1:30-3:00 PMBallroom C1T3-A Fukushima and <strong>Risk</strong>CommunicationChair: Gina Eosco1:30 pm T3-A.1Explaining radiation risks: a comparisonof media coverage of Fukushima,Chernobyl and TMIFriedman SMLehigh University1:50 pm T3-A.2How the accident at Fukushima affectedthe public’s perception of nuclearpower: results of a longitudinalsurveySiegrist M, Visschers VHMETH Zurich, Switzerland2:10 pm T3-A.3Calm panic of the Japanese againstthe complex disaster 3-11Tsuchida SKansai University2:30 pm T3-A.4Nuclear energy and the contingentimpact of media attentionBesley JCUniversity of South Carolina281:30-3:00 PMBallroom C2T3-B Diverse ModelingApproaches <strong>for</strong> ExposureAssessmentChair: Mark Weir1:30 pm T3-B.1A novel modeling system <strong>for</strong> studyingthe effects of climate change onexposures to aeroallergens and cooccurringgas pollutantsIsukapalli SS, Zhang Y, Bielory L, RobockA, Georgopoulos PGEnvironmental and Occupational HealthSciences Institute, Rutgers University1:50 pm T3-B.2A tiered approach to dermal exposureassessment <strong>for</strong> antimicrobialpesticidesMcDougal JN, Guy RH*, LeightonT, Bronaugh RL, Shah PV, Olin SS,O’Brien TM, Canady RAWright State University, University ofBath, UK, US Environmental ProtectionAgency, US Food and Drug Administration,ILSI Research Foundation, Ecolab2:10 pm T3-B.3Uncertainty in multimedia mass-balancemodels: an evaluation by fuzzyarithmetic and probability boundsanalysisOberg T, Iqbal MSLinnaeus University2:30 pm T3-B.4Stochastic modeling of water reclamationtreatment redesign suggestionsaddressing cryptosporidiosisrisk at a recreational spray parkWeir MH, Razzolini MTP, Rose JB, MasagoYMichigan State UniversityTuesday1:30-3:00 PMBallroom C3T3-C Symposium:Improving ProblemFormulation and Dose-Response Beyond Scienceand Decision, Part 1Sponsored by: DRSGCo-Chairs: Julie Fitzpatrick,Rick Becker1:30 pm T3-C.1The collaborative ARA adventure:extending and expanding discussionsof problem <strong>for</strong>mulation and doseresponsePottenger LHThe Dow Chemical Company1:50 pm T3-C.2Linking problem <strong>for</strong>mulation todose-response assessmentPaoli G<strong>Risk</strong> Sciences International2:10 pm T3-C.3The importance of mode of actionMeek MEUniversity2:30 pm T3-C.4Where the rubber meets the road: apractical methods compendium <strong>for</strong>risk assessorsHaber LH, Kroner OLTERA1:30-3:00 PMRoom 6T3-D Disasters andInfrastrutureInterdependenciesChair: Joost Santos1:30 pm T3-D.1Effects of network topology on vulnerabilityduring targeted attacksGuikema SD, LaRocca SJohns Hopkins University1:50 pm T3-D.2Developing an inventory-based prioritizationmethodology <strong>for</strong> assessinginoperability and economic loss in interdependentsectorsResurreccion JZ, Santos JRGeorge Washington University2:10 pm T3-D.3Water system reliability under hurricaneimpact considering electricalgrid interdependencyChristian J, Rokneddin K, Ouyang M,Duenas-Osorio LRice University2:30 pm T3-D.4Broadening the discourse on infrastructureinterdependence by modelingthe ‘ecology’ of infrastructuresystemsLaRocca S, Guikema SD, Cole J, SandersonEJohns Hopkins University1:30-3:00 PMRoom 7T3-E Innovative Uses ofQMRA to Support <strong>Risk</strong>ManagementChair: Hong Yang1:30 pm T3-E.1<strong>Risk</strong> Assessment of potential transmissionof variant Creutzfeldt-JakobDisease (vCJD) via transfusion in theUnited StatesYang H, Anderson SACenter <strong>for</strong> Biologics Evaluation and Research,Food and Drug Administration1:50 pm T3-E.2<strong>Risk</strong> based microbiological criteria <strong>for</strong>Shiga toxin-producing E. coli (STEC)in ground beefSanaa M, Poisson S, Lailler RANSES2:10 pm T3-E.3A Campylobacter QMRA (QuantitativeMicrobiological <strong>Risk</strong> Assessment)<strong>for</strong> petting zoosEvers EG, Horneman ML, Berk PA,Van Leusden FM, De Jonge RNatl Inst <strong>for</strong> Pub Hlth, Bilthoven, TheNetherlands2:30 pm T3-E.4Quantitative Microbial <strong>Risk</strong> Assessmentof Fomites Accounting <strong>for</strong> SurfaceSampling Efficiency <strong>for</strong> Virusesand Non-Spore Forming BacteriaWeir MH, Shibata T, Masago Y, CologgiDL, Rose JBMichigan State University
