educated, being female rather think emotionally than the older, more educated andbeing male do. Additionally we explore the relations between dependent emotionaljudgment and independent social-constructed variables such as trust, benefit/risk andknowledge. Second, there are varieties of emotional response, we will analyze howthe different kinds of emotion, <strong>for</strong> examples gloomy/good, weak/strong, dirty/clear,retrogressive/progressive, are determined by different causal factors. In short, weexpected that this study would contribute to elaborating the structure and content ofemotion in judging the nuclear power.W2-E.3 Kadry AM, Woodall GM, Reid J; kadry.abdel@epa.govUS Environmental Protection AgencyRAPID RISK EVALUATIONS: APPLICATIONS, CHALLENGES ANDLIMITATIONSVarious government agencies develop risk assessments to characterize the natureand magnitude of health risks to humans from chemical contaminants and otherstressors that may be present in the environment. The development of completequantitative risk assessments can require extensive resources and time. Rapid <strong>Risk</strong>Evaluation (RRE) is an important tool used by risk assessors under certain circumstancesto provide a qualitative and/or quantitative risk assessment within a veryshort time (usually minutes to a few weeks). The current presentation will explorethe tools that are under development at the EPA’s National Center <strong>for</strong> EnvironmentalAssessment (NCEA) which may be useful in implementing a successful RRE.These include use of graphical tools to array the available dose-response data and/orhealth effect reference values available <strong>for</strong> the agent being considered, or those thatare closely related in structure or function. Principles <strong>for</strong> developing toxicity valuesusing structural-surrogates <strong>for</strong> chemicals that lack adequate human or animal studieswill be presented. Some semi-quantitative methods are being developed and will bedescribed. The challenges and limitations to the use of these tools in RRE will bediscussed in detail. The views expressed in this abstract do not necessarily reflect theviews or policies of the US EPA.M3-I.2 Kaul S, Boyle K, Pope J, Parmeter C, Kuminoff N, Moeltner K*;kjboyle@vt.eduVirginia TechROBUST META-ANALYSIS USING MEDIAN-QUANTILE AND NON-PARAMETRIC REGRESSION PROCEDURES: INVESTIGATING THEVALIDITY OF BENEFIT TRANSFERSIn 2005 the U.S. EPA sponsored a <strong>for</strong>um to in<strong>for</strong>m the practice of benefitstransfer. Interest in this topic was demonstrated by presenters from Australia, Canada,France, Spain, Singapore, United Kingdom and United States. U.S. interest in benefittransfer is motivated by Presidential Executive Order 12866 (1993) that requires federalagencies to assess “costs and benefits” of regulations based “on best reasonably126obtainable scientific, technical, economic, and other in<strong>for</strong>mation.” Previous researchon validity of benefit transfers suggest that function transfers are more accurate thanvalue transfers and similarity between study and policy cases favors transfer applications.Despite these suggested points, Johnston and Rosenberger (2009) claim that“complexity and relative disorganization of the (academic) literature may represent anobstacle to the use of updated methods by practitioners.” In this paper we conduct arobust meta-analysis of existing convergent-validity studies to identify benefit-transferpractices that effect validity of transfer applications. We investigate the robustnessof baseline models (ordinary least squares and weighted least squares) by employingquantile and nonparametric regression techniques. Data from 31 convergent validitystudies was used to estimate a reduced <strong>for</strong>m meta-analysis equation. Our baselinemodels were sensitive to the influence of outliers and there was little consensus betweenbaseline and nonparametric results. However, the analyses present some clearresults (function transfers are more accurate than single value transfers) and identifiesareas of research to improve transfers (defining study similarity between study casesand policy cases). While these robustness analyses are done in the context of benefittransfers, the application of these methods is generalizable to any reuse of existingdata <strong>for</strong> risk analyses and valuation of alternative outcomes.W1-B.2 