People have different levels of acceptable risk across the full range of their interests and activities. This includes risks that are taken in the workplace. 

We often hear comparisorts being made between the death or injury experience associated with workplace hazards and those associated with road traffic accidents. In almost all circrrmstances, the road traffic death and injury rates will be higher. This comparison is used to indicate that the workplace is safer than the highway by demonstrating that the risks are lower. 

This statement is probably correct however, the point is often lost because comparisons are not made between like objects. Exposure to road traffic accidents is generally considered a matter of free choice. (This is a questionable assrrmption.) Exposrrre to hazards in the workplace is not cortsidered a matter of free choice. (The argrrmerrt of freedom to leave if you don t like it is invalid.) There is an apparent principle in risk-taking that the acceptance of risk varies greatly based on whether the risk taken is volim-tary or involuntary. There is resistance by workers to readily accept even low levels of involuntary risk. 

Some risks people are exposed to ate not as obvious as those associated with grinding discs, rutming machines or falls. Risks such as exposure to asbestos in school roorrrs, radiation from electrical equipment or from noise hazards are less obviotrs artd generally reqttire professional expertise in order to quantify the risk levels. 

Risk qrrantification of the above hazards requires the trse of techrrical eqrripmerrt and skill to determine the level of exposttre which can then be corttpared against a rele-varrt standard. The people carrying out the measirremerrt work must trse their judgement to ensttre the final results of exposttre to the hazards are commrmicated as accurate as possible. 

---

This section gives you information on inheritance patterns and understanding risk. 

Bell TE (2006) Understanding Risk Assessment of Nanotechnology. Available at http //nano.gov/ Understanding Risk Assessment.pdf... 

National Research Council. (1996) Understanding Risk Informing Decisions In a Democratic Society. Washington, National Academy Press. 

National Research Conned. 1996. Understanding risk informing decisions in a democratic society. Washington (DC) National Academy Press. 

Paling, J. 2003. Strategies to help patients understand risks. BMJ 327(7417) 745-748. 

Risks are associated with negative outcomes. A risk is anything that threatens the ability of a person or organization to accomplish its mission. To fully understand risk in one s life or business venture, one must realize that there are several factors related to defining a risk as... 

CCS may turn out to be one of the critical strategies for reducing net carbon emissions,2 or it may turn out to have shortcomings that limit its role. Work is under way worldwide to develop various separation and storage technologies, reduce projected costs, and understand risks. 

To appreciate the regulatory problems this approach leads to, it is important to understand that risk assessment was developed as a tool for carrying out risk management, rather than a scientific process for understanding risk. Thus, both the selection of the data to be used and the way these data are extrapolated to the usual human exposure situation, reflect both scientific and policy considerations. As a result, risk assessment results do not represent the best scientific estimates of risk, estimates that are subject to scientific consensus, but rather prudent values that incorporate margins of safety. These margins of safety are included to increase the likelihood that regulations based on these risk assessments will successfully protect the public and the environment. 

A more precautionary approach should be informed by the most appropriate science , which can be understood as a framework for choosing methods and tools chosen to fit the nature and complexity of the problem (Kriebel et al., 2003). Critical to this framework are the flexibility to integrate a variety of research methods and data sources into the problem evaluation, and to consult with many constituencies to understand the diversity of views on aproblem and seek input on alternative solutions. Appropriate science is solutions-based, focused on broadly understanding risks, but also on finding ways to prevent them in the first place. Under this approach, the limitations of science to fully characterize complex risks are openly acknowledged, making it more difficult to use incomplete knowledge to justify preventive actions. 

Understanding risk factors that make some individuals more susceptible to toxicity and incorporating these risk factors into computational models. This knowledge would be highly beneficial early in the R D process so that appropriate biomarkers or diagnostics can be established. 

Such considerations increase the time and cost of evaluation and conflict with commercial opportunism in seizing perceived market opportunities, but are valuable in assessing and understanding risk and are essential to sustainability assessment. 

Understanding Risk. It is important that the public understand the nature of risk. Explaining and illustrating the risks involved in toxic exposure, plus relating them to the risks of everyday life, is crucial if the public is to understand how to put risks for toxic exposures in context. Context is vital if people are to get... 

Kornacki, a. S. Nelson, K. C. 2000. Assessing the mix and the quality of crude oil and natural gas in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico. In Models for Understanding Risk. Ameriean Association of Petroleum Geologists Hedberg Research Conference, 1998, Galveston, Texas. 

Available at http //www.nano.gov/Understanding Risk Assessment.pdf. 

---