vancing the Next Generation of <strong>Risk</strong> Assessment project (NexGen) in collaborationwith other Federal and State partners including the National Institutes of Health, theCenters <strong>for</strong> Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency <strong>for</strong> Toxic Substances,the Department of Defense, and the State of Cali<strong>for</strong>nia’s Environmental ProtectionAgency. NexGen is using six data-rich chemical prototypes (i.e., ozone, chlorine,endocrine disruptors, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, conazoles, and benzene) todetermine 1) whether enough next generation data exist to per<strong>for</strong>m a risk assessment;2) if differences exist between the existing hazard assessments, and those made usingthe next generation data; 3) the levels of uncertainty associated with next generationdata; 4) how to incorporate next generation data into future risk assessments.This talk will provide an update on the NexGen ef<strong>for</strong>t, discuss the outcomes of ourpublic workshop, and in<strong>for</strong>m participants of our future directions and timeline. Thisabstract has been reviewed and approved <strong>for</strong> release by the Environmental ProtectionAgency but does not necessarily reflect the views of the Agency.T2-D.1 Burkett VR; virginia_burkett@usgs.govUnited States Geological Survey, Department of the InteriorANTICIPATING AND ADAPTING TO CLIMATE CHANGE IN COAST-AL DELTASThe Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ranks heavily populatedcoastal deltas among the world’s most vulnerable regions to the effects of climatechange. The IPCC classifies deltas as “hotspots of societal vulnerability” with nearly300 million people inhabiting deltas globally. In addition to serving as a land base <strong>for</strong>many of the world’s most densely populated cities, deltaic wetlands and the estuariesthey fringe are among the most biologically productive systems in the world. Theirhigh fertility and biological productivity account <strong>for</strong> a large percentage of world fisherieslandings and many have been drained, de<strong>for</strong>ested, or impounded <strong>for</strong> agricultureand aquaculture. Even in the absence of a changing climate, 70% of the world majordeltas are deteriorating as a result of human activities that have affected their naturalflood pulses and sedimentary processes. Climate change has the potential to amplifythe decline of deltaic systems through several mechanisms, but the most importantdrivers are sea level rise, increased storm intensity, and changes in rainfall and runoffto the coast. This presentation will provide an overview of how climate change affectsdeltaic land <strong>for</strong>ms and alters the processes that created and sustain them. It willexamine how human development patterns can accelerate or ameliorate the impactsof climate change.70W1-A.4 Burns WJ; bburns@csusm.eduDecision ResearchPUBLIC RESPONSE IN THE U.S. TO THE JAPANESE CRISIS: REAC-TIONS TO THE EARTHQUAKE AND TSUNAMI VERSUS THE NU-CLEAR ACCIDENTThere is much research suggesting that the public reacts differently to naturaldisasters versus technological accidents or terrorism. Studies appear to suggestperceived risk, emotional reactions and risk-related behaviors (e.g. avoidance of impactedareas) are typically less <strong>for</strong> natural disasters. Two studies are reported. Thefirst involves university students who were surveyed online every day from Februarythrough April 2011 (74 data points). Among a wide range of questions they wereasked about their perceptions of threats like terrorism, the financial crisis and naturaldisasters. Following the triple disaster in Japan during March 2011 there was a clearspike in perceived threats from natural disasters with a gradual decay thereafter. Therewas no corresponding change in perceived threats from terrorism or the financial crisis.The second involves two nationwide surveys conducted in March and April 2011(about 30 days apart) that compared response to the earthquake, tsunami and nucleardisasters on a variety of measures. There were strong reactions to all three disastersbut response to the nuclear disaster was more pronounced. Likewise, reaction to allthree mishaps decreased between the first and second surveys. Two respondents inthree indicated that the nuclear disaster in Japan increased their perceptions of riskregarding nuclear reactors in the U.S.T4-A.2 Cacciatore MA, Scheufele DA, Corley EA, Shapira P, Youtie J;mike.a.cacciatore@gmail.comUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison, Arizona State University, Georgia Institute of TechnologyDO THEY PRACTICE WHAT THEY PREACH? USING PUBLICATIONRECORDS AS A PREDICTOR OF SCIENTISTS’ ATTITUDES TOWARDTHE REGULATION AND COMMUNICATION OF NANOSCIENCETwo of the more important and persistent issues facing the nanotechnologyindustry in recent years have centered on the regulation of nanoscience research (Berube,Cummings, Cacciatore, Scheufele, & Kalin, <strong>for</strong>thcoming; Murashov & Howard,2008) and the communication of this research with the public at large (Corley &Scheufele, 2010; Project <strong>for</strong> Emerging Nanotechnologies, 2006). Un<strong>for</strong>tunately, despitegrowing social science research in these areas, we remain largely unaware of howleading U.S. nanoscientists <strong>for</strong>m opinions about the regulatory framework <strong>for</strong> nanotechnologyand the communication of its key scientific findings. Moreover, there are- to our knowledge - no studies exploring the extent to which the opinions expressedby nanoscientists in public opinion surveys match their actual practices. To addressthese issues, we have combined a public opinion survey of leading U.S. nanoscientists’attitudes toward nanotechnology regulation and communication with data of these
same scientists’ environmental health and safety (EHS) publication records. First, wecompare those scientists with at least one EHS publication to those without any EHSpublications on a number of demographic and attitudinal variables. The results showthat scientists with EHS publications are not markedly different from scientists withoutsuch publications. Next, we inserted this in<strong>for</strong>mation into a pair of hierarchicalordinary least squares regressions predicting attitudes toward nanotechnology regulationsand the communication of scientific findings. Our results confirm that the nanoscientistswith EHS publications are generally the same people pushing <strong>for</strong> revisednano regulations. More importantly, our findings show that these same scientists arealso more supportive of the immediate communication of scientific findings with thegeneral public. This latter point suggests an avenue <strong>for</strong> EHS risk in<strong>for</strong>mation to findits way into public discourse and is the focal point of our study.P.67 Cakmak S, Dales R, Leech J, Liu L; sabit_cakmak@hc-sc.gc.caHealth CanadaTHE INFLUENCE OF AIR POLLUTION ON CARDIOVASCULAR ANDPULMONARY FUNCTION AND EXERCISE CAPACITY: CANADIANHEALTH MEASURES SURVEY (CHMS)Background. Air pollution has been associated with adverse cardiovascular effects.Objective. To measure the association between air pollution, spirometry, bloodpressure, and exercise capacity. Methods. We used data from 5604 subjects collectedduring the Canada Health Measures Survey to test the association between air pollutionmeasured on the day of the survey and spirometry (n=5011 subjects), bloodpressure, and exercise capacity (n=3789 subjects). Results. An interquartile increasein ozone (17.0 ppb) was associated with a 0.883% higher resting heart rate, a 0.718%higher systolic and 0.407% higher diastolic blood pressure, a 0.393% lower FEV1/FVC expressed as a percentage of predicted, and a 1.52% reduction in the aerobicfitness score (p < 0.05). NO 2and PM 2.5 were associated with higher resting diastolicand systolic blood pressure and lower percent predicted FEV1 (p< 0.05). An increasein PM 2.5 was associated with a decrease in percent predicted FVC. Conclusion.Exposure to higher concentrations of air pollution was associated with higher restingblood pressure, lower ventilatory function, and <strong>for</strong> higher ozone, lower aerobicfitness.T4-D.5 Calder RSD, Schmitt KA, Salazar-Garcia OE; r_cald@civil.concordia.caConcordia UniversityDECISION MODEL FOR MANAGEMENT OF SEWAGE PLUMES IN ATIDAL ENVIRONMENTWe propose a decision model <strong>for</strong> the management of degraded water qualityin a tidal environment. The complex and unsteady hydrodynamics of estuaries andtidal rivers greatly complicates water quality assessment and prediction and hence impactvaluation and decision-making. A rational analysis requires an understanding ofunderlying hydrodynamics, principles of water quality in unsteady environments, impactvaluation methods and decision analysis techniques. Two-dimensional numericalmodels of sewage plumes in tidal environments illustrate the high sensitivity of waterquality to input parameters such as seasonal stratification and tidal condition thatvary continuously with time. Probabilistic methods are needed to translate discretesnapshots of water quality under time-variable conditions into a quantitative, constantdescription of water quality that can be used to evaluate the costs of ecological andeconomic impacts. As inputs, we use output of a numerical water quality model ofBurrard Inlet near Vancouver, Canada, under discrete combinations of input conditions.We use probabilistic methods to weight the discrete snapshots of sewageplumes into an overall description of water quality. We then use impact valuationmethods to approximate the environmental and economic costs of the water qualitymodel output. In order to allow <strong>for</strong> comparison of management alternatives in termsof each one’s net costs (infrastructure investment and the associated ecological andeconomic impacts), we nest the quality/impact valuation model into a decision analysisframework. We explore expansion of the quality and impact valuation model inthe direction of stochastic hydrodynamic models that will allow <strong>for</strong> consideration ofuncertain model parameters with no periodicity such as wind shear. Our preliminaryresults indicate that the greatest source of decision uncertainty lies in the valuation ofsewage impacts, rather than the water quality model.W2-I.2 Calkin DE, Wibbenmeyer MJ, Hand MS, Thompson MP, Venn TJ; decalkin@fs.fed.usUS Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station, The University of MontanaRISK PREFERENCES AND PROBABILITY WEIGHTING IN STRATE-GIC WILDFIRE DECISION-MAKING: A CHOICE EXPERIMENT OFUS WILDFIRE MANAGERSIn the United States, wildland fire events are managed <strong>for</strong> numerous competingobjectives in an environment of considerable uncertainty and political pressure. Federalwildfire management policy dictates that the magnitude of suppression responseshould be commensurate with the values at risk, and has embraced risk managementas the appropriate paradigm <strong>for</strong> wildfire management. There<strong>for</strong>e significant ef<strong>for</strong>tshave been directed towards development of decision support systems capable of assistingmanagers in assessing and managing wildfire risk. Economic theory suggeststhat over repeated wildfire events, a policy of risk neutrality will generate optimalwildfire management outcomes. Nevertheless, it is well-established that human factors,including sociopolitical constraints and pressures, incentives facing fire managers,and decision biases, have substantial influence over the ways in which individualfire events are managed. In particular, fire managers may be risk averse and may overweightlow probability events within their decision analysis. Over time, such behavioris likely to lead to inefficient uses of fire management resources. This paper uses a71
- 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: M4-H.5 Buede DM, Ezell BC, Guikema
- 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