Abstract
The determination by federal risk managers of an acceptable level of carcinogenic risk depends upon many factors. Several of the factors are amenable to objective analysis while others remain largely subjective and/or culturally determined. The size of the population that is at risk influences our perception and analysis of what level of risk constitutes an acceptable risk. The rate of risk and the total or population risk are often used uncritically or interchangeably to express risk. Yet the rate of risk and the total or population risk seem to modulate our notions of what level of risk is perceived as acceptable. This general problem is explored and an approach for the resolution of this perplexing situation is suggested and compared to empirical data.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Anderson, Elizabeth L. “Quantitative Approaches in Use to Assess Cancer Risk”, Risk Analysis, 3, #4, 277–295, 1983.
Byrd, Daniel and Lester Lave, “Significant Risk is Not the Antonym of De -Minimis Risk”, De Minimis Risk, Whipple, G.H., Ed., In Press, 1986, Plenum Press: New York.
Covello, Vincent T., W. Gary Flamm, Joseph V. Rodricks and Robert G. Tardiff, The Analysis of Actual Versus Perceived Risk, 1983, New York: Plenum Press.
Fischhoff, Baruch, Paul Slovic and Sarah Lichtenstein