Final Program - Society for Risk Analysis

More documents

Recommendations

Info

3:30-5:00 PMBallroom C1M4-A Emerging Theoriesof Risk CommunicationChair: David Berube3:30 pm M4-A.1DART: Digital Amplification/attenuationof Risk TheoryBerube DMNorth Carolina State University3:50 pm M4-A.2Probability paradoxes explained bythe second uncertainty processorSiegrist J, Ferson S, Luhmann C, GinzburgLRutgers University4:10 pm M4-A.3Strategic frame alignment and thecommunication of riskCummings CLNorth Carolina State University4:30 pm M4-A.4The role of construal level theory inrisk communicationZwickle AK, Wilson RSOhio State University3:30-5:10 PMBallroom C2M4-B Panel Discussion:Synthetic Biology and RiskGovernanceChair: Dana Genya3:30 pm M4-B.1Synthetic Biology Applications:Health and the EnvironmentCarr PAMassachusetts Institute of Technology3:50 pm M4-B.2DIYBIOSAFETY: Responsible Sciencefor Do-It-Yourself BiologistsKuiken TWoodrow Wilson International Center forScholars4:10 pm M4-B.3NGO Community Perspectives onSynthetic BiologyHoffman EMFriends of the Earth4:30 pm M4-B.4Comprehensive Environmental Assessmentof Synthetic Biology ApplicationsDana GVDana & Sharpe Risk Associates4:50 pm M4-B.5European synthetic biology: presentand future regulatory trendsLofstedt RKings College LondonMonday3:30-5:00 PMBallroom C3M4-C Biomonitoring Datafor Risk AssessmentCo-Chairs: Lesa Aylward and ScottArnold3:30 pm M4-C.1Development and use of toxicitybased Human Biomonitoring (HBM)values by the German Human BiomonitoringCommissionKoch HM, Angerer JInstitute for Prevention and OccupationalMedicine (IPA), Ruhr-University Bochum3:50 pm M4-C.2Challenges in interpreting and communicatinghuman biomonitoringresultsHaines DA, Murray JL, Donaldson SGHealth Canada4:10 pm M4-C.3Interpreting NHANES data on arseniclevels in urine using biomonitoringequivalentsKirman CR, Hays SM, Aylward LL*,Ramasamy S, Schoeny RSummit Toxicology, US EnvironmentalProtection Agency4:30 pm M4-C.4Enhancing the Agency for ToxicSubstances and Disease Registry’s(ATSDR) site assesments with pharmacokineticmodels and biomonitoringdataWheeler JS, Worley RR, Ruiz P, SatarugS, Fowler DAAgency for Toxic Substances and DiseaseRegistry,Atlanta, University of QueenslandSchool of Medicine, Australia3:30-5:10 PMRoom 6M4-D Symposium: RiskManagement Actions forEmerging ContaminantsSponsored by: SDSG, ERSGChair: Andrew Rak3:30 pm M4-D.1The changing landscape of chemicaltoxicity values and possible impactsto DoD Legacy Site CleanupMeyer AKArmy Corps of Engineers3:50 pm M4-D.2After the analysis: risk managementactions for emerging contaminantsYaroschak PJOffice of the Secretary of Defense4:10 pm M4-D.3Closing the loop: an assessment ofthe life cycle of beryllium-containingmaterials in the Department of DefenseScanlon KA, McDonald SMConcurrent Technologies Corporation4:30 pm M4-D.4Naphthalene dosimeter for assessmentof exposure for fuel handlers:a case studyRak ANoblis4:50 PM M4-D.5Methodology for using life cycle assessmentto minimize environment,energy, water, and chemical liabilitiesCammarata CConcurrent Technologies Corporation3:30-5:10 PMRoom 7M4-E Symposium:Microbial Safety of FreshProduce, Spices and Herbs:Mitigating Risk fromFarm-to-TableSponsored by: MRASGChair: Karin Hoetzer3:30 pm M4-E.1Lessons learned from a preliminaryquantitative microbial risk assessmentfor leafy greensSchaffner DW, Danyluk MDRutgers University3:50 pm M4-E.2Produce consumption patterns in theUS: importance for produce risk assessmentsHoelzer K, Pouillot R, Egan K, Dennis SFood and Drug Administration, Center forFood Safety and Applied Nutrition4:10 pm M4-E.3Identification, monitoring and managementof risks in the spice industryLawrence R, Brown SMMcCormick & Company Inc4:30 pm M4-E.4Surveillance sampling at import: characterizingriskVan Doren JM, Kleinmeier D, Ma Y,Blodgett R, Westerman A, Ziobro GC,Muckenfuss M, Gill V, Hammack T,Parish M, Neil KP, Mettee S, Nsofor O,Gieraltowski LFood and Drug Administration and Centersfor Disease Control and Prevention20
