IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v25y2005i5p1085-1095.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risk Analysis for Environmental Health Triage

Author

Listed:
  • Kenneth T. Bogen

Abstract

The Homeland Security Act mandates the development of a national, risk‐based system to support planning for, response to, and recovery from emergency situations involving large‐scale toxic exposures. To prepare for and manage consequences effectively, planners and responders need not only to identify zones of potentially elevated individual risk but also to predict expected casualties. Emergency response support systems now define “consequences” by mapping areas in which toxic chemical concentrations do or may exceed Acute Exposure Guideline Levels (AEGLs) or similar guidelines. However, because AEGLs do not estimate expected risks, current unqualified claims that such maps support consequence management are misleading. Intentionally protective, AEGLs incorporate various safety/uncertainty factors depending on the scope and quality of chemical‐specific toxicity data. Some of these factors are irrelevant, and others need to be modified, whenever resource constraints or exposure‐scenario complexities require responders to make critical trade‐off (triage) decisions in order to minimize expected casualties. AEGL‐exceedance zones cannot consistently be aggregated, compared, or used to calculate expected casualties and so may seriously misguide emergency response triage decisions. Methods and tools well established and readily available to support environmental health protection are not yet developed for chemically‐related environmental health triage. Effective triage decisions involving chemical risks require a new assessment approach that focuses on best estimates of likely casualties, rather than on upper plausible bounds of individual risk. If risk‐based consequence management is to become a reality, federal agencies tasked with supporting emergency response must actively coordinate to foster new methods that can support effective environmental health triage.

Suggested Citation

  • Kenneth T. Bogen, 2005. "Risk Analysis for Environmental Health Triage," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(5), pages 1085-1095, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:25:y:2005:i:5:p:1085-1095
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2005.00658.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2005.00658.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2005.00658.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kenneth T. Bogen & Robert C. Spear, 1987. "Integrating Uncertainty and Interindividual Variability in Environmental Risk Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 7(4), pages 427-436, December.
    2. Kenneth T. Bogen, 1995. "Methods to Approximate Joint Uncertainty and Variability in Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(3), pages 411-419, June.
    3. W. Slob & M. N. Pieters, 1998. "A Probabilistic Approach for Deriving Acceptable Human Intake Limits and Human Health Risks from Toxicological Studies: General Framework," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(6), pages 787-798, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kenneth T. Bogen, 2014. "Unveiling Variability and Uncertainty for Better Science and Decisions on Cancer Risks from Environmental Chemicals," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(10), pages 1795-1806, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. H. Christopher Frey & David E. Burmaster, 1999. "Methods for Characterizing Variability and Uncertainty: Comparison of Bootstrap Simulation and Likelihood‐Based Approaches," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(1), pages 109-130, February.
    2. Brent Finley & Deborah Proctor & Paul Scott & Natalie Harrington & Dennis Paustenbach & Paul Price, 1994. "Recommended Distributions for Exposure Factors Frequently Used in Health Risk Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(4), pages 533-553, August.
    3. Roger Cooke, 2010. "Conundrums with Uncertainty Factors," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(3), pages 330-339, March.
    4. Hilko Van Der Voet & Wout Slob, 2007. "Integration of Probabilistic Exposure Assessment and Probabilistic Hazard Characterization," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(2), pages 351-371, April.
    5. Susan Dekkers & Jan Telman & Monique A. J. Rennen & Marco J. Appel & Cees De Heer, 2006. "Within‐Animal Variation as an Indication of the Minimal Magnitude of the Critical Effect Size for Continuous Toxicological Parameters Applicable in the Benchmark Dose Approach," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(4), pages 867-880, August.
    6. Kristi Kuljus & Dietrich Von Rosen & Salomon Sand & Katarina Victorin, 2006. "Comparing Experimental Designs for Benchmark Dose Calculations for Continuous Endpoints," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(4), pages 1031-1043, August.
    7. Kenneth T. Bogen, 2014. "Does EPA Underestimate Cancer Risks by Ignoring Susceptibility Differences?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(10), pages 1780-1784, October.
    8. Junyu Zheng & H. Christopher Frey, 2005. "Quantitative Analysis of Variability and Uncertainty with Known Measurement Error: Methodology and Case Study," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(3), pages 663-675, June.
    9. Patrick Sheehan & Ankur Singhal & Kenneth T. Bogen & David MacIntosh & Renee M. Kalmes & John McCarthy, 2018. "Potential Exposure and Cancer Risk from Formaldehyde Emissions from Installed Chinese Manufactured Laminate Flooring," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(6), pages 1128-1142, June.
    10. G. P. Brorby & P. J. Sheehan & D. W. Berman & K. T. Bogen & S. E. Holm, 2013. "Exposures from Chrysotile‐Containing Joint Compound: Evaluation of New Model Relating Respirable Dust to Fiber Concentrations," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(1), pages 161-176, January.
    11. Kenneth T. Bogen, 2014. "Unveiling Variability and Uncertainty for Better Science and Decisions on Cancer Risks from Environmental Chemicals," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(10), pages 1795-1806, October.
    12. Adam M. Finkel & George Gray, 2018. "Taking the reins: how regulatory decision-makers can stop being hijacked by uncertainty," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 38(2), pages 230-238, June.
    13. Signe M. Jensen & Felix M. Kluxen & Christian Ritz, 2019. "A Review of Recent Advances in Benchmark Dose Methodology," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(10), pages 2295-2315, October.
    14. Bas Groot Koerkamp & Theo Stijnen & Milton C. Weinstein & M. G. Myriam Hunink, 2011. "The Combined Analysis of Uncertainty and Patient Heterogeneity in Medical Decision Models," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(4), pages 650-661, July.
    15. Wouter Fransman & Harrie Buist & Eelco Kuijpers & Tobias Walser & David Meyer & Esther Zondervan‐van den Beuken & Joost Westerhout & Rinke H. Klein Entink & Derk H. Brouwer, 2017. "Comparative Human Health Impact Assessment of Engineered Nanomaterials in the Framework of Life Cycle Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(7), pages 1358-1374, July.
    16. Mirjam Moerbeek & Aldert H. Piersma & Wout Slob, 2004. "A Comparison of Three Methods for Calculating Confidence Intervals for the Benchmark Dose," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(1), pages 31-40, February.
    17. Junyu Zheng & H. Christopher Frey, 2004. "Quantification of Variability and Uncertainty Using Mixture Distributions: Evaluation of Sample Size, Mixing Weights, and Separation Between Components," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(3), pages 553-571, June.
    18. S. N. Rai & D. Krewski, 1998. "Uncertainty and Variability Analysis in Multiplicative Risk Models," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(1), pages 37-45, February.
    19. Paul S. Price & Heli M. Hollnagel & Jack M. Zabik, 2009. "Characterizing the Noncancer Toxicity of Mixtures Using Concepts from the TTC and Quantitative Models of Uncertainty in Mixture Toxicity," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(11), pages 1534-1548, November.
    20. Mark Nicas, 1996. "An Analytical Framework for Relating Dose, Risk, and Incidence: An Application to Occupational Tuberculosis Infection," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(4), pages 527-538, August.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:25:y:2005:i:5:p:1085-1095. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.