Historical Relationship Between Performance Assessment for Radioactive Waste Disposal and Other Types of Risk Assessment

This article describes the evolution of the process for assessing the hazards of a geologic disposal system for radioactive waste and, similarly, nuclear power reactors, and the relationship of this process with other assessments of risk, particularly assessments of hazards from manufactured carcinogenic chemicals during use and disposal. This perspective reviews the common history of scientific concepts for risk assessment developed until the 1950s. Computational tools and techniques developed in the late 1950s and early 1960s to analyze the reliability of nuclear weapon delivery systems were adopted in the early 1970s for probabilistic risk assessment of nuclear power reactors, a technology for which behavior was unknown. In turn, these analyses became an important foundation for performance assessment of nuclear waste disposal in the late 1970s. The evaluation of risk to human health and the environment from chemical hazards is built on methods for assessing the dose response of radionuclides in the 1950s. Despite a shared background, however, societal events, often in the form of legislation, have affected the development path for risk assessment for human health, producing dissimilarities between these risk assessments and those for nuclear facilities. An important difference is the regulator's interest in accounting for uncertainty.     

Times Are Tough—Brother,Can You Paradigm?

Ten years ago, the National Academy of Science released its risk assessment/risk management (RA/RM) “paradigm” that served to crystallize much of the early thinking about these concepts. By defining RA as a four-step process, operationally independent from RM, the paradigm has presented society with a scheme, or a conceptually common framework, for addressing many risky situations (e.g., carcinogens, noncarcinogens, and chemical mixtures). The procedure has facilitated decision-making in a wide variety of situations and has identified the most important research needs. The past decade, however, has revealed that additional progress is needed. These areas include addressing the appropriate interaction (not isolation) between RA and RM, improving the methods for assessing risks from mixtures, dealing with “adversity of effect,” deciding whether “hazard” should imply an exposure to environmental conditions or to laboratory conditions, and evolving the concept to include both health and ecological risk. Interest in and expectations of risk assessment are increasing rapidly. The emerging concept of “comparative risk” (i.e., distinguishing between large risks and smaller risks that may be qualitatively different) is at a level comparable to that held by the concept of “risk” just 10 years ago. Comparative risk stands in need of a paradigm of its own, especially given the current economic limitations. “Times are tough; Brother, can you paradigm?”     

Whither Risk Assessment: New Challenges and Opportunities a Third of a Century After the Red Book

Six multi‐decade‐long members of SRA reflect on the 1983 Red Book in order to examine the evolving relationship between risk assessment and risk management; the diffusion of risk assessment practice to risk areas such as homeland security and transportation; the quality of chemical risk databases; challenges from other groups to elements at the core of risk assessment practice; and our collective efforts to communicate risk assessment to a diverse set of critical groups that do not understand risk, risk assessment, or many other risk‐related issues. The authors reflect on the 10 recommendations in the Red Book and present several pressing challenges for risk assessment practitioners.     

Perceived Risks from Radiation and Nuclear Testing Near Semipalatinsk, Kazakhstan: A Comparison Between Physicians, Scientists, and the Public

Determining the difference in perception of risk between experts, or more educated professionals, and laypeople is important so that a potential hazard can be effectively communicated to the public. Many surveys have been conducted to better understand the difference between expert and public opinions, and often laypeople exhibit higher perceptions of risk to hazards in comparison to experts. This is especially true when health risk is due to radiation, nuclear power, and nuclear waste. This article focuses on one section of a risk perception survey given to two groups of individuals with a more specialized education (scientists and physicians) and laypeople (villagers) in the Semipalatinsk region of Kazakhstan. All of these groups live near the former Soviet nuclear test site. Originally, it was expected that the scientists and physicians would have similar perceptions of radiation risk, while the public perceptions would be higher, but this was not always the case. For example, when perceptions of risk pertain to the health impacts of nuclear testing or the dose-response nature of radiation exposure, the physicians tend to agree with the laypeople, not the scientists. The villagers are always the most risk-averse group, followed by the physicians and then the scientists. These differences are likely due to different frames of reference for each of the populations.     

