policy implementation. Determining the public’s risk perception is an essential step inevaluating overall risk, especially with regard to sensitive projects. This study aims toin<strong>for</strong>m Quebec’s public decision-makers about the socio-political issues surroundinglarge-scale projects. In addition to measuring risk perception, the study evaluates confidencein public project management and in the in<strong>for</strong>mation related to the project,each of which has an influence on risk perception. To evaluate these variables, we havedesigned a groundbreaking province-wide survey. We probe public opinion and riskperception on projects and issues related to the environment, technology, health andthe economy. A survey was conducted in June 2011. This presentation will analyze theresponses of 1130 representative people living in Quebec. We first present descriptiveresults (risks categories that are of greatest concern, top 3 of riskiest projects, etc..)and then expose differences in responses in relation to different socio-demographiccriteria (age, sex, region, language, education, income, employment, etc.). Given thelarge spectrum of our inquiry, our results will be a valuable reference <strong>for</strong> the Quebecgovernment and public decision-makers. Our findings may also incite governments toconsider communications as an important tool of risk management, leading them todraw from our study when announcing a big decision or developing a communicationplan <strong>for</strong> a new project.P.104 Demichelis SO, Cermignani L, Segal-Eiras A, Giacomi N, Croce MV;sandrademichelis@yahoo.comNational University of La Plata, University J.F. Kennedy of Argentina, Buenos AiresBREASTFEEDING AND NUMBER OF CHILDREN ARE RELEVANTRISK FACTORS IN BREAST CANCER PATIENTS FROM AN ARGEN-TINE COASTAL MIDCLASS POPULATIONBackground: In Argentina, it has been estimated that there are 17.000 new casesof breast cancer diagnosed each year; this tumor localization is the commonestcause of cancer death among women reaching 5.400 deaths per year, the second rateof mortality in Latin America. Purpose: to analyze the relationship among differentrisk and prognostic factors in invasive breast cancer patients in order to highlighttheir possible clinical relevance. Patients and methods: 360 patients from La Plataarea (Buenos Aires Province, Argentina) with invasive breast cancer were included.<strong>Risk</strong> factors were age, number of children, breast feeding, menopausal status andmenarche age while prognostic factors were histological type and grade, tumor size,number of metastatic nodes, disease stage, mitotic figure counts, Nottingham PrognosticIndex (NPI), vascular invasion (VI) and estrogen and progesterone receptors.Statistical analysis: Multiple and simple correlation, frequency analysis and ANOVAwere per<strong>for</strong>med (p
W2-H.2 Demuth JL, Morss RE, Morrow BH, Lazo JL; jdemuth@ucar.eduNational Center <strong>for</strong> Atmospheric ResearchCOMMUNICATION SUCCESSES AND CHALLENGES OF THE HUR-RICANE WARNING SYSTEM: A CASE STUDYHurricanes pose significant physical, emotional, and financial risks to the peoplethey threaten. One way to reduce risks and promote more effective public decisionmakingis by evaluating the process through which hurricane in<strong>for</strong>mation is generatedand communicated. This jointly funded NSF and NOAA project advances understandingof hurricane warning system communication via a case study approach offour key actors in the Miami area: National Weather Service (NWS) National HurricaneCenter <strong>for</strong>ecasters, NWS Weather Forecast Office <strong>for</strong>ecasters, emergencymanagers, and radio and television media. Based on task-activity observations of the<strong>for</strong>ecasters and semi-structured interviews with all groups, we examine the groups’job roles and goals, how in<strong>for</strong>mation is generated and flows among the groups andto the public, and group members’ perceptions of each other and of the public. Thispresentation will discuss key inter-organizational successes and challenges of the hurricanewarning system that emerged from this study, and it will discuss their implications<strong>for</strong> the hurricane risk in<strong>for</strong>mation that is ultimately communicated to the public.M2-C.2 DeVito MJ, Tice R; devitom@niehs.nih.govNational Institute of Environmental Health SciencesTOX21: ACTIVITIES OF THE U.S. NATIONAL TOXICOLOGY PRO-GRAM (NTP)The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences/NTP entered into aMemorandum of Understanding with the NIH Chemical Genomics Center and theEnvironmental Protection Agency’s National Center <strong>for</strong> Computational Toxicologyin 2008 on the research, development, validation, and translation of new and innovativein vitro and lower organism test methods that characterize key steps in toxicitypathways. This collaborative ef<strong>for</strong>t, known in<strong>for</strong>mally as Tox21, now includes theU.S. Food and Drug Administration. As part of the Tox21 ef<strong>for</strong>ts, the NTP has(1) produced a large library of environmentally relevant compounds <strong>for</strong> screeningacross toxicity pathways; (2) identified and/or supported the development of assayssuitable <strong>for</strong> use in quantitative high throughput and high content screens (qHTS); (3)established a Worm-Tox Screening Facility with the goal of developing toxicologicalassays using the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans; (4) developed statistically-basedapproaches <strong>for</strong> distinguishing between active, inactive, and inconclusive responses inthese screens and in<strong>for</strong>matic tools <strong>for</strong> identifying predictive toxicity patterns; (5) expandedthe NTP’s publicly accessible Chemical Effects in Biological Systems (CEBS)database to contain all Tox21-related data as well as the NTP historical data; (6) conductedqHTS studies to probe mechanisms of inter-individual susceptibility to toxicants;(7) evaluated molecular tools <strong>for</strong> mining the <strong>for</strong>malin fixed, paraffin embeddedanimal tissues in the NTP Tissue Archives <strong>for</strong> predictive gene signatures; (8) supportedassay and in<strong>for</strong>matic developments through the NIEHS Small Business InnovativeResearch contract award process; and (9) developed a targeted testing program thatevaluates predictive models built on Tox21 approaches. Advantages and limitationsof these activities will be presented.T2-B.2 Dickey R; robert.dickey@fda.hhs.govFDA, Gulf Coast Seafood LaboratoryA RETROSPECTIVE ON THE MULTIAGENCY RESPONSE TO SEA-FOOD SAFETY FOLLOWING THE 2010 DEEPWATER HORIZON OILSPILLDuring the period of April 20 through July 15, 2010 approximately 210 milliongallons of crude oil spilled into the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) following the explosionand sinking of the Deepwater Horizon (DWH) drilling plat<strong>for</strong>m. The magnitudeof the DWH spill threatened all 5 states bordering the Gulf of Mexico, and crossedstatutory boundaries at state and federal levels. Federal and State Agencies respondedto the spill in a coordinated manner to institute a unified seafood safety protocol <strong>for</strong>the testing and re-opening of GOM fisheries. The seafood safety risk assessment, aintegral component of the protocol, followed the approach taken by FDA in 1990after the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Prince William Sound, Alaska. Polycyclic aromatichydrocarbons (PAH) are recognized internationally as the most appropriate chemicalindicators of the potential human health risk posed by crude oil residues in seafood.A toxicologically representative subset of 13 PAH and their alkylated homologueswas selected <strong>for</strong> critical analysis of impacted seafood in the aftermath of the DWHspill. A set of calculations was used to determine seafood PAH tissue concentrationsabove which a conservatively estimated 10-5 upper-bound risk level <strong>for</strong> low dose lifetimecancer is exceeded. Levels of concern <strong>for</strong> non-cancer risks were evaluated basedon EPA IRIS reference dose values. Values <strong>for</strong> other event-specific variables in thecalculations were selected from the most recent in<strong>for</strong>mation available, and historicdata from oil spill outcomes dating back to Exxon Valdez. More than 10,000 seafoodspecimens were sampled through the periods of fishery closures, re-openings, andextended surveillance after fishery re-opening. Analyses were conducted at 7 laboratoriesfrom the National Marine Fisheries Service and Food and Drug Administration.Result of analyses from all per<strong>for</strong>ming laboratories are consistent and 100 to1000-fold below levels of concern established in the unified seafood safety protocol.T2-B.3 Dickhoff WW, Walker C, Ylitalo G, Wilson S, Stein J; walton.w.dickhoff@noaa.govNOAA FisheriesASSESSING SEAFOOD SAFETY DURING THE DEEPWATER HORI-ZON OIL SPILL MC252The 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill raised widespread concern about thesafety of Gulf seafood. In response, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and87
- 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: Reference Dose (RfD). The average e
- 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