Kause J, Dearfield K, Ebel ED, Golden NJ, LaBarre D, Disney T; janell.kause@fsis.usda.govGovernmentUSE OF RISK ASSESSMENT WITH RISK MANAGEMENT METRICSTO LINK PUBLIC HEALTH ESTIMATES TO FOOD SAFETY PERFOR-MANCEIn 2008, the Codex Alimentarius approved the use of newer risk managementmetrics that would help link public health estimates to food safety per<strong>for</strong>mance. Thetraditional metrics used be<strong>for</strong>e this time, i.e., microbiological criteria (MC), processcriteria (PcC), and product criteria (PdC), provided both a means of articulating thelevel of stringency expected of a food safety control system and verifying that thislevel of control is being achieved. However, these traditional risk management toolshave generally not been linked directly to a specific level of public health protection.New food safety risk management metrics, i.e., the food safety objective (FSO), per<strong>for</strong>manceobjective (PO), and per<strong>for</strong>mance criteria (PC), are intended to provide abridge between traditional food safety metrics (MC, PcC, PdC) and the expected levelof public health protection. These new metrics provide a potential means of articulatingthe level of stringency required of a food safety system at different points inthe farm-to-table continuum and provide a more direct link to the appropriate levelof protection (ALOP) concept presented the World Trade Organization Sanitary andPhytosanitary (SPS) Agreement. USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service is exploringapproaches to utilize microbial risk assessments to elucidate the use of these
metrics to provide risk management with options to attain a specific level of publichealth protection in meat and poultry products.W3-F.3 Keisler JM, Linkov I; jeff.keisler@umb.eduUniversity of Massachusetts BostonUSING THE PORTFOLIO DECISION QUALITY FRAMEWORK TOGUIDE RISK ASSESSMENTValue-of-in<strong>for</strong>mation methods can be applied to the in<strong>for</strong>mation derived fromvarious assessments. By mapping a portfolio of risks to a portfolio of decisions, wecan use this decision analytic tool to simulate the impact of different assessmentstrategies and reveal the degree to which they increase expected value. Likewise, it ispossible to anticipate the cost of an assessment strategy by tabulating the frequencyand difficulty of each type of assessment required. Good assessment strategies add alot of value relative to their cost.W4-A.2 Keller C, Siegrist M; ckeller@ethz.chETH ZurichTHE INFLUENCE OF RISK COMMUNICATION FORMATS ON BEN-EFIT PERCEPTION OF MEDICAL TREATMENTSIn medical risk communication, the benefit of a treatment is often conveyed asrelative risk reduction. A particular medical drug is described as reducing the risk ofdying from a particular disease by 42%. As the risk of dying without taking the drugis missing, it is unclear how big the risk reduction is. To improve the understanding, itwas recommended to provide in<strong>for</strong>mation about the risk of dying without the treatment(starting risk) and the risk of dying with the treatment (modified risk). However,there is little empirical evidence available concerning the effect of providing in<strong>for</strong>mationabout risk reduction in combination with starting and modified risk. Utilizinga random sample from the general population (N=748), we examined the effect ofsix risk reduction in<strong>for</strong>mation <strong>for</strong>mats about a drug on individuals’ benefit perception.The results of a study with two groups were described, one of which receivedthe drug and one a placebo. The risk of dying of a heart attack within 5 years wasreported <strong>for</strong> the placebo group and the treatment group. The in<strong>for</strong>mation <strong>for</strong>matsconsisted of six different combinations of in<strong>for</strong>mation about relative and absoluterisk reduction, all of which included starting and modified risk. A 6 (<strong>for</strong>mat of risk in<strong>for</strong>mation:6 combinations) x 2 (subjective numeracy: high/low) experimental designwas used. A significant effect of <strong>for</strong>mat of risk reduction was found. Post hoc testingrevealed that participants in conditions receiving in<strong>for</strong>mation about the relativerisk reduction perceived significantly higher benefit than participants in conditionsreceiving in<strong>for</strong>mation about the absolute risk reduction. This was true independentlyof the numerical <strong>for</strong>mat of the in<strong>for</strong>mation about the starting and modified risk(ratio, percentage, and frequency). No effect of numeracy was found. Although participantswere provided with the in<strong>for</strong>mation about absolute risk, participant’s benefitperception was influenced by the relative risk in<strong>for</strong>mation but not by the absolute riskin<strong>for</strong>mation such as they associated the larger number with higher benefit.T4-D.3 Kiker GA, Munoz-Carpena R, Convertino M, Chu-Agor M, Aiello-Lammens M, Akçakaya HR, Fischer R, Linkov I; gkiker@ufl.eduUniversity of FloridaINTEGRATED MODELING FOR RISK AND DECISION ANALYSIS OFSHORELINE-DEPENDENT SPECIES THREATENED BY SEA-LEVELRISEClimate change (via sea-level rise and altered weather patterns) is expected tosignificantly alter low-lying coastal and intertidal areas, which provide significant seasonalhabitats <strong>for</strong> a variety of shoreline-dependent organisms. Many coastal militaryinstallations in Florida have significant coastal habitats and shoreline-dependent birddata that strongly illustrate their seasonal importance <strong>for</strong> birds. This research ef<strong>for</strong>thas utilized the Sea Level Affecting Marshes Model (SLAMM), the MaxEnt speciesdistribution model and the RAMAS-GIS metapopulation model to explore the currentand future habitat/spatial distribution/population states as well as the spatial andtemporal patterns of these uncertain results with Global Sensitivity and Uncertainty<strong>Analysis</strong>. Joint simulations of sea level rise at 0.2, 0.5, 1.0, 1.5 and 2.0 meters wereconducted at 30m horizontal grid resolution <strong>for</strong> the Eglin Air Force Base/Santa RosaIsland areas and <strong>for</strong> the entire Florida Gulf Coast (Pensacola to Naples) at 120m gridresolution. While uncertainty levels are high, consistent simulation results from thisintegrated model show key results in two areas (1) potential habitat losses and (2)Snowy Plover population dynamics. The integrated models projected that the populationsize will decline faster than the area of habitat or carrying capacity, demonstratingthe necessity of incorporating population dynamics in assessing the impacts of SLRon coastal species. The results were most sensitive to uncertainties in survival rate andfecundity, and suggested that future studies on this species should focus on the averageand variability of these demographic rates and their dependence on populationdensity. Results from these simulations were integrated into a multi-criteria decisionanalysis framework to assess tradeoffs in habitat restoration/protection and speciesfocusedalternatives.W3-G.2 Kim D, Pastoor T, Yi KD, Campbell JL, Anersen ME, Clewell HJ, HandaRH, Breckenridge CB; sue.yi@syngenta.comSyngenta Crop Protection, LLC, The Hamner Institutes, Univeristy of ArizonaEFFECTS OF ATRAZINE DOSE DISTRIBUTION ON PHARMACOKI-NETICS AND PHARMACODYNAMICS IN THE RATThere is limited quantitative in<strong>for</strong>mation on the pharmacokinetics of ATZ metabolism,and no research on the effects of the route of administration on its pharmacokineticsand pharmacodynamics. The purpose of this work was to compare1) the kinetics of hepatocyte metabolism of ATZ in two species (female Sprague-127
- Page 4 and 5:
Ballroom C1Monday10:30 AM-NoonM2-A
- Page 9 and 10:
US Environmental Protection Agency
- Page 11 and 12:
Workshops - Sunday, December 4Full
- Page 13 and 14:
WK9: Eliciting Judgments to Inform
- Page 15 and 16:
These freely available tools apply
- Page 17 and 18:
Plenary SessionsAll Plenary Session
- Page 19 and 20:
10:30 AM-NoonRoom 8/9M2-F Panel Dis
- Page 21 and 22:
1:30-3:00 PMRoom 8/9M3-F Symposium:
- Page 23 and 24:
4:50 pm M4-E.5Modeling of landscape
- Page 25 and 26:
P.35 Health risk assessment of meta
- Page 27 and 28:
Works-In-ProgressP.99 Assessing the
- Page 29 and 30:
10:30 AM-NoonRoom 8/9T2-F Error in
- Page 31 and 32:
1:30-3:00 PMRoom 8/9T3-F AppliedMet
- Page 34 and 35:
8:30-10:00 AMBallroom C1W1-A Sympos
- Page 36 and 37:
10:30 AM-NoonBallroom C1W2-A Commun
- Page 38:
1:30-3:00 PMBallroom C1W3-A Communi
- Page 41 and 42:
3:30-4:30 PMRoom 8/9W4-F Environmen
- Page 43 and 44:
oth recent advances, and ongoing ch
- Page 45 and 46:
M3-H Symposium: Analyzing and Manag
- Page 47 and 48:
Part 2, we consider the use of expe
- Page 49 and 50:
T4-E Symposium: Food Safety Risk Pr
- Page 51 and 52:
While integral to guiding the devel
- Page 53 and 54:
have contributed to past difficulti
- Page 55 and 56:
M2-C.1 Abraham IM, Henry S; abraham
- Page 58 and 59:
serious accident of the Tokyo Elect
- Page 60 and 61:
een found that independence assumpt
- Page 62 and 63:
W4-I.1 Beach RH, McCarl BA, Ohrel S
- Page 64 and 65:
M4-A.1 Berube DM; dmberube@ncsu.edu
- Page 66 and 67:
W4-A.1 Boerner FU, Jardine C, Dried
- Page 69 and 70:
M2-G.1 Brink SA, Davidson RA; rdavi
- Page 71 and 72:
M4-H.5 Buede DM, Ezell BC, Guikema
- Page 73 and 74:
same scientists’ environmental he
- Page 75 and 76:
periods of time. Successful adaptat
- Page 77 and 78: P.123 Charnley G, Melnikov F, Beck
- Page 79 and 80: derived from mouse and rat testes t
- Page 81 and 82: esources under any circumstance in
- Page 83 and 84: W4-B.3 Convertino M, Collier ZA, Va
- Page 85 and 86: addition, over 10% thought that eve
- Page 87 and 88: Reference Dose (RfD). The average e
- Page 89 and 90: W2-H.2 Demuth JL, Morss RE, Morrow
- Page 91 and 92: T4-H.4 Dingus CA, McMillan NJ, Born
- Page 93 and 94: methods research priorities and pot
- Page 95 and 96: W3-A.2 Eggers SL, Thorne SL, Sousa
- Page 97 and 98: tions) were < 1 for sub-populations
- Page 99 and 100: sociated with model error. Second,
- Page 101 and 102: inter-donation interval to mitigate
- Page 103 and 104: Fukushima nuclear accident coverage
- Page 105 and 106: for growth inhibitor use and retail
- Page 107 and 108: W1-C.1 Goble R, Hattis D; rgoble@cl
- Page 109 and 110: stakeholders. The utility of this m
- Page 111 and 112: T2-E.4 Guidotti TL; tee.guidotti@gm
- Page 113 and 114: M4-C.2 Haines DA, Murray JL, Donald
- Page 115 and 116: providing normative information of
- Page 117 and 118: then allow both systems to operate
- Page 119 and 120: tious disease outbreaks. Several cl
- Page 121 and 122: P.122 Hosseinali Mirza V, de Marcel
- Page 123 and 124: W2-B.1 Isukapalli SS, Brinkerhoff C
- Page 125 and 126: M3-G.3 Jardine CG, Driedger SM, Fur
- Page 127: P.88 Johnson BB, Cuite C, Hallman W
- Page 131 and 132: M4-C.1 Koch HM, Angerer J; koch@ipa
- Page 133 and 134: certainty factors) and comparative
- Page 135 and 136: T3-D.4 LaRocca S, Guikema SD, Cole
- Page 137 and 138: P.71 Lemus-Martinez C, Lemyre L, Pi
- Page 139 and 140: of excretion, and the increased che
- Page 141 and 142: M2-D.4 MacKenzie CA, Barker K; cmac
- Page 143 and 144: isk appetite and optimal risk mitig
- Page 145 and 146: ameters, and enabled a more robust
- Page 147 and 148: over the nature and format of infor
- Page 149 and 150: Analysis (PRA). Existing parametric
- Page 151 and 152: explosion of a bomb in a building,
- Page 153 and 154: T3-G.3 Nascarella MA; mnascarella@g
- Page 155 and 156: corresponding slowdown in container
- Page 157 and 158: ing the scope and usage of the cybe
- Page 159 and 160: dose for a variety of exposure scen
- Page 161 and 162: “nanofibers”) is relatively und
- Page 163 and 164: ment (CEA), which provides both a f
- Page 165 and 166: T3-D.2 Resurreccion JZ, Santos JR;
- Page 167 and 168: shore wind turbines have yet been b
- Page 169 and 170: T2-D.3 Rypinski AD, Cantral R; Arth
- Page 171 and 172: time and temperature, determining t
- Page 173 and 174: esponse to requests from the EC, th
- Page 175 and 176: ers and inspectors. Analysis examin
- Page 177 and 178: smoked salmon, and associated expos
- Page 179 and 180:
and 95th percentiles). Increasing t
- Page 181 and 182:
esponse relationship for B. anthrac
- Page 183 and 184:
variation on Day 0. Results showed
- Page 185 and 186:
sidered. The most significant resul
- Page 187 and 188:
lived in a apartment (not including
- Page 189 and 190:
W3-C.4 von Stackelberg KE; kvon@eri
- Page 191 and 192:
P.12 Waller RR, Dinis MF; rw@protec
- Page 193 and 194:
W2-B.6 Wang D, Collier Z, Mitchell-
- Page 195 and 196:
iomonitoring “equivalent” level
- Page 197 and 198:
T4-H.2 Winkel D, Good K, VonNiederh
- Page 199 and 200:
mation insufficiency, risk percepti
- Page 201 and 202:
choices. This work examines these s
- Page 203 and 204:
sults and possible intended or unin
- Page 205 and 206:
AAbadin HG.................... 36,
- Page 207 and 208:
Gray GM............................
- Page 209 and 210:
Peters E...........................
- Page 211 and 212:
SECOND FLOOR Floor MapConvention Ce