1:30-3:00 PMRoom 8/9T3-F AppliedMethodology <strong>for</strong> Transportationand Other <strong>Risk</strong>ManagementSponsored by: DARSG, EISGChair: Mark Abkowitz1:30 pm T3-F.1An application of enterprise riskmanagement in the marine transportationindustryAbkowitz MD, Camp JSVanderbilt University1:50 pm T3-F.2Quantifying factors & trends in casualtiesdue to hazardous materialstransportationLocke MSPipeline & Hazardous Materials SafetyAdministration (PHMSA)2:10 pm T3-F.3<strong>Risk</strong>s related to the transportation ofhazardous materials: a decision-makingtool <strong>for</strong> selecting a carrierPeignier I, De Marcellis-Warin NCIRANO (Center <strong>for</strong> Interuniversity researchand <strong>Analysis</strong> of Organizations)2:30 pm T3-F.4Computer based classification of per<strong>for</strong>manceshaping factors <strong>for</strong> safetyanalysisYemelyanov AM, Yemelyanov AAGeorgia Southwestern State University1:30-3:00 PMRoom 10T3-G Nanomaterials:Environment, Dose-Response, and ExpertOpinionChair: Margaret MacDonell1:30 pm T3-G.1Nanomaterial release from productsis not related to hazard data: methodsand data lackingFroggett S, Canady RACenter <strong>for</strong> <strong>Risk</strong> Science Innovation and Application,ILSI Research Foundation1:50 pm T3-G.2A modeling framework <strong>for</strong> assessingrisk from engineered nanoparticles inthe environmentIsukapalli SS, Mukherjee D, Royce SG,Georgopoulos PGEnvironmental & Occupational HealthSciences Institute, New Jersey2:10 pm T3-G.3Evaluating biphasic dose-responsesin nanotoxicology assaysNascarella MAGradient2:30 pm T3-G.4Expert opinion and lifecycle regulation<strong>for</strong> emerging nanomaterialsBeaudrie CEH, Kandlikar M, SatterfieldT, Herr Harthorn BInstitute <strong>for</strong> Resources, Environment andSustainability, University of British Columbia,Center <strong>for</strong> Nanotechnology in <strong>Society</strong>,University of Cali<strong>for</strong>nia Santa BarbaraTuesday1:30-3:00 PMRoom 11T3-H <strong>Risk</strong> <strong>Analysis</strong> ofWeapons of MassDestruction in the SupplyChainSponsored by: SDSGChair: Nancy McMullan1:30 pm T3-H.1Screening cargo containers <strong>for</strong> nuclearmaterial using a layered, risk-basedscreening systemDreiding RA, McLay LAVirginia Commonwealth University1:50 pm T3-H.2Chemical supply chain incident model<strong>for</strong> human health consequence estimatesMontello BM, Shroy BC, Buchta DA,Hawkins BE, Gooding R, Kolakowski J,McGarvey DBattelle Memorial Institute, DHS CSAC2:10 pm T3-H.3Food supply chain safety and securityrisk management: an innovative in<strong>for</strong>mationintegration approachKrishen LFutron Corporation2:30 pm T3-H.4Modeling health care surge capacityrequirements during an attack on thefood supplyHartnett E, Schaffner D, Lysak K, HedbergC, Paoli G<strong>Risk</strong> Sciences International, Rutgers, ClarityHealthcare, University of Minnesota1:30-3:00 PMRoom 12/13T3-I Symposium:Catastrophic ClimateChangeSponsored by: EBASGChair: Seth Baum1:30 pm T3-I.1International differences in risk toleranceand implications <strong>for</strong> global climatepolicyBorsuk ME, Ding P, Gerst MD, BernsteinA, Howarth RBDartmouth College1:50 pm T3-I.2<strong>Risk</strong> governance of nano-geoengineeringHollenkamp L, Kuzma JHumphrey School of Public Affairs, Universityof Minnesota2:10 pm T3-I.3Public understanding of Solar RadiationManagement and its implicationson future researchMercer AM, Keith DW, Sharp JDUniversity of Calgary, Simon Fraser University2:30 pm T3-I.4<strong>Risk</strong>-risk tradeoffs in climate engineeringWiener JBDuke University29
- 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: 10:30 AM-NoonRoom 8/9T2-F Error in
- 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