Foundational Issues in Risk Assessment and Risk Management

This is a perspective article on foundational issues in risk assessment and management. The aim is to discuss the needs, obstacles, and challenges for the establishment of a renewed, strong scientific foundation for risk assessment and risk management suited for the current and future technological challenges. The focus is on (i) reviewing and discussing the present situation and (ii) identifying how to best proceed in the future, to develop the risk discipline in the directions needed. The article provides some reflections on the interpretation and understanding of the concept of “foundations of risk assessment and risk management” and the challenges therein. One main recommendation is that different arenas and moments for discussion are needed to specifically address foundational issues in a way that embraces the many disciplinary communities involved (from social scientists to engineers, from behavioral scientists to statisticians, from health physicists to lawyers, etc.). One such opportunity is sought in the constitution of a novel specialty group of the Society of Risk Analysis.     

Risk-Perception Studies and Policy Priorities

The current fascination with risk acceptability, risk benefit analysis and other devices for relating risk to social gain is a manifestation of the loss of faith amongst certain groups in modern western society with the honesty and competence of those who assess and finally make judgements about public safety. The problem lies as much in a suspicion over the motives of leading personalities and the fidelity of assessment procedures as it does with the collective psychology of individual beliefs and judgements. "Real world" studies involving carefully sampled households monitored over a period of time may well reveal better information on the complexities of risk cognition and evaluation than laboratory investigation of the views of individuals responding in isolation.     

Trust,Emotion, Sex,Politics, and Science: Surveying the Risk-Assessment Battlefield

Risk management has become increasingly politicized and contentious. Polarized views, controversy, and conflict have become pervasive. Research has begun to provide a new perspective on this problem by demonstrating the complexity of the concept risk and the inadequacies of the traditional view of risk assessment as a purely scientific enterprise. This paper argues that danger is real, but risk is socially constructed. Risk assessment is inherently subjective and represents a blending of science and judgment with important psychological, social, cultural, and political factors. In addition, our social and democratic institutions, remarkable as they are in many respects, breed distrust in the risk arena. Whoever controls the definition of risk controls the rational solution to the problem at hand. If risk is defined one way, then one option will rise to the top as the most cost-effective or the safest or the best. If it is defined another way, perhaps incorporating qualitative characteristics and other contextual factors, one will likely get a different ordering of action solutions. Defining risk is thus an exercise in power. Scientific literacy and public education are important, but they are not central to risk controversies. The public is not irrational. Their judgments about risk are influenced by emotion and affect in a way that is both simple and sophisticated. The same holds true for scientists. Public views are also influenced by worldviews, ideologies, and values; so are scientists' views, particularly when they are working at the limits of their expertise. The limitations of risk science, the importance and difficulty of maintaining trust, and the complex, sociopolitical nature of risk point to the need for a new approach—one that focuses upon introducing more public participation into both risk assessment and risk decision making in order to make the decision process more democratic, improve the relevance and quality of technical analysis, and increase the legitimacy and public acceptance of the resulting decisions.     

Cases of real-life policies related to risk: How can they enhance risk analysis and risk science?

Policies on risk constitute a core topic of risk analysis and risk science, and it is common at risk conferences to present real-life cases of such policies, for example related to the handling of climate change and pandemics. Although these are of broad interest, showing how important issues in society are dealt with, it can be questioned to what extent and how these cases contribute to enhancing risk analysis and risk science. The present paper addresses this concern. It is argued that, in order to learn from the cases, they need in general to be more thoroughly followed up with discussions of concepts, principles, approaches, and methods for assessing, characterizing, communicating and handling risk. Describing a governmental policy on, for example, the handling of COVID-19 is a point of departure for interesting discussions concerning its justification and performance, in particular in relation to risk and the most updated knowledge from the risk analysis field. Such discussions are, however, often lacking. The paper points to some key obstacles and challenges for the learning process, including the difficulty of distinguishing between policies, policy analysis, and politics.     

