V.T. Covello – författare

One of the greatest challenges facing those concerned with health and environmental risks is how to carry on a useful public dialogue on these subjects. In a democracy, it is the public that ultimately makes the key decisions on how these risks will be controlled. The stakes are too high for us not to do our very best. The importance of this subject is what led the Task Force on Environmental Cancer and Heart and Lung Disease to establish an Interagency Group on Public Education and Communication. This volume captures the essence of the "Workshop on the Role of Government in Health Risk Communication and Public Education" held in January 1987. It also includes some valuable appendixes with practical guides to risk communication. As such, it is an important building block in the effort to improve our collective ability to carry on this critical public dialogue. Lee M. Thomas Administrator, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, and Chairman, The Task Force on Environmental Cancer and Heart and Lung Disease Preface The Task Force on Environmental Cancer and Heart and Lung Disease is an interagency group established by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 (P.L. 95-95). Congress mandated the Task Force to recommend research to determine the relationship between environmental pollutants and human disease and to recommend research aimed at reduc­ ing the incidence of environment-related disease. The Task Force's Project Group on Public Education and Communication focuses on education as a means of reducing or preventing disease.

Much has already been written about risk assessment. Epidemiologists write books on how risk assessment is used to explore the factors that influence the distribution of disease in populations of people. Toxicologists write books on how risk assess­ ment involves exposing animals to risk agents and concluding from the results what risks people might experience if similarly exposed. Engineers write books on how risk assessment is utilized to estimate the risks of constructing a new facility such as a nuclear power plant. Statisticians write books on how risk assessment may be used to analyze mortality or accident data to determine risks. There are already many books on risk assessment-the trouble is that they all seem to be about different sUbjects! This book takes another approach. It brings together all the methods for assessing risk into a common framework, thus demonstrating how the various methods relate to one another. This produces four important benefits: • First, it provides a comprehensive reference for risk assessment. This one source offers readers concise explanations of the many methods currently available for describing and quantifying diverse types of risks. • Second, it consistently evaluates and compares available risk assessment methods and identifies their specific strengths and limitations. Understand­ ing the limitations of risk assessment methods is important. The field is still in its infancy, and the problems with available methods are disappoint­ ingly numerous. At the same time, risk assessment is being used.

One of the greatest challenges facing those concerned with health and environmental risks is how to carry on a useful public dialogue on these subjects. In a democracy, it is the public that ultimately makes the key decisions on how these risks will be controlled. The stakes are too high for us not to do our very best. The importance of this subject is what led the Task Force on Environmental Cancer and Heart and Lung Disease to establish an Interagency Group on Public Education and Communication. This volume captures the essence of the "Workshop on the Role of Government in Health Risk Communication and Public Education" held in January 1987. It also includes some valuable appendixes with practical guides to risk communication. As such, it is an important building block in the effort to improve our collective ability to carry on this critical public dialogue. Lee M. Thomas Administrator, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, and Chairman, The Task Force on Environmental Cancer and Heart and Lung Disease Preface The Task Force on Environmental Cancer and Heart and Lung Disease is an interagency group established by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 (P.L. 95-95). Congress mandated the Task Force to recommend research to determine the relationship between environmental pollutants and human disease and to recommend research aimed at reduc­ ing the incidence of environment-related disease. The Task Force's Project Group on Public Education and Communication focuses on education as a means of reducing or preventing disease.

Experts from academia and government who are actively engaged in research in the area of risk communication present a compendium of cases that give information and allow the development of strategies to improve the communication of scientific information to the public. The cases span Western, Central and Eastern Europe, covering such areas as nuclear waste, heavy metal contamination, landfill siting, risk perception, global warming, international health for all, and more. The conclusions and recommendations presented here are being used to develop future activities to further explore this area of risk communication as an international study.

Public attention has focused in recent years on an array of technological risks to health, safety, and the environment. At the same time, responsibilities for technological risk as­ sessment, evaluation, and management have grown in both the public and private sectors because of a perceived need to anticipate, prevent, or reduce the risks inherent in modem society. In attempting to meet these responsibilities, legislative, judicial, regulatory, and private sector institutions have had to deal with the extraordinarily complex problems of assessing and balancing risks, costs, and benefits. The need to help society cope with technological risks has given rise to a new intellectual endeavor: the social and behavioral study of issues in risk evaluation and risk management. The scope and complexity of these analyses require a high degree of cooperative effort on the part of specialists from many fields. Analyzing social and behavioral issues requires the efforts of political scientists, sociologists, decision analysts, management scientists, econ­ omists, psychologists, philosophers, and policy analysts, among others.

In 1980, a group of scientists from national laboratories, universities, and other research organizations gathered informally in a series of meetings to consider the state of research on risks to health, safety, and the environment. Each scientist had conducted research on the subject. All felt that the traditional disciplines and professional societies to which they belonged were neither ade­ quate nor appropriate for addressing the extraordinarily complex problems of assessing the risks inherent in modern society. The con­ sensus of the group was that a new society was needed to address these problems in a scientific and objective way. From these initial meetings, the Society for Risk Analysis was formed The major aims of the Society for Risk Analysis, as stated in its constitution, are • to promote knowledge and understanding of risk analysis techniques and their applications; • to promote communication and interaction among those engaged in risk analysis; and • to disseminate risk analysis information and promote the advancement of all aspects of risk analysis. Members of the Society are drawn from a variety of disciplines, including the health sciences, engineering, the physical sciences, the humanities, and the behavioral and social sciences. An import­ ant function of the Society is the annual meeting, at which var­ ious aspects of risk analysis are discussed. The first annual meet­ ing, represented by this volume, was the International Workshop on the Analysis of Actual vs.

