PRINCIPLES OF TOXICOLOGY

472 RISK ASSESSMENT
TABLE 18.7 Activities Estimated to Increase Your Chances of Dying in Any Year by One in a Million
Activity Cause of Death
Smoking 1.4 cigarettes Cancer, heart disease
Drinking 0.5 L of wine Liver cirrhosis
Spending 1 h in a coal mine Black lung disease
Spending 3 h in a coal mine Accident
Living 2 days in New York or Boston Air pollution
Traveling 6 min by canoe Accident
Traveling 10 miles by bicycle Accident
Traveling 150 miles by car Accident
Flying 1000 miles by jet Accident
Flying 6000 miles by jet Cancer from cosmic radiation
Living 2 months in Denver on vacation from New York Cancer from cosmic radiation
Living 2 months in average stone or brick building Cancer from natural radioactivity
One chest X-ray taken in a good hospital Cancer from radiation
Living 2 months with a cigarette smoker Cancer, heart disease
Eating 40 tablespoons of peanut butter Liver cancer from aflatoxin B
Drinking Miami drinking water for 1 year Cancer from chloroform
Living 5 years at site boundary of a nuclear power plant Cancer from radiation
Eating 100 charcoal-broiled steaks Cancer from benzopyrene
Source: Allman (Oct. 1985).
18.9 RISK COMMUNICATION
In order to be useful, risk assessment results must be effectively communicated to nontechnical
audiences. This can include risk managers, legislators, the public, industry, and environmental groups.
If risk managers don’t understand the results, it can lead to bad regulatory and policy decisions. Public
understanding of risk assessment results is also essential if they are to participate in, or at least accept
the results of, risk-based decision-making.
Effectively communicating the results of risk assessments is an enormous challenge. Problems lie
in virtually all aspects of the risk communication process, including (1) the individual, agency, or
company that conducts and presents the risk assessment; (2) the risk assessment itself; (3) the means
to convey risk information; and (4) the audience. Examples of these problems are listed in Table 18.8.
One of the biggest hurdles is the fact that risk analyses are often very complex, technical exercises.
Making the process and outcome of the risk analysis transparent to laypersons is next to impossible
unless there is some opportunity to provide background education to “bring them up to speed” on the
subject. In most situations, this opportunity doesn’t exist. The public is arguably one of the most
important recipients of risk information, yet one of the most difficult audiences for risk assessors to
communicate with. One problem is that the most common channel for communicating risk information
to the public is through the news media. This presents at least three difficulties in trying to communicate
a clear and accurate message: (1) reporting of the information may be biased, incomplete, or inaccurate;
(2) news accounts may tend to sensationalize or focus on ancillary issues, such as disagreements
between parties or human interest stories; and (3) news media have generally shown little interest in
providing the background information needed to educate the public on risk analysis and to help them
interpret findings for themselves.
No doubt one reason why the media have not invested much effort in educating the public about
risk assessment is that the public itself, for the most part, has shown little interest in the technical
complexities and nuances of risk analysis. In most situations for which a risk assessment is needed,
they just want a straight answer to the simple question, “Is it safe?” Anything other than a clear “yes”
answer to this question signals cause for concern. Herein lies a second major problem for risk