Risk Science Contributions: Three Illustrating Examples

This article aims to demonstrate that risk science is important for society, industry and all of us. Rather few people today, including scientists and managers, are familiar with what this science is about—its foundation and main features—and how it is used to gain knowledge and improve communication and decision making in real-life situations. The article seeks to meet this challenge, by presenting three examples, showing how risk science works to gain new generic, fundamental knowledge on risk concepts, principles, and methods, as well as supporting the practical tackling of actual risk problems.     

Communicating Conservation Status: How Different Statistical Assessment Criteria Affect Perceptions of Extinction Risk

Although alternative forms of statistical and verbal information are routinely used to convey species’ extinction risk to policymakers and the public, little is known about their effects on audience information processing and risk perceptions. To address this gap in literature, we report on an experiment that was designed to explore how perceptions of extinction risk differ as a function of five different assessment benchmarks (Criteria A–E) used by scientists to classify species within IUCN Red List risk levels (e.g., Critically Endangered, Vulnerable), as well as the role of key individual differences in these effects (e.g., rational and experiential thinking styles, environmental concern). Despite their normative equivalence within the IUCN classification system, results revealed divergent effects of specific assessment criteria: on average, describing extinction risk in terms of proportional population decline over time (Criterion A) and number of remaining individuals (Criterion D) evoked the highest level of perceived risk, whereas the single‐event probability of a species becoming extinct (Criterion E) engendered the least perceived risk. Furthermore, participants scoring high in rationality (analytic thinking) were less prone to exhibit these biases compared to those low in rationality. Our findings suggest that despite their equivalence in the eyes of scientific experts, IUCN criteria are indeed capable of engendering different levels of risk perception among lay audiences, effects that carry direct and important implications for those tasked with communicating about conservation status to diverse publics.     

Improving Food Safety in the Domestic Environment: The Need for a Transdisciplinary Approach

Microbial food safety has been the focus of research across various disciplines within the risk analysis community. Natural scientists involved in food microbiology and related disciplines work on the identification of health hazards, and the detection of pathogenic microorganisms. To perform risk assessment, research activities are increasingly focused on the quantification of microbial contamination of food products at various stages in the food chain, and modeling the impact of this contamination on human health. Social scientists conduct research into how consumers perceive food risks, and how best to develop effective risk communication with consumers in order to improve public health through improved food handling practices. The two approaches converge at the end of the food chain, where the activities regarding food preparation and food consumption are considered. Both natural and social sciences may benefit from input and expertise from the perspective of the alternative discipline, although, to date, the integration of social and natural sciences has been somewhat limited. This article therefore explores the potential of a transdisciplinary approach to food risk analysis in terms of delivering additional improvements to public health. Developing knowledge arising from research in both the natural and social sciences, we present a novel framework involving the integration of the two approaches that might provide the most effective way to improve the consumer health associated with food-borne illness.     

Analytical Paradigms: The Epistemological Distances between Scientists, Policy Makers, and the Public

The effective use of evidence and its resultant knowledge is increasingly recognized as critical in risk analysis. This, in turn, has led to a growing concern over issues of epistemology in risk communication, and, in particular, interest in how knowledge is constructed and employed by the key players in risk--scientists, policy makers, and the public. This article uses a critical theoretical approach to explore how evidence is recognized and validated, and how limits are placed on knowledge by scientists, policy makers, and the public. It brings together developments in the sociology of science, policy and policy development, public understandings of science, and risk communication and analysis to explicate the differing forms of rationality employed by each group. The work concludes that each group employs different, although equally legitimate, forms of rationality when evaluating evidence and generating knowledge around risky environment and health issues. Scientists, policy makers, and the public employ scientific, political, and social rationality, respectively. These differing forms of rationality reflect underlying epistemological distances from which can develop considerable misunderstandings and misinterpretations.     

Network Evening News Coverage of Environmental Risk

ABC, CBS, and NBC's carefully crafted and expensively produced evening news broadcasts devoted 1.7% of their air time to 564 stories about man-made environmental risks during the period from January 1984 to February 1986. Little relationship was found between amount of coverage and public health risk. Instead, the networks appeared to be using traditional journalistic determinants of news (timeliness, proximity, prominence, consequence, and human interest) plus the broadcast criterion of visual impact to determine the degree of coverage of risk issues. Government, industry, and citizens accounted for two-thirds of the sources cited by the networks. Experts and spokespersons for environmental advocacy groups were sparsely used as sources. Given the media's need for news pegs, acute and chronic risk stories were covered differently. Acute risk stories were reported in a clearly defined cycle, peaking on the second day with on-the-scene reports and film-clips of devastation. In keeping with a decrease in visual drama, later reports were shorter and emphasized legal and political considerations. Chronic risk coverage followed the release of new scientific, legal, or political information.     

Foundational Issues in Risk Assessment and Risk Management

In spite of the maturity reached by many of the methods used in risk assessment and risk management, broad consensus has not been established on fundamental concepts and principles. The risk fields still suffer from a lack of clarity on many key scientific pillars. The purpose of this article is to point to this situation and through some illustrating examples discuss the challenges that the fields here face. Moreover, the purpose of the article is to reflect on how to improve the present situation and enhance the risk fields. We argue that the establishment of some common scientific pillars as well as a strong and continuous research focus on foundational issues are critical success factors. The article specifically addresses the role of the peer‐reviewed journals and the international standards in the fields. We hope that the article can contribute to a revitalization of the discussion of foundational issues in risk assessment and risk management.     

Improving Health Risk Assessment as a Basis for Public Health Decisions in the 21st Century

One-fifth of the way through the 21st century, a commonality of factors with those of the last 50 years may offer the opportunity to address unfinished business and current challenges. The recommendations include: (1) Resisting the tendency to oversimplify scientific assessments by reliance on single disciplines in lieu of clear weight-of-evidence expressions, and on single quantitative point estimates of health protective values for policy decisions; (2) Improving the separation of science and judgment in risk assessment through the use of clear expressions of the range of judgments that bracket protective quantitative levels for public health protection; (3) Use of comparative risk to achieve the greatest gains in health and the environment; and (4) Where applicable, reversal of the risk assessment and risk management steps to facilitate timely and substantive improvements in public health and the environment. Lessons learned and improvements in the risk assessment process are applied to the unprecedented challenges of the 21st century such as, pandemics and climate change. The beneficial application of the risk assessment and risk management paradigm to ensure timely research with consistency and transparency of assessments is presented. Institutions with mandated stability and leadership roles at the national and international levels are essential to ensure timely interdisciplinary scientific assessment at the interface with public policy as a basis for organized policy decisions, to meet time sensitive goals, and to inform the public.     

Risk Assessment Can Be a Game‐Changing Information Technology—But Too Often It Isn't

The printing press was a game‐changing information technology. Risk assessment could be also. At present, risk assessments are commonly used as one‐time decision aids: they provide justification for a particular decision, and afterwards usually sit on a shelf. However, when viewed as information technologies, their potential uses are much broader. Risk assessments: (1) are repositories of structured information and a medium for communication; (2) embody evaluative structures for setting priorities; (3) can preserve information over time and permit asynchronous communication, thus encouraging learning and adaptation; and (4) explicitly address uncertain futures. Moreover, because of their “what‐if” capabilities, risk assessments can serve as a platform for constructive discussion among parties that hold different values. The evolution of risk assessment in the nuclear industry shows how such attributes have been used to lower core‐melt risks substantially through improved templates for maintenance and more effective coordination with regulators (although risk assessment has been less commonly used in improving emergency‐response capabilities). The end result of this evolution in the nuclear industry has been the development of “living” risk assessments that are updated more or less in real time to answer even routine operational questions. Similar but untapped opportunities abound for the use of living risk assessments to reduce risks in small operational decisions as well as large policy decisions in other areas of hazard management. They can also help improve understanding of and communication about risks, and future risk assessment and management. Realization of these opportunities will require significant changes in incentives and active promotion by the risk analytic community.     

