Final Program - Society for Risk Analysis

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Generic Exposure Scenario library. The TRA tool structure was also modified to automaticallydetermine conditions necessary for safe use (Risk Characterization Ratio
sults and possible intended or unintended behavioral consequences of such studies isscarce. To explore such questions, the Community Perceptions of Dioxins (CPOD)study is surveying participants (both exposed and control groups) as well as non-participantsfrom one such study assessing exposure to dioxin-like compounds (DLCs)in Michigan’s Midland and Saginaw counties. We are using a mental models approachin three phases: In Phase I, we developed an expert model of dioxin exposure andhealth effects through 5 interviews of academic, government, and community experts.Phase II involved 50 in-depth interviews of community members to documenttheir mental models, which were then compared to the expert model to identify misconceptionsand gaps in lay knowledge. Phase III (underway) will use a mailed surveyto assess the prevalence of lay misconceptions in a larger sample of the populationin the affected communities. Phase II interviews have already documented severalpotentially important misconceptions about DLCs, including beliefs about water contamination(versus soil contamination) and the magnitude of dermal exposures. Ifconfirmed as prevalent via the mailed survey, such misconceptions will provide strongevidence for targeted risk communication messages to improve understanding andrelated health behaviors both in this affected community and in the context of otherexposure assessment studies.P.115 Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Diebol JK, Turkelson AE, Franzblau A, Allerton L,Parker EA; bzikmund@umich.eduUniversity of MichiganYOU DON’T TEST FOR NOTHING: BELIEFS ABOUT EXPOSUREFROM LIVING ON DIOXIN-CONTAMINATED SOILIn the 1990s, dioxin-like compounds (DLCs) were discovered in the soil ofareas of Michigan’s Midland and Saginaw counties. In 2004-2005 the University ofMichigan Dioxin Exposure Study (UMDES) analyzed samples to determine whetherlevels in soil were related to levels in residents’ blood. UMDES found that the largestcontributor to residents’ body burdens was food but living on contaminated soil wasunrelated to body burden. These findings were shared with study participants and thecommunity. Five years later, the Community Perceptions of Dioxins (CPOD) studyhas returned to these communities to assess residents’ mental models of dioxins anddioxin exposure risks. CPOD used open-ended interviews (discussed in a separateabstract) to identify the structure of both expert and community members’ mentalmodels of dioxins. CPOD is now conducting a population-based mailed surveyof residents to assess population prevalence of key misconceptions and omissionsidentified in the qualitative interviews. Preliminary data from this survey indicatesthat even among prior UMDES participants (N=367), 83% believe that living oncontaminated soil is a significant source of exposure, and 64% consider it the largestcurrent source of exposure. This pattern was consistent across age, gender, andeducation. For contrast, 60% considered food to be a significant source of exposureand only 11% rated food as the largest current source. These findings suggest thatrespondents have not received, understood, or accepted the UMDES’s findings. Datafrom residents who were not participants in UMDES is forthcoming. We concludethat soil-to-body connections are both inherently plausible and likely were reinforcedin community members’ mental models by UMDES’s focus on assessing that pathwayof exposure. This inaccurate but prevalent misconception that elevated soil levelsnecessarily imply elevated human body burden is an important target for future communicationsin this community.M3-A.2 Zimmerman R, Sherman MF, Gershon R; rae.zimmerman@nyu.eduNew York University, Loyola University Maryland, Columbia UniversityRISK PERCEPTIONS AND ACTIONS OF WORLD TRADE CENTERATTACK SURVIVORS COMPARED INSIDE AND OUTSIDE THE WTCTOWERSThe continuum of managing the risks of disaster from the time people are inbuildings to when they leave an area involves a complex set of perceptions. Theseperceptions translate into actions that can alter disaster consequences. Data from theevacuation of WTC Towers 1 and 2 was used to analyze factors associated with differencesin survivor behavior inside and outside the towers. This paper complements,extends, and compares earlier studies (Gershon et al. 2010; Zimmerman & Sherman2011). It is based on a Columbia University convenience survey of 1,444 evacueesurvivors. One analysis compares initial willingness (hesitation) and time for towerevacuation with the immediacy of leaving the area once evacuees left the towers.Differences in tower and area evacuation timing are explained in terms of survivorcharacteristics, e.g. health/injury, fire/emergency training, residence, perceptionsof conditions encountered, and the importance of seeking or helping other people(“people seeking”). Another analysis involves the importance of survivor characteristicsin terms of people seeking behavior. Initial findings show differences in behaviorand perceptions of risk in the two environments: although some people may haveevacuated the towers rapidly, they delayed leaving the area. Over half of those wholingered outside indicated they were people seeking, but only a third who delayedtower evacuation indicated people seeking. Also, while a third indicated being injuredduring the evacuation of the towers, injury was not a significant reason for lingeringoutside, although it was an important factor in tower evacuation. Congestion anddebris apparently contributed to delays in leaving both the towers themselves and thearea. New York City is coastal with more transportation options than most cities, thusproviding more options for evacuation. However, as these analyses indicate, strategiesare needed to adequately prepare the public for full evacuation when indicated.201
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 and 128:
P.88 Johnson BB, Cuite C, Hallman W
Page 129 and 130:
metrics to provide risk management
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: choices. This work examines these s
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
show all

Final Program - Society for Risk Analysis

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?