Final Program - Society for Risk Analysis

W3-A.2 Eggers SL, Thorne SL, Sousa KAT, Butte G, Ackerlund S*; seggers@decisionpartners.comDecision PartnersA STRATEGIC RISK COMMUNICATION PROCESS FOR BIOSOLIDSPROFESSIONALS: ADVANCING THE FIELDThe long-term sustainability of biosolids land application depends on continuouslyearning local community stakeholders’ trust and support. This requires biosolidsprofessionals’ ongoing and effective outreach and dialogue with these stakeholdersabout the use of biosolids in their communities. The authors customizedtheir Strategic Risk Communication Process, though a research project for the WaterEnvironment Research Foundation, to meet the unique and often unmet communicationsneeds of biosolids professionals. The process was applied in collaborationwith two teams of biosolids professionals in Oklahoma and Virginia. The authorsworked with each team to identify the communications opportunities, then conductand analyze in-depth mental models research interviews with a): local landownerswho receive biosolids (one case); b) neighbors to local land application sites (bothcases); and c) regional public health officials (one case). Actionable communicationsplans, pretested communications materials and further recommendations were developedbased on the research findings and the specific needs of each biosolids program.Materials developed included guiding principles, a dialogue presentation for use atcommunity meetings, a community-specific brochure and prototypes for on-site signage.Building on the case study results, the authors developed a Primer that offersbiosolids professionals step-by-step guidance, supporting tools and sample materials.Continued applications can advance the process as a leading management practicefor biosolids professionals. They can also add significant contribution to other publicand environment management sectors, by serving as a model for efficiently and effectivelyengaging community stakeholders in dialogue about their operations in thelocal communities.W4-E.5 Eisinger F; eisingerf@marseille.fnclcc.frIPCHOW TO DEAL WITH GENE-BIOHAZARD INTERACTION?Laws should be as clear, stable, and foreseeable as possible. The Genetic InformationNondiscrimination Act (GINA) is indeed a huge step towards modernityas it removes societal threats and thus, lets scientific achievements driving us tohealth improvement. The fear of unsounded or unfair discrimination makes wise toban employers from using a person’s genetic information in making job assignments.However, more and more publications focus on gene-environment interactions. Itwill not be surprising if we’ll find more and more genetic characteristics makingsome hazard exposure a greater risk, while the same exposure in someone withoutthe genetic variation will be lower. This is already proven for the often quoted caseof beryllium and HLA-DPB1 but also more recently for other interactions such as:polymorphism of DNA repair genes and benzene exposure or immune gene variationand organochlorine exposure. There is, therefore, for job assignment, a dilemmabetween the willingness to avoid gene-based discrimination and letting someone exposedto a higher risk of dreadful diseases. I will argue that more sophisticated lawsor different wording might be required concerning genetic information managementat this point. If scientific data aimed at information, which might be applied in differentbackgrounds, in contrast the social outcome (such as legal regulation) of thesedebates depends critically of economical and cultural background.T2-I.2 Ellig JR; jellig@gmu.eduMercatus CenterTHE EXTENT OF UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS FOR MAJOR PRO-POSED REGULATIONSWhen executive branch agencies propose major regulations, executive orders requirethem to assess uncertainties about benefits, costs, and the nature of the systemicproblem the regulation seeks to solve. This paper presents the results of a projectthat assesses how extensively agencies have analyzed these uncertainties over the pastseveral years for proposed, economically significant regulations. It reveals the extentof uncertainty analysis, presents best and worst examples, and explores differencesacross types of regulations.T2-G.4 Eosco GM, Scherer CW; gme7@cornell.eduCornell UniversityVISUALIZING RISK AND UNCERTAINTY: AN EXPERIMENTALSTUDYMany efforts have been made to visualize risk and uncertainty. Most of theseefforts have proven unsuccessful or at least problematic. This study reports on anexperimental study investigating how individuals link these abstract concepts to concretevisuals. Risk and uncertainty have two common characteristics; They are bothreal, but invisible. To make these concepts visual, both require either a numericaldescription, such as 1 out of 3 people will die from breast cancer, or there is a 30%chance of rain, or alternatively, they are given a concrete association. A hurricaneis both a risk and is uncertain, but is visible, thus, abstract (uncertain) and concrete.The Gulf oil spill was concrete, damage being caused, and abstract, amount of oil.Most abstract concepts require a visual metaphor, an association with a concrete object.The visual then evokes the abstract concept, for example birds covered in oilmay evoke the idea of environmental risk. The concern with risk and uncertainty isthat they are broad terms with many associations. What, then, is the most commonconcrete object association for risk and uncertainty? To test this, three groups ofstudents were used to explore how individuals associate risk and uncertainty withconcrete visualizations. The first group was given the words uncertainty and risk,93