The subject of this volume--uncertainties in risk assessment and management--reflects an important theme in health, safety, and environ­ mental decision making. MOst technological hazards are characterized by substantial uncertainty. Recent examples include nuclear waste disposal, acid rain, asbestos in schools, carcinogens in food, and hazardous waste. realing with such uncertainty is arguably the most difficult and challeng­ ing task facing risk assessors and managers today. Four primary sources of uncertainty in risk assessment and management can be identified: (1) uncertainties about definitions; (2) uncertainties about scientific facts; (3) uncertainties about risk perceptions and atti­ tudes; and (4) uncertainties about values. Uncertainties about definitions derive primarily from disagreements about the meaning and interpretation of key concepts, such as probability. Uncertainties about scientific facts derive primarily from disagreements about failure modes, the probability and magnitude of adverse health or environmental consequences, cause and effect relationships, dose-response relationships, and exposure patterns. Uncertainties about risk perceptions and attitudes derive primarily from disagreements about what constitutes a significant or acceptable level of risk. Uncertainties about values derive primarily from disagreements about the desirability or worth of alternative risk management actions or conse­ quences. The papers in this volume address each of these sources of uncertainty from a variety of perspectives. Reflecting the broad scope of risk assess­ ment and risk management research, the papers include contributions from safety engineers, epidemiologists, toxicologists, chemists, biostatisticians, biologists, decision analysts, economists,psychologists, political scien­ tists, sociologists, ethicists, and lawyers.

Much has already been written about risk assessment. Epidemiologists write books on how risk assessment is used to explore the factors that influence the distribution of disease in populations of people. Toxicologists write books on how risk assess­ ment involves exposing animals to risk agents and concluding from the results what risks people might experience if similarly exposed. Engineers write books on how risk assessment is utilized to estimate the risks of constructing a new facility such as a nuclear power plant. Statisticians write books on how risk assessment may be used to analyze mortality or accident data to determine risks. There are already many books on risk assessment-the trouble is that they all seem to be about different sUbjects! This book takes another approach. It brings together all the methods for assessing risk into a common framework, thus demonstrating how the various methods relate to one another. This produces four important benefits: • First, it provides a comprehensive reference for risk assessment. This one source offers readers concise explanations of the many methods currently available for describing and quantifying diverse types of risks. • Second, it consistently evaluates and compares available risk assessment methods and identifies their specific strengths and limitations. Understand­ ing the limitations of risk assessment methods is important. The field is still in its infancy, and the problems with available methods are disappoint­ ingly numerous. At the same time, risk assessment is being used.

In recent years there has been substantial interest in benefits assessment methods, especially as these methods are used to assess health, safety, and environmental issues. At least part of this interest can be traced to Executive Order 12291, issued by President Ronald Reagan in 1981. This Executive Order requires Federal agencies to perform benefits assessments of pro­ posed major regulations and prohibits them from taking regulatory action unless potential benefits exceed potential costs to society. Heightened interest in benefits assessment methods has in tum given rise to greater recognition of the inherent difficulties in performing such assess­ ments. For example, many benefits that are intuitively felt to be most important are also among the most difficult to measure. It can be difficult to identify the full range of both benefits and costs. The choice of an appro­ priate discount rate for comparing benefits and costs over time is proble­ matic. Even when benefits are quantifiable in principle and agreement can be reached on their valuation, required d,ata may not be available. Thus considerable uncertainty is built into most benefit estimates, even when they are based on the best available data. In light of the complexities and difficulties associated with the perform­ ance of a benefits assessment, this book reviews the current state of theoretical and methodological knowledge in the field. The review is extensive in that it covers over fifty years of research, theoretical develop­ ment, and practice.

Experts from academia and government who are actively engaged in research in the area of risk communication present a compendium of cases that give information and allow the development of strategies to improve the communication of scientific information to the public. The cases span Western, Central and Eastern Europe, covering such areas as nuclear waste, heavy metal contamination, landfill siting, risk perception, global warming, international health for all, and more. The conclusions and recommendations presented here are being used to develop future activities to further explore this area of risk communication as an international study. Audience: Scientists, risk communicators, psychologists, toxicologists, health professionals, and anyone who has an interest in public communication on scientific uncertainty.

The Social and Cultural Construction of Risk: Issues, Methods, and Case Studies Vincent T. Covello and Branden B. Johnson Risks to health, safety, and the environment abound in the world and people cope as best they can. But before action can be taken to control, reduce, or eliminate these risks, decisions must be made about which risks are important and which risks can safely be ignored. The challenge for decision makers is that consensus on these matters is often lacking. Risks believed by some individuals and groups to be tolerable or accept­ able - such as the risks of nuclear power or industrial pollutants - are intolerable and unacceptable to others. This book addresses this issue by exploring how particular technological risks come to be selected for societal attention and action. Each section of the volume examines, from a different perspective, how individuals, groups, communities, and societies decide what is risky, how risky it is, and what should be done. The writing of this book was inspired by another book: Risk and Culture: An Essay on the Selection of Technoloqical and Environmental Dangers. Published in 1982 and written by two distinguished scholars - Mary Douglas, a British social anthropologist, and Aaron Wildavsky, an American political scientist - the book received wide critical attention and offered several provocative ideas on the nature of risk selection, perception, and acceptance.