Direct Inference, Probability, and a Conceptual Gulf in Risk Communication

Differences in the conceptual frameworks of scientists and nonscientists may create barriers to risk communication. This article examines two such conceptual problems. First, the logic of "direct inference" from group statistics to probabilities about specific individuals suggests that individuals might be acting rationally in refusing to apply to themselves the conclusions of regulatory risk assessments. Second, while regulators and risk assessment scientists often use an "objectivist" or "relative frequency" interpretation of probability statements, members of the public are more likely to adopt a "subjectivist" or "degree of confidence" interpretation when estimating their personal risks, and either misunderstand or significantly discount the relevance of risk assessment conclusions. If these analyses of inference and probability are correct, there may be a conceptual gulf at the center of risk communication that cannot be bridged by additional data about the magnitude of group risk. Suggestions are made for empirical studies that might help regulators deal with this conceptual gulf.     

Social Amplification of Risk in the Internet Environment

This article analyzes the dynamic process of risk amplification in the Internet environment with special emphasis on public concern for environmental risks from a high‐speed railway tunnel construction project in South Korea. Environmental organizations and activists serving as social stations collected information about the project and its ecological impact, and communicated this with the general public, social groups, and institutions. The Internet provides social stations and the public with an efficient means for interactive communication and an open space for active information sharing and public participation. For example, while the website of an organization such as an environmental activist group can initially trigger local interest, the Internet allows this information to be disseminated to a much wider audience in a manner unavailable to the traditional media. Interaction among social stations demonstrates an amplifying process of public attention to the risk. Analyses of the volume of readers’ comments to online newspaper articles and public opinions posted on message board of public and nonprofit organizations show the ripple effects of the amplification process as measured along temporal, geographical, and sectoral dimensions. Public attention is also influenced by the symbolic connotations of risk information. Interpretations of risk in religious, political, or legal terms intensify public concern for the environmental risk.     

Informing and Educating the Public About Risk

The objective of informing and educating the public about risk issues seems easy to attain in principle, but, in practice, may be difficult to accomplish. This paper attempts to illustrate why this is so. To be effective, risk communicators must recognize and overcome a number of obstacles that have their roots in the limitations of scientific risk assessment and the idiosyncrasies of the human mind. Doing an adequate job of communicating means finding comprehensible ways of presenting complex technical material that is clouded by uncertainty and inherently difficult to understand. The problems may not be insurmountable, however, if designers of risk information programs are sensitive to the difficulties.     

Eliciting Information from Experts on the Likelihood of Rapid Climate Change

The threat of so‐called rapid or abrupt climate change has generated considerable public interest because of its potentially significant impacts. The collapse of the North Atlantic Thermohaline Circulation or the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, for example, would have potentially catastrophic effects on temperatures and sea level, respectively. But how likely are such extreme climatic changes? Is it possible actually to estimate likelihoods? This article reviews the societal demand for the likelihoods of rapid or abrupt climate change, and different methods for estimating likelihoods: past experience, model simulation, or through the elicitation of expert judgments. The article describes a survey to estimate the likelihoods of two characterizations of rapid climate change, and explores the issues associated with such surveys and the value of information produced. The surveys were based on key scientists chosen for their expertise in the climate science of abrupt climate change. Most survey respondents ascribed low likelihoods to rapid climate change, due either to the collapse of the Thermohaline Circulation or increased positive feedbacks. In each case one assessment was an order of magnitude higher than the others. We explore a high rate of refusal to participate in this expert survey: many scientists prefer to rely on output from future climate model simulations.