Risk Assessment

&
Risk Perception

Kaci Buhl, MS
 Call the National Pesticide Information Center

• A science-based information service for pesticides

• 8:00 – 12:00 PT
• Funded through a cooperative agreement with EPA
• ~ 12,000 inquiries per year
 Outline

• Basics of Toxicology
• Chemical Risk Assessment
• The science of risk perception
• A framework for risk communication
BASICS OF TOXICOLOGY
Dose
Dose
…. And Dose
Risk Assessment
 Heading

• Bullets
 Heading

• Bullets
 Heading

• Bullets
 Exposure Assessment
• Drinking water
• Occupational exposure
• Home use
• Residue on food
– How much do we eat?

Estimated expected exposure

Heading
 Heading

• Bullets
 Heading

• Bullets
Dose with no effects/Expected exposure

Risk is considered low if:

The dose with no effects is 100 times larger than
the expected exposure level (dose).

If there’s no NOAEL, and we use the LOAEL instead,

Risk is considered low if:
The lowest dose that causes effects is 1000 times
larger than the expected exposure level (dose).
 Heading

• Bullets
Risk Assessment
THE SCIENCE OF RISK PERCEPTION

Every hazard is unique

Every person is unique

Acknowledgement: Dr. Paul Slovic, University of Oregon

 Risk Perception

• Most risk perception is determined by fast

intuitive feelings.
• The risk(s) cannot be separated from the
benefit(s) in the mind
• Understanding risk perception is critical for
effective communication.
 High

Activities, 
hazards, etc.

 
Risk 

 


 
   
 
  

Low
Low High
Benefit

In the world, risk and benefit are positively correlated.

In people’s minds, they are negatively correlated.
 High
 Activities,
 hazards, etc.
 

 


Risk 
 




  


Low
Low High
Benefit

According to social science research, the relationship

between risk and benefit in people’s minds is
negatively correlated.
Figure 1 Perceived risks and benefits of nanotechnology and 43 other technologies, based on
503 responses to a national telephone survey. Source:Currall et al. 2006
 Radiation
5 Benefit
4 Risk
3 Risk
Benefit
2
1
Nuclear Power X-rays

Chemicals
5 Benefit
Risk
4
3 Benefit
Risk
2
1
Pesticides Prescription Drugs

Figure 3. Mean perceived risk and perceived benefit for medical and nonmedical sources of exposure to
radiation and chemicals. Each item was rated on a scale of perceived risk ranging from 1 (very low risk) to 7
(very high risk) and a scale of perceived benefit ranging from 1 (very low benefit) to 7 (very high benefit). Data
are from a national survey in Canada by Slovic et al., 1991.
Risks are less likely to be
acceptable if the benefits
are hidden from view, or if
they are not fairly
distributed among those
who bear the risks.
Risk denial increases with perceived control

Sjoberg, L. Factors in Risk Perception. 2000. Risk Analysis 20:1 (pp1-11)

How is risk defined? Who decides?

Is coal mining getting safer?

Accidental deaths per Accidental deaths per

million tons of coal mined thousand coal mine
in the United States employees in the United
States
Defining risk is an act of power

Counting fatalities gives equal weight to:

• Young and old
• Painful and painless deaths
• Voluntary and involuntary exposure(s)
• Fair (beneficial) and unfair (no
benefit)
 Gut feelings

• Feelings about outcomes and feelings about

probabilities are often confused.

• When strong emotions are involved, there is

‘probability neglect.’
 Terrorism and Probability Neglect

Cass R. Sunstein
The Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 26(2/3); 2003

• People are prone to . . . probability neglect when their

emotions are intensely engaged.

• When probability neglect is at work, people’s attention is

focused on the bad outcome itself, and they are inattentive to
the fact that it is unlikely to occur.
Many people lack dose-response sensitivity for exposure to chemicals
that can produce dreaded effects, such as cancer.
If large exposures are bad, small exposures are also bad.
People with different worldviews were asked
about their attitudes towards nanotechnology,
before and after being given information about
nanotechnology.
 Some questions that measure
worldviews (agree?)
The government should stop telling people how to live
their lives (Individualism)

The government should do more to advance society’s

goals, even if that limits the freedom of individuals
(Communitarian)

Our society would be better off if the distribution of

wealth was more equal (Egalitarianism)

We should let the experts make all the risk decisions for
society (Hierarchism)
 Personal ‘outrage factors’

In person’s control -----------------Out of person’s control

Voluntary ---------------------- Imposed

Beneficial -------------- Not beneficial

Natural ---------------- Man-made

Affects only adults ------------------ Affects children

Familiar ------------------ Exotic

Lower risk Higher risk
perceived Trusted entity ---------- Untrusted entity perceived
 The word “safe” is unsafe.

Safety Risk
Yes or No More risky----------------Less risky
No precautions necessary Precautions reduce risk
Safe is safe for everyone Risk is higher for certain people
Easy to explain Harder to explain

Careless
The
behaviors, Increased
impression
lack of risk
of safety
vigilance
The risk equation as scaffolding

Informed Risk Decision-

making
Toxicity or Hazard

Exposure
 Finding the Sweet Spot

Threat/danger Reward/benefit

0 50 100
~60
- Norepinephrine - Dopamine
- on alert - relaxed

If the focus is too much on ‘threat’, learning shuts down.

 Summary
• Chemical Risk Assessment
• The science of risk perception
 In summary, some suggestions:
• Chemical risk assessment measures the
probability of harm by comparing dose levels.
• Personal risk assessment perception varies with
world-view, strength of emotion, and perceived
benefit.

• Probability of harm doesn’t matter if emotions

are strong.

• Address emotions first. Then people may consider

probability in their personal risk assessment perception.
 In summary, some suggestions:
• Benefit(s) often inform risk perception more
than the probability of harm.
• Defining risk is an act of power.
• ‘Safe’ is not a safe word.

• Don’t be silent about benefits when discussing risk.

• Don’t define risk for people. They may feel dominated.
• Discuss risk, and ways to reduce it. Empower people.
Threat/danger Reward/benefit

0 50 100
~60

• Describe the desirable

behavior, stay positive.

• Keep it short. Too many

facts can overwhelm.

Cook, J., Lewandowsky, S. (2011), The Debunking Handbook. St. Lucia, Australia: University of
Queensland. November 5. ISBN 978-0-646-56812-6. [[Link]
Risk Assessment
&
Risk Perception

Kaci Buhl, MS
buhlk@[Link]