Final Program - Society for Risk Analysis

other novel approach is the use of geographic information system to incorporatereal-time field environmental and climatic geospatial data from NASAsatellites into risk assessment of E. coli O157:H7 and other enteric pathogensin produce. Attention will be paid to the importance of the time schedulethrough comparison between assessing a routine situation versus an accidentalcrisis for radiological hazards in foods (e.g. Fukushima accident). This symposiumaims to bring together speakers from different organizations to sharetheir experiences, as well as sharing lessons learned from these and other innovativemeans so as to facilitate expanding data collection efforts to supportrisk assessments.W3-F Symposium: Making the World Safer - Perspectives from DifferentIndustries and CountriesThis symposium seeks to provide perspectives from different industriesand countries to the question; How does how the Corporate World makespractical use of Risk Assessment theories, bodies of knowledge, and deal withthe challenges presented by information time & monetary constraints? Eachparticipant considers this question from a different perspective, with studiesfocusing on the use of scenarios, decision making constrained by time andinformation and the ways in which the value of analytic efforts may be quantifiedand compared against their cost, resulting in an explicit theoretical frameworkfor how to deal with the challenges. Presenters are from the UK, USAand Canada providing an international flavour to this sessionW3-H Symposium: Game Theory and Homeland SecurityThis symposium will consist of four or five presentations on game theorymodeling in attacker-defender models in homeland security. Confirmedpresenters include: (1) Dr. Vicki Bier (University of Wisconsin-Madison)who will talk about “Attacker-Defender Model for Computer-Network Security”;(2) Dr. Anthony M. Barrett (ABS Consulting) who will talk about“the integrated analysis of attack risks and defensive resource allocation decisionsfor a set of illustrative examples, using Monte Carlo modeling topropagate and analyze uncertainties and to help identify robust strategies”;(3) Dr. Jun Zhuang (University at Buffalo) who will talk about “Game-TheoreticAnalysis of Attack and Defense of Cyber Infrastructures”; (4) Mr.Xiaojun Shan (University at Buffalo) who will talk about “Cost of Equity inDefensive Resource Allocations in the Face of a Possibly Nonstrategic Attacker”.One more presenter from the University of Stavanger, Norway, is50still deciding whether to join or not.W3-I Symposium: Benefits, Co-Benefitsand Uncertainties of Air Quality ImprovementsThe estimated public health benefits from controlling air pollution havegenerally exceeded the estimated mitigation costs. For example, the US EnvironmentalProtection Agency calculated that thousands of premature deathsand numerous cases of illness could be prevented by reducing exposure. Theseestimates, however, can still be controversial and hide some important sourcesof uncertainty. Understanding this uncertainty is critical, especially as climatechange mitigation strategies are increasingly being justified by the large airquality co-benefits. In this symposium, we review the air quality and humanhealth relationships and the estimation of air quality benefits. We follow withanalyses that evaluate uncertainties in air quality exposure and co-benefits. Wealso discuss the implications for air quality improvements and climate changemitigation strategies.W4-C Symposium: Fulfilling the Potential of EPA’s Integrated Risk InformationSystem (IRIS) ProgramEPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) provides health risk informationon over 500 chemical contaminants found in air, water, or soil. Eachassessment identifies adverse health effects associated with the chemical andprovides toxicity values used to set health-based regulatory standards or toevaluate health risks from chemical exposure. Originally an internal tool forEPA risk assessors, in 15 years IRIS has become a resource used by scientistsand nonscientists the world over. Increasing utility has brought greater scrutinyto IRIS. The process for developing IRIS assessments includes review byscientists across EPA, external review by other federal agencies, external peerreview by independent scientists, and final review by EPA and other federalagencies. EPA also solicits comments from stakeholders and the general public,and these opportunities have sometimes created pressure on EPA to delayassessments, to wait for studies in progress, and then to loop back for furtherreview. As a result of these pressures, an average of only two new assessmentsper year had been completed for the several years through 2008. TheIRIS process was streamlined in 2009, subsequently, the pace has accelerated.The year 2011 is a pivotal one: major IRIS assessments with important publichealth implications – some under development for more than 10 years – arescheduled to be completed, a National Research Council report recommendedmajor changes in the development and presentation of IRIS first drafts, andthe Government Accountability Office will release an analysis of factors that