The Influence of the Climate of Risk Perception on the Process of Risk Management: Quantification, Evaluation Decision Making

Abstract

The machinery of risk management (quantification (Q), Evaluation (E), Decision making (D)) is set in motion at the instant of perception of risk, and proceeds in a climate of risk perception which has such strong local variations that various local QED processes can lead to very different management decisions for identical risks, e.g., the de minimis approach to carcinogens in Scandinavia, point estimates for carcinogenic risk in the USA, and toxic substance control limits which do not distinguish carcinogens in the UK. Similarly, in any one locality, variation in risk perception between the various self-interest groups involved in the QED process, e.g., scientists, the courts, individual workers, unions, management, regulatory agencies, and the media/public sector, results in very different bargaining positions for each participant. Recently, in Denmark, a cluster of five cases of laryngeal cancer, coupled with positive Ames test results for stainless steel welding fumes (which contain soluble Cr (VI)) has resulted in rule-making, not open to public debate and largely ignored, identifying stainless steel welding as a potential carcinogenic exposure. The economic recession, however, has subsequently led to agreement on part of the unions, management, and the regulatory bodies, with respect to jointly controlled research funds, only to promote occupational health research which results in reduction of known, unquantified risks, and to discourage investigative studies designed to identify new risks or to quantify old ones.