4:50 pm M4-E.5Modeling of landscape and meteorologicalfactors influencing the probabilityof pathogen isolation from anenvironmental location: Listeria spp.in the natural environment as a modelsystemIvanek R, Grohn YT, Wells MT, LemboJr AJ, Sauders BD, Wiedmann M, ParkS-STexas A&M University, Cornell University,Salisbury University, NYS Dept ofAgriculture & Markets3:30-5:00 PMRoom 8/9M4-F Panel Discussion:Structuring DecisionProcesses to Manage RisksSponsored by DARSGChair: Jeffrey KeislerBier VM, Cox LA, Guikema SD, LambertJH, Merrick JRUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison, CoxAssociates and University of Colorado, InnovativeDecisions, Inc., University of Virginia,Virginia Commonwealth University3:30-5:10 PMRoom 10M4-G Symposium:Assessing and ManagingCarbon NanomaterialsRisks: Current and FutureApproachesChair: Ron White3:30 pm M4-G.1An overview of carbon nanomaterialtoxicity researchWhite RHJohns Hopkins University3:50 pm M4-G.2Methods and uncertainties in carbonnanotube risk assessmentKuempel EDNational Institute for Occupational Safetyand Health4:10 pm M4-G.3State of the science and informationgaps regarding a comprehensive environmentalassessment of an applicationof a carbon-based nanomaterialMarenberg AA, Burch DF, Shatkin JA,Davis JMICF International, CLF Ventures, USEnvironmental Protection Agency4:30 pm M4-G.4Life-cycle based approaches for evaluatingcarbon nanomaterialsPowers C, Gillespie P, Davis JMNational Center for Environmental Assessment,US Environmental ProtectionAgency4:50 pm M4-G.5Managing risks of CNTs in a largecompanyDavid RMBASF CorporationMonday3:30-5:10 PMRoom 11M4-H Symposium:Adversary Modeling forTerrorism Risk AnalysisApplicationsSponsored by: SDSG, DARChair: Sara Klucking3:30 pm M4-H.1Value focused modeling of adaptiveadversaries for informing countermeasuredecisionsJohn RS, Rosoff HUniversity of Southern California3:50 pm M4-H.2Modeling and risk assessment ofterrorist-counterterrorist interactionswith Multi-Agent Influence DiagramsSentz K, Powell D, Ambrosiano J, GravesTLos Alamos National Laboratory4:10 pm M4-H.3Adaptive adversary risk analysis: linkingmodels to primary data on terroristbehaviorJackson BA, Frelinger DR, Hart J, KavanaghJ, Loidolt B, Wallace BARAND Corporation4:30 pm M4-H.4Adaptive adversary agent-based modelingfor CBRN terrorism risk analysisAustin T, Sageman M, Luckey T, CameronJThe Boeing Company4:50 pm M4-H.5Plural models for adaptive adversarymodelingBuede DM, Ezell BC, Guikema SD,Lathrop JF, Mahoney SM, McLay LA,Post JM, Rothschild CInnovative Decisions, Inc.3:30-5:10 PMRoom 12/13M4-I Symposium:Synthesizing Studies forEvidence-BasedDecisionmaking: Part 2,Expert ElicitationSponsored by: EBASGChair: Lisa Robinson3:30 pm M4-I.1Alternative methods for aggregationof expert judgmentsGuvenc U, Small MJ, Morgan MGCarnegie Mellon University3:50 pm M4-I.2Combining experts’ judgments: comparisonof algorithmic methodsHammitt JK, Zhang YHarvard University4:10 pm M4-I.3Encoding the meanings of probabilitytermsWallsten TSUniversity of Maryland4:30 pm M4-I.4Expert elicitation of adversary preferencesusing ordinal judgments:methodology and applicationsWang C, Jamshidi T, Bier VMUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison4:50 pm M4-I.5Expert judgment and stakeholderpreference modeling with probabilisticinversionCooke RMResources for the Future, TU Delft3:30-5:10 PMRoom 14M4-J Human Exposure toContaminats in Food & WaterChair: Anthony Fristachi3:30 pm M4-J.1Updated estimates of human organotinexposures due to leaching fromPVC pipe into drinking waterFristachi A, Rice G, Little J, Xu Y, AdamsW, Impellitteri CEnvironmental Risk Resources, VirginiaTech, The University of Texas at Austin,US Environmental Protection Agency3:50 pm M4-J.2Comparison of chemical compositionof complex Disinfection Byproduct(DBP) mixtures produced bydifferent treatment methodsParvez S, McCurry D, Rice GE, TeuschlerLK, Speth TF, Miltner RJ, Pressman JGOak Ridge Institute for Science and Education4:10 pm M4-J.3Prevalence of variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in the UK: estimationfrom dietary exposure to bovinespongiform encephalopathy duringthe period 1980 to 1996Chen CC, Wang YH, Wu KY, Chang HYNational Health Research Institutes, Taiwan4:30 pm M4-J.5Quantitative risk assessment of listeriosisdue to consumption of raw milkPradhan AK, Latorre AA, Van KesselJS, Karns JS, Schukken YHUniversity of Maryland, University ofConcepcion-Chile, USDA/ARS-Beltsville,Cornell University21
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: 1:30-3:00 PMRoom 8/9M3-F Symposium:
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 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
show all

Final Program - Society for Risk Analysis

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?