Chemical and Radiation Environmental Risk Management: Differences, Commonalities, and Challenges

Driven by differing statutory mandates and programmatic separation of regulatory responsibilities between federal, state, and tribal agencies, distinct chemical and radiation risk management strategies have evolved. In the field this separation poses real challenges since many of the major environmental risk management decisions we face today require the evaluation of both types of risks. Over the last decade, federal, state, and tribal agencies have continued to discuss their different approaches and explore areas where their activities could be harmonized. The current framework for managing public exposures to chemical carcinogens has been referred to as a "bottom up approach." Risk between 10(-4) and 10(-6) is established as an upper bound goal. In contrast, a "top down" approach that sets an upper bound dose limit and couples with site specific As Low As Reasonably Achievable Principle (ALARA), is in place to manage individual exposure to radiation. While radiation risk are typically managed on a cumulative basis, exposure to chemicals is generally managed on a chemical-by-chemical, medium-by-medium basis. There are also differences in the nature and size of sites where chemical and radiation contamination is found. Such differences result in divergent management concerns. In spite of these differences, there are several common and practical concerns among radiation and chemical risk managers. They include 1) the issue of cost for site redevelopment and long-term stewardship, 2) public acceptance and involvement, and 3) the need for flexible risk management framework to address the first two issues. This article attempts to synthesize key differences, opportunities for harmonization, and challenges ahead.     

Demographic Influences on Risk Perceptions

Over the past 15 years, psychologists have empirically investigated how people perceive technological, consumer, and natural hazards. The psychometric-attitudes to risk being summarized by three factors: "dread," whether the risk is known, and personal exposure to the risk. The results have been used to suggest that certain types of hazards are viewed very differently from other hazards. The purpose of this paper is somewhat different, in that it investigates whether individual demographic characteristics influence psychometric perceptions of risk. This paper makes use of a large, professionally conducted, survey of a wide cross-section of the residents of metropolitan Chicago. One thousand adults were interviewed in a random-digit dial telephone survey, producing a useable dataset of about 800. Data on the three risk factors mentioned above were obtained on 7-point scales for four common hazards: aviation accidents, fires in the home, automobile accidents, and stomach cancer. The survey also collected demographic data on respondents'age, schooling, income, sex, and race. Regressions were then conducted to relate the demographic characteristics to risk perceptions. Some strong general conclusions can be drawn. The results suggest that women, people with lower levels of schooling and income, younger people, and blacks have more dread of hazards. The exception being age-related illnesses which, not unnaturally, are feared by older people. Unlike previous literature, we cannot substantiate the argument that these groups of people are less informed about hazards and thus less accepting of them. The most likely leading explanation of the relationship between demographic factors and dread of a hazard is the perceived personal exposure to the hazard. People with greater perceived exposure to a hazard are more fearful.     

Mlonte Carlo Techniques for Quantitative Uncertainty Analysis in Public Health Risk Assessments

Most public health risk assessments assume and combine a series of average, conservative, and worst-case values to derive a conservative point estimate of risk. This procedure has major limitations. This paper demonstrates a new methodology for extended uncertainty analyses in public health risk assessments using Monte Carlo techniques. The extended method begins as do some conventional methods--with the preparation of a spreadsheet to estimate exposure and risk. This method, however, continues by modeling key inputs as random variables described by probability density functions (PDFs). Overall, the technique provides a quantitative way to estimate the probability distributions for exposure and health risks within the validity of the model used. As an example, this paper presents a simplified case study for children playing in soils contaminated with benzene and benzo(a)pyrene (BaP).     

Six Propositions on Public Participation and Their Relevance for Risk Communication

New societal obligations for communicating risk information are emerging in a variety of contexts. This article draws upon the lengthy societal experience with citizen participation programs to identify how risk communication efforts may be effectively structured and implemented. Six major propositions address such themes as means/ends differences in expectations, the timing of the program, the role of credibility and trust, the need for technical and analytical resources, differing thresholds of public involvement, and limitations upon current understandings. Key conclusions for the design of risk communication programs are set forth.     

Prospect Theory and Limit Lines

Risk acceptance criteria in the form of limit lines are investigated in the context of prospect theory. This theory departs from utility theory in several respects, an important one being the use of weights other than probabilities in the evaluation of the expected impact of uncertain outcomes. Hypothetical functions reflecting certain attitudes toward consequences and rare events are developed and combined to produce several limit lines.     

The Media and Genetically Modified Foods: Evidence in Support of Social Amplification of Risk

Empirical examinations of the "social amplification of risk" framework are rare, partly because of the difficulties in predicting when conditions likely to result in amplification effects will occur. This means that it is difficult to examine changes in risk perception that are contemporaneous with increases and/or decreases in social or media discussion of the risks associated with a particular risk event. However, the collection of attitude data before, during, and after the increased reporting of the risks of genetically modified food in the United Kingdom (spring 1999) has demonstrated that people's risk perceptions do increase and decrease in line with what might be expected upon examination of the amplification and attenuation mechanisms integral to the framework. Perceptions of benefit, however, appeared to be permanently depressed by negative reporting about genetically modified food. Trust in regulatory institutions with responsibility for protecting the public was not affected. It was concluded that the social amplification of risk framework is a useful framework for beginning to explain the potential impact on risk perceptions of a risk event, particularly if that risk event is presented to the public as a new hazard occurring in a crisis context.     

Are Some Risk Comparisons More Effective Under Conflict?: A Replication and Extension of Roth et al.

Despite many claims for and against the use of risk comparisons in risk communication, few empirical studies have explored their effect. Only one study, published by Roth et al. in this journal in 1990, has tested the 1988 predictions by Covello et al. as to the public's relative preferences for 14 kinds of risk comparisons as they might be used by a factory manager to explain risks of his ethylene oxide plant. That study found no correlations between the Covello predictions and seven different measures of "acceptability" of Covello's examples of each type of comparison. However, two critics of the Roth study, as well as its own authors, suggested that a scenario involving local risks, a conflict-ridden situation, and a plant manager unknown to the townspeople might better evoke Covello-like preferences than the distant, calm, friends-involving scenario used by Roth. The research reported here replicated the Roth study using the same scenario, risk comparison examples, and evaluation measures, and added a second scenario intended to replicate the conditions suggested by critics. Over 200 New Jersey residents answered the study questionnaire. The replication scenario reproduced Roth's results, and the conflict scenario also evoked no rankings correlated with Covello's predictions. Furthermore, neither agreement nor disagreement with five statements representing "conflict"--respondents' reports that the industrial-plant scenario made them angry, they lived near industry, they were concerned about industrial risks, people in their home town were angry about industrial pollution, and they worried "frequently" about long-term effects of pollution--correlated with Covello's predictions. Over half of all ratings ascribed to the comparisons in aggregate were positive, and most detailed comments offered by respondents also were positive, despite many criticisms and suggestions for their improvement. The wide variability in individuals' rankings also undermines the notion of any single ranking of preferred comparisons. These findings have implications for use of risk comparisons, but also reveal the inaccuracy of the field's assumptions about public reaction to industrial risk information, including risk comparison.