Health risk communication using comparative risk analyses.
The ability to communicate effectively the degree or magnitude of public exposures or health risks is essential for risk assessors and risk managers. Various guidelines exist for communicating environmental and public health risks, including recommended approaches for putting risk data into proper context. Although it remains unclear as to which approach is the most useful or appropriate under different circumstances, risk comparisons are a popular choice for conveying the significance of or providing a better perspective on a particular chemical exposure or health risk. In this paper, several different types of risk comparisons are described that are frequently used in the private and public sectors, and these are illustrated using a variety of examples from the literature. These approaches include: (1) intrachemical comparisons, (2) interchemical comparisons, (3) comparisons to background levels of risk, (4) comparisons to theoretical risks or safety levels, and (5) comparisons to other actions or activities. The primary purpose of this paper is to summarize and briefly discuss the advantages and limitations of these risk communication approaches. The evolving field of risk communication is also discussed, including ongoing research on public risk perceptions and alternative methods for communicating risk magnitudes and data uncertainties.
Williams
Pamela R D
PR
ChemRisk, 4775 Walnut Street, Suite 1B, Boulder, Colorado 80301, USA. pwilliams@chemrisk.com
D003142:Communication; D004785:Environmental Pollutants / Q000506:poisoning; D015386:Hazardous Substances / Q000506:poisoning*; D006801:Humans; D010465:Perception; D011634:Public Health; D011639:Public Opinion; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D018570:Risk Assessment
D004785:Environmental Pollutants; D015386:Hazardous Substances