In recent years, risk assessment has become a dominant approach for making decisions to protect environment and public health, which is based on limited resources (Abt et al, 2010). It has been applied to the U.S. environmental protection Agency (EPA) and other agencies, industry and academic groups. It arranges from protecting water and air from polluted to ensuring food safety, along with preventing drugs, and the quantity of daily necessities. Risk assessment is a significant tool for forming manageable and scientific decisions, making choices among research needs, and finally developing plans for taking cost and benefits into consideration of regulatory methods. Apart from traditional ways of risk assessment, a completely new approach called
…show more content…
In conclusion, SFRA focuses on how to act while traditional approaches focuses on what to fear. Furthermore, those who apply SFRA consider how to do more good rather than to do less harm.
However, this risk assessment is at its crossroads for its authority being challenged. Because risk assessment is combined with scientific, political and public issues, it is becoming increasingly complex for any analysis is creating more data that leads to questions about how to address the issues, especially as risk-management issues that appear difficult to address with standard risk assessment methods such as global climate change, endocrine disruption, and environmental justice. What’s more, risk assessment is being applied to address broader environmental problems. Regarding traditional ways of risk assessment, there may be no approach to reduce risk except analysis. Traditional process can end with no risk-reduction actions at all. Moreover, in a traditional risk assessment module, allotted time will easily exhaust and cause unnecessary loss. In addition, it will change the consequence of the contributions of risk managers and solutions to issues will not be firstly raised. Similarly, in …show more content…
By this means we can make the most of advantages from SFRA and traditional assessments. According to Finkel, Science and Decisions Committee (NRC 2009, Appendix F) has reported three short case studies about how increased focus on solutions could change decision-making which is based on risk assessment. Among them the last case also brings the issue of risk-risk transfer and solutions to life-cycle. Finkel supposed that USEPA and OSHA were both considering to reduce human exposure to MC, and were planning to cooperate to reduce the exposure caused by the stripping of paint from aircraft. He then listed four possible questions the agencies could ask. Regarding what the exposure that creates a risk of 10-6 is, The USEPA and OSHA respectively represents substance-specific and bureaucratically compartmentalized approach. The only technical analysis in need for this decision is a dose-response assessment. The OSHA focused on the technology to achieve the one-size-fits-all PEL was economically suitable for the sector, while the USEPA considered more toxic substitution and ventilation decrease. The second question provided a conclusion of technology-based thought which is not based on risk analysis. This means that the effect of risk reduction is not measured. The third and fourth question are solution-focused ones,
In conclusion, SFRA focuses on how to act while traditional approaches focuses on what to fear. Furthermore, those who apply SFRA consider how to do more good rather than to do less harm.
However, this risk assessment is at its crossroads for its authority being challenged. Because risk assessment is combined with scientific, political and public issues, it is becoming increasingly complex for any analysis is creating more data that leads to questions about how to address the issues, especially as risk-management issues that appear difficult to address with standard risk assessment methods such as global climate change, endocrine disruption, and environmental justice. What’s more, risk assessment is being applied to address broader environmental problems. Regarding traditional ways of risk assessment, there may be no approach to reduce risk except analysis. Traditional process can end with no risk-reduction actions at all. Moreover, in a traditional risk assessment module, allotted time will easily exhaust and cause unnecessary loss. In addition, it will change the consequence of the contributions of risk managers and solutions to issues will not be firstly raised. Similarly, in …show more content…
By this means we can make the most of advantages from SFRA and traditional assessments. According to Finkel, Science and Decisions Committee (NRC 2009, Appendix F) has reported three short case studies about how increased focus on solutions could change decision-making which is based on risk assessment. Among them the last case also brings the issue of risk-risk transfer and solutions to life-cycle. Finkel supposed that USEPA and OSHA were both considering to reduce human exposure to MC, and were planning to cooperate to reduce the exposure caused by the stripping of paint from aircraft. He then listed four possible questions the agencies could ask. Regarding what the exposure that creates a risk of 10-6 is, The USEPA and OSHA respectively represents substance-specific and bureaucratically compartmentalized approach. The only technical analysis in need for this decision is a dose-response assessment. The OSHA focused on the technology to achieve the one-size-fits-all PEL was economically suitable for the sector, while the USEPA considered more toxic substitution and ventilation decrease. The second question provided a conclusion of technology-based thought which is not based on risk analysis. This means that the effect of risk reduction is not measured. The third and fourth question are solution-focused ones,