PRINCIPLES OF TOXICOLOGY - Biology East Borneo

472 RISK ASSESSMENTTABLE 18.7 Activities Estimated to Increase Your Chances of Dying in Any Year by One in a MillionActivitySmoking 1.4 cigarettesDrinking 0.5 L of wineSpending 1 h in a coal mineSpending 3 h in a coal mineLiving 2 days in New York or BostonTraveling 6 min by canoeTraveling 10 miles by bicycleTraveling 150 miles by carFlying 1000 miles by jetFlying 6000 miles by jetLiving 2 months in Denver on vacation from New YorkLiving 2 months in average stone or brick buildingOne chest X-ray taken in a good hospitalLiving 2 months with a cigarette smokerEating 40 tablespoons of peanut butterDrinking Miami drinking water for 1 yearLiving 5 years at site boundary of a nuclear power plantEating 100 charcoal-broiled steaksCause of DeathCancer, heart diseaseLiver cirrhosisBlack lung diseaseAccidentAir pollutionAccidentAccidentAccidentAccidentCancer from cosmic radiationCancer from cosmic radiationCancer from natural radioactivityCancer from radiationCancer, heart diseaseLiver cancer from aflatoxin BCancer from chloroformCancer from radiationCancer from benzopyreneSource: Allman (Oct. 1985).18.9 RISK COMMUNICATIONIn order to be useful, risk assessment results must be effectively communicated to nontechnicalaudiences. This can include risk managers, legislators, the public, industry, and environmental groups.If risk managers don’t understand the results, it can lead to bad regulatory and policy decisions. Publicunderstanding of risk assessment results is also essential if they are to participate in, or at least acceptthe results of, risk-based decision-making.Effectively communicating the results of risk assessments is an enormous challenge. Problems liein virtually all aspects of the risk communication process, including (1) the individual, agency, orcompany that conducts and presents the risk assessment; (2) the risk assessment itself; (3) the meansto convey risk information; and (4) the audience. Examples of these problems are listed in Table 18.8.One of the biggest hurdles is the fact that risk analyses are often very complex, technical exercises.Making the process and outcome of the risk analysis transparent to laypersons is next to impossibleunless there is some opportunity to provide background education to “bring them up to speed” on thesubject. In most situations, this opportunity doesn’t exist. The public is arguably one of the mostimportant recipients of risk information, yet one of the most difficult audiences for risk assessors tocommunicate with. One problem is that the most common channel for communicating risk informationto the public is through the news media. This presents at least three difficulties in trying to communicatea clear and accurate message: (1) reporting of the information may be biased, incomplete, or inaccurate;(2) news accounts may tend to sensationalize or focus on ancillary issues, such as disagreementsbetween parties or human interest stories; and (3) news media have generally shown little interest inproviding the background information needed to educate the public on risk analysis and to help theminterpret findings for themselves.No doubt one reason why the media have not invested much effort in educating the public aboutrisk assessment is that the public itself, for the most part, has shown little interest in the technicalcomplexities and nuances of risk analysis. In most situations for which a risk assessment is needed,they just want a straight answer to the simple question, “Is it safe?” Anything other than a clear “yes”answer to this question signals cause for concern. Herein lies a second major problem for risk