Final Program World Congress on Risk - The Society for Risk Analysis

Monday Mini-Symposia 2:00 - 3:30 pm (continued)
Then the risk assessment issues addressed in the cleanup of the
Capitol Hill Anthrax Site will be considered, from selection of the
fumigant, to the extent of the cleanups, and finally the important
national security and policy issues. The role of environmental sampling
in identifying and characterizing anthrax contamination at sites
and in testing the efficacy of the subsequent cleanup(s) will be discussed,
with emphasis on advances made in sampling since the
attacks, and current recommendations for sampling. The review
process for chemical agents to treat anthrax contamination will be
discussed, including the safety and efficacy issues that must be
considered, with a comparison of the three agents used to fumigate
sites. The safety issues that must be addressed in the treatment of
very large sites will also be addressed. The roles of two independent,
multi-disciplinary expert panels in the cleanup process of the Department
of State mail facility will be summarized, including the
value they add to the process. The evolution of the clearance process
for productive re-use of the sites will be presented, including
the significant risk assessment and risk communication issues considered.
<strong>Final</strong>ly, the data base for assessing risk of contracting anthrax
and the current criteria for judging how clean is safe will be
addressed.
Room: Tintoretto 1
M-MS.4 Risk Assessment and Decision Making Related
to Major Accident Hazards
Organizer: Olivier Salvi, INERIS, France
Speakers: Hourtolou, D. (INERIS); Lacoursiere, J.-P. (University of
Sherbrook); Zugman Do Coutto, R. (UNEP); Turney, R. (EPSC)
Recent major technological accidents (Enschede, 2000;
Toulouse, 2001 ; Lagos, 2002) have shown that politicians and riskdecision
makers are facing difficulties to manage technological
risk. This situation is probably due to, on one hand, the complexity of
the issue, and on the other hand, citizens loss of trust in politics.
Indeed, in our knowledge-based society, citizens want to be informed
and require transparent decision-making processes. But the decision-makers
behaviour regarding risk-related problems is not convincing.
The solutions to change the situation seem to be both scientific
and societal. The increasing complexity of industrial systems
and the conscience that the role of humans is a key issue to control
major accident hazards have strongly emphasised the need for approaches
that integrate a holistic vision of the industrial systems with
the concepts, models and tools from various sciences : engineering,
psychology, sociology, management etc. There is a real scientific
challenge to develop risk assessment methods that take into
account this complexity. Concerning the societal aspect, the efforts
must focus on the information and participation in the risk management
processes of all stakeholders, including the public. It has long
been recognised that increasing public participation is an essential
element in improving environmental and risk-related decisions. When
the various stakeholders are aware of risk issues and involved in
decision-making, the solutions inevitably become more sensible
and legitimate. The selected talks of this symposium present several
initiatives in the <strong>World</strong> to better assess major accident hazards
11
and to help decision-makers to deal with risk issues. In particular, the
symposium will describe the achievement of works that integrate the
complexity of the systems in risk assessment, and that improve the
public comprehension and awareness. Olivier SALVI (INERIS,
France) Chairman David Hourtolou (INERIS, France) ARAMIS
Project : Development of an Accidental Risk Assessment Methodology
in the Framework of the Seveso II directive. Jean-Paul Lacoursière
(University of Sherbrook, Canada) Implication of the public in riskrelated
decision making in Canada Ruth Coutto (UNEP APELL
<strong>Program</strong>me, International) The strategy for the community involvement
in emergency prevention and preparedness programmes
Robin Turney (European Process Safety Centre, UK) Role of the
industry in major accident prevention
Room: Tintoretto 2
M-MS.5 The Challenge of Terrorism - Examining
Psychological and Cultural Factors Affecting Risk
Management
Organizer: Bill Durodie, King’s College London
Speakers: Wessely, S. (King’s College London); Furedi, F. (University
of Kent at Canterbury); Gearson, J. (UK House of Commons);
Durodie, B. (King’s College London)
The need to achieve a balanced and coherent response to
the events of September 11th 2001 poses significant dilemmas for
governments. In the United Kingdom this has been encapsulated in
the phrase alert but not alarmed. Yet, despite warnings as to the
adverse consequences of acting upon general or vague information,
responsible authorities have come under tremendous pressure
to be seen to be responding to speculative concerns in order
not to be complacent. Such actions can in turn drive public concerns
and in some instances have necessitated policy U-turns that
undermine public confidence. This suggests an urgent need to
understand and incorporate the psychiatric literature examining the
limitations of providing reassurance without challenging fundamental
beliefs, as well as the risk communication literature that points to
the need for clarity, consistency and engagement, into the new policies.
Amongst the common problems and assumptions to be explored
in this session are; How new is the so-called new terrorism?
What are the psychological consequences of living in a state of
heightened concern? To what extent have pre-existing fears been
reinterpreted and reinvigorated through the prism of terrorism? Why
is society identifying its vulnerabilities and not its strengths? And, are
there cultural asymmetries relating to risk-taking and risk-aversion
that terrorists make use of? In particular we seek to examine the
limitations of responses to terrorism that focus primarily upon technical
change. These can take the form of demands for better intelligence,
detection instruments, protection equipment and new structures
of governance such as the Department of Homeland Security
or the Civil Contingencies Secretariat. Most commentators agree
that real resilience depends on a human element. How then, can
we re-engage the publics hearts and minds in a period of mistrust,
with a view to re-forging a more positive vision of what advanced
societies have to offer?