Principles and Concepts in Risk Assessment

  • Kofi Asante-Duah
Chapter
Part of the Environmental Pollution book series (EPOL, volume 6)

Abstract

In its application to chemical exposure problems, the risk assessment process is used to compile and organize the scientific information that is necessary to support environmental and public health risk management decisions. The approach is used to help identify potential problems, establish priorities, and provide a basis for regulatory actions. Indeed, it is apparent that the advancement of risk analysis in regulatory decision-making has promoted rational policy deliberations over the past several decades. Yet, as real-world practice indicates, risk analyses have often been as much the source of controversy in regulatory considerations as the facilitator of consensus (ACS and RFF, 1998).

Keywords

Toxicity Mercury Europe Marketing Adduct 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Suggested Further Reading

  1. Bate, R. (ed.), 1997. What Risk? (Science, Politics & Public Health), Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
  2. Bates, DV, 1994. Environmental Health Risks and Public Policy, University of Washington Press, Seattle, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  3. Bromley, DW and K. Segerson (eds.), 1992. The Social Response to Environmental Risk: Policy Formulation in an Age of Uncertainty, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, MAGoogle Scholar
  4. Hamed, MM, 1999. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis of public health risk assessment from contaminated soil, Journal of Soil Contamination, 8(3): 285–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hamed, MM, 2000. Impact of random variables probability distribution on public health risk assessment from contaminated soil, Journal of Soil Contamination, 9(2): 99–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hammitt, JK, 1995. Can more information increase uncertainty? Chance, 8(3): 15–17Google Scholar
  7. Hammitt, JK and AI Shlyakhter, 1999. The expected value of information and the probability of surprise, Risk Analysis, 19(1): 135–152Google Scholar
  8. Hansson, S-O, 1989. Dimensions of risk, Risk Analysis, 9(1): 107–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hansson, S-O, 1996. Decision making under great uncertainty, Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 26(3): 369–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hansson, S-O, 1996. What is philosophy of risk? Theoria, 62: 169–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Joffe, M. and J. Mindell, 2002. A framework for the evidence base to support health impact assessment, Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 56(2): 132–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kimmel, CA and DW Gaylor, 1988. Issues in qualitative and quantitative risk analysis for developmental toxicology, Risk Analysis, 8: 15–20PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Pollard, SJ, R. Yearsley, et al., 2002. Current directions in the practice of environmental risk assessment in the United Kingdom, Environmental Science & Technology, 36(4): 530–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Richards, D. and WD Rowe, 1999. Decision-making with heterogeneous sources of information, Risk Analysis, 19(1): 69–81Google Scholar
  15. van Ryzin, J., 1980. Quantitative risk assessment, Journal of Occupational Medicine, 22:321–326PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kofi Asante-Duah
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Human Health Risk Assessment PracticeEnvironmental Risk Solutions, inc., The ERS GroupCaliforniaUSA
  2. 2.Anteon CorporationEnvironment DivisionSan DiegoUSA

Personalised recommendations