After reading this essay you will learn about ‘Environmental Risk’. Find paragraphs, long and short essays on ‘Environmental Risk’ for school and college students.
Essay on Environmental Risk
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Essay Contents:
- Essay on the Concept of Environmental Risk
- Essay on the Evaluation of Environmental Risk
- Essay on the Types of Environmental Risk
- Essay on the Role of Economic in Environmental Risk
- Essay on the Public Perception of Environmental Risk
- Essay on the Environmental Risk Communication
Essay # 1. Concept of Environmental Risk:
Risk assessment and risk management give a framework for setting regulatory priorities and for making decisions that cut across different environmental areas. This kind of framework has become increasingly important in recent years for several reasons, one of which is the considerable progress made in pollution control in this country.
In the 1980s, it wasn’t hard to figure out where the first priorities should be. The worst pollution problems were all too obvious. Now that a number of clean-up areas are moving toward final control stages, the real priority problems and their solutions are not so obvious.
Environmental risk assessment may be broadly defined as a scientific enterprise in which facts and assumptions are used to estimate the potential for adverse effects on human health or the environment that may result from exposures to specific pollutants or other toxic agents.
Risk management—as the term is used by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other regulatory agencies—refers to a decision-making process which involves such considerations as risk assessment, technological feasibility, economic information about cost and benefits, statutory requirements, public concerns and other factors.
Risk communication is the exchange of information about risk.
Essay # 2. Evaluation of Environmental Risk:
ADVERTISEMENTS:
In general, there are four steps in the evaluation of a risk:
i. Hazard identification.
ii. Exposure assessment.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
iii. Hazard assessment.
iv. Risk characterization.
i. Hazard Identification:
Hazard identification is an analysis to determine which of the discharges from a process or an accidental release will be a potential danger to public health. For instance, chemicals such as carbon monoxide, hydrogen chloride and unburned organics would be established as potential sources of risk for an incinerator.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The means of determining or identifying hazards is complex. Different methods are used to collect and evaluate toxic properties (those properties that indicate the potential to cause biological injury, disease or death under certain exposure conditions).
One method is the use of epidemiological studies that deal with the incidence of disease among groups of people. Epidemiological studies attempt to correlate the incidence of cancer from an emission by an evaluation of people with a particular disease and people without the disease.
Long-term animal “bioassays” are the most common method of hazard determination. (A bioassay as referred to here is an evaluation of disease in a laboratory animal). Increased tumor incidence in laboratory animals is the primary health effect considered in animal bioassay.
Exposure testing for a major portion of an animal’s lifetime (2-3 years for rats and mice) provides information on disease susceptibility, primarily for carcinogenicity (the development of cancer).
ii. Exposure Assessment:
Exposure assessment determines how much of an emission actually reaches the receptor. Human exposure includes ingestion (eating or drinking), dermal contact (contact with the skin) and inhalation (breathing). These means of exposure are pathways to the human body.
There is no risk without exposure. The exposure assessment attempts to define the route, amount, frequency and duration of exposure of a given population to a toxic substance. The principal pathways of exposure generally considered in exposure assessment are atmospheric transport, surface and groundwater transport, ingestion of food materials etc.
iii. Hazard Assessment:
A hazard assessment is a determination of the relationship between the amount of exposure and the risk to public health. A person can drown in water, but that does not mean that a glass of water is a danger to health. Obviously, what defines a danger is not necessarily the presence of a particular chemical but rather the amount of that substance one is exposed to. This amount is known as a dose.
Hazard assessment is also referred to as dose-response assessment. Dose is usually expressed as milligrams of chemical received per kilogram of body weight per day. For toxic substances other than carcinogens, a threshold dose must be exceeded before a health effect will occur.
For many substances, there is a dosage level below which there is no harm. However, at some given dosage, the threshold, a health effect will occur (or at least be detected).
It is generally assumed that for cancer-causing substances, there is no such threshold. Any substance that produces cancer is assumed to produce cancer at any concentration. It is, therefore, necessary to establish the risk to cancer and to determine whether that risk is acceptable.
Analysis of a cancer risk is much more complicated than analysis of risk from non-carcinogenic substances. For non-carcinogenic substances, because there is a threshold level below which there is no danger, a system can be designed to generate an amount of that chemical below this danger level.
iv. Risk Characterisation:
Risk characterisation estimates the health risk associated with the process under investigation. The result of this characterisation is a number that represents the probability of adverse health effects from that process or from a substance released in that process.
For instance, a risk characterisation for all effects from an incineration process might be expressed as one additional cancer case per 1 million people. Once a risk characterisation is made, the meaning of that risk must be evaluated. Public health agencies generally only consider risks greater than 10 in 1 million to be significant risks warranting action.
Essay # 3. Types of Environmental Risk:
i. Maximum Individual Risk (MIR):
This is the maximum risk to an individual person. This individual is considered to have a 70-year lifetime of exposure to a process or a chemical. For an incinerator stack, for instance, the individual is considered to live downwind of the stack, never leaving this spot for every hour and every day of a 70-year life.
ii. Population Risk (PR):
This is a risk to a population, expressed as so many deaths per thousand or per million people.
The problem with risk estimates based on very conservative assumptions is that the substance or process may be calculated to present too high a risk. Unnecessary process control equipment may have to be installed on a facility to reduce the calculated risk.
In an effort to understand the significance of risk analyses, it is helpful to place the estimated risks in perspective with other everyday risks that have been determined by similar methodology. Table 35.1 lists a number of risks for comparison. These have been derived from actual statistics and reasonable estimates.
Essay # 4. Role of Economic In Risk Analysis:
Environmental protection is designed to reduce risks to humans and the environment. The goal is to invest scarce resources to reduce risks to life and limb for people confronting threats from pollution or natural hazards and to reduce risk to ecosystem service and biological diversity affected by human actions.
Paying for cleaner waterways can reduce the risk of cancer, paying for cleaner air can reduce the risk of asthma and other illness; precautionary investments in pollution control can reduce posed by transporting hazardous material and more insurance shifts resources to soften the shock of extreme weather events.
Traditional modelling approach was applied for evaluation of both exogenous and endogenous risks. The role of economics then is to understand how people react to these risks which means economists focus attention on the properties of risk preferences rather than on the technologies of risk control when explaining behaviour under risk.
Essay # 5. Public Perception of Environmental Risk:
People often overestimate the frequency and seriousness of dramatic, sensational, dreaded, well-publicized causes of death and underestimate the risks from more familiar, accepted causes that claim lives one by one.
Indeed, risk estimates by “experts” and lay people (or “the public“) on many key environmental problems differ significantly. This problem and the reasons for it are extremely important, because in our society the public generally does not trust experts to make important risk decisions alone.
This situation was illustrated by an EPA study. In February 1987, the EPA released a report entitled Unfinished Business: A Comparative Assessment of Environmental Problems. EPA Administrator Lee M. Thomas had commissioned this study nearly a year earlier to “compare the risks currently associated with major environmental problems, given existing levels of control.”
Thomas’ explicit premise was that “in a world of limited resources, it may be wise to give priority attention to those pollutants and problems that pose the greatest risks to our society.”
To assess and compare these problems, the EPA created a special task force of about 75 career managers and experts from all EPA programmes. The task force compared four different types of risks existing now for each of 31 environmental problem areas: cancer risk, non-cancer health risks, ecological effects and welfare effect (e.g., materials damage).
While the task force did not try to “weight” or “add” the different types of risks for problem areas, they did develop rough rankings of problems within risk types (Tables 35.2 and 35.3).
Beyond these rankings, the task force made no assertions about what EPA’s priorities ought to be, noting that policy makers must consider many other factors besides risk when they set priorities, such as legislation, economics, technology and public mandate.
Essay # 6. Environmental Risk Communication:
Frustrations abound when it comes to the way public opinion regards environmental risks and drives environmental protection. Some risks are large, sometimes frighteningly large, whereas others are small sometimes vanishingly small.
This is so whether they are placed on the measuring rod of total population life expectancy or on that of the probability of premature death for small numbers of exposed people. The same holds true of nonfatal disease and ecological harm. At least, this is what available scientific evidence suggests.
On the surface, it appears practical to remedy the most severe risks first, leaving the others until later or may be, if small enough, never remedying the others at all. But the behaviour of individuals in everyday life often does not conform with this view.
For example, there are toxic waste dumps where all evidence indicates that risks are minimal. Yet, the presence of such dumps can lead to numbing anxiety on the part of some, to loss of property values and to disruption of communities.
Elsewhere, facilities to dispose safely of similar wastes may be resisted by all means possible, including threats of civil disobedience. And, at the same time, individuals may show little concern for hazardous products in ordinary commerce, resist efforts to protect wetlands vital to ecological integrity, not choose to test their homes for naturally occurring radon and ignore safe-use labels for pesticides in home use.
Examples of environmental science hysteria in the face of apparently trivial risks-along with examples of apathy in the face of apparently serious ones-form an unsettling litany to risk managers.
There are no easy prescriptions for successful risk communication. However, those who have studied and participated in reel debates about risk generally agree on the following seven rules. These rules apply equally well to the public and private sectors. Although many of the rules may seem obvious, they are continually and consistently violated in practice.
Thus, a useful way to read these rules is to focus on why they are frequently not followed:
Accept and involve the public as a legitimate partner. A basic tenet of risk communication in a democracy is that people and communities have a right to participate in decisions that affect their lives, their property and the things they value.
Guidelines:
Demonstrate your respect for the public and underscore the sincerity of your effort by involving the community early before important decisions are made. Involve all parties that have an interest or a stake in the issue under consideration. If you are a government employee, remember that you work for the Public. If you do not work for the government, the public still holds you accountable.
Point to Consider:
i. The goal of risk communication in a democracy should be to produce an informed public that is involved, interested, reasonable, thoughtful, solution-oriented and collaborative; it should not be to diffuse public concerns or replace action.
ii. Plan carefully and evaluate your efforts. Risk communication will be successful only if carefully planned.
Points to consider:
i. There is no such entity as “the public“; instead, there are many publics, each with his or her own interests, needs, concerns, priorities, preferences and organisation.
ii. Different risk communication goals, audiences and media require different risk communication strategies.
iii. Listen to the public’s specific concerns. If you do not listen to people, you cannot expect them to listen to you. Communication is a two-way activity.
(a) Guidelines:
Do not make assumptions about what people know, think, or want done about risks.
Take the time to find out what people are thinking:
Use techniques such as interviews, focus groups and surveys. Let all parties that have an interest or a stake in the issue be heard.
Identify with your audience and try to put yourself in their place. Recognise people’s emotions. Let people know that you understand what they said, addressing their concerns as well as yours. Recognise the “hidden agendas,” symbolic meanings and broader economic or political considerations that often underlie and complicate the task of risk communication.
Point to Consider:
i. People in the community are often more concerned about such issues as trust, credibility, competence, control, voluntariness, fairness, caring and compassion than about mortality statistics and the details of quantitative risk assessment.
ii. Be honest, frank and open. In communicating risk information, trust and credibility are your most precious assets.
(b) Guidelines:
State your credentials, but do not ask or expect to be trusted by the public. If you do not know an answer or are uncertain, say so, get back to people with answers. Admit mistakes, disclose risk information as soon as. possible (emphasizing any reservations about reliability). Do not minimize or exaggerate the level of risk.
Speculate only with great caution. If in doubt, lean toward sharing more information, not less, or people may think you are hiding something. Discuss data uncertainties, strengths and weaknesses, including the ones identified by other credible source. Identify worst-case estimates as such, and cite ranges of risk estimates when appropriate.
Point to Consider
i. Trust and credibility are difficult to obtain. Once lost, they are almost impossible to regain completely.
ii. Coordinate and collaborate with other credible sources. Allies can be effective in helping you communicate risk information.
(c) Guidelines:
Take time to coordinate all intra-organisational communications. Devote effort and resources to the slow, hard work of building bridges with other organisations. Use credible and authoritative intermediaries.
Consult with others to determine who is best able to answer questions about risk. Try to issue communications jointly with other trustworthy sources (for example, credible university scientists, physicians or trusted local officials).
Point to Consider:
i. Few things make risk communication more difficult than do conflicts or public disagreements with other credible sources.
ii. Meet the needs of the media. The media are a prime transmitter of information on risks; they play a critical role in setting agendas and in determining outcomes.
(d) Guidelines:
Be open with and accessible to reporters. Respect their deadlines. Provide risk information tailored to the needs of each type of media (for example, graphics and other visual aids for television).
Prepare in advance and provide background material on complex risk issues. Do not hesitate to follow up on stories with praise or criticism, as warranted. Try to establish long-term relationships of trust with specific editors and reporters.
Point to Consider:
i. The media are frequently more interested in politics than in risk, more interested in simplicity than in complexity and more interested in danger than in safety.
ii. Speak clearly and with compassion. Technical language and jargon are useful as professional shorthand, but they are barriers to successful communication with the public.
(e) Guidelines:
Use simple, nontechnical language. Be sensitive to local norms, such as speech and dress. Use vivid, concrete images that communicate on a personal level. Use examples and anecdotes that
make technical risk data come alive.
Avoid distant, abstract, unfeeling language about deaths, injuries and illnesses. Acknowledge and respond (both in words and with actions) to emotions that people express: anxiety, fear, anger, outrage and helplessness.
Acknowledge and respond to the distinctions that the public views as important in evaluating risks: voluntariness, controllability, familiarity, dread, origin (natural or man-made), benefits, fairness and catastrophic potential.
Use risk comparisons to help put risks in perspective, but avoid comparisons that ignore distinctions that people consider important. Always try to include a discussion of actions that are underway or that can be taken. Tell people what you cannot do. Promise only what you can do and be sure to do what you promise.
Points to Consider:
i. Regardless of how well you communicate risk information, some people will not be satisfied.
ii. Never let your efforts to inform people about risks prevent you from acknowledging and saying that any illness, injury, or death is a tragedy.
iii. If people are sufficiently motivated, they are quite capable of understanding complex risk information, even if they may not agree with you.
A schematic presentation of risk communication is shown in Fig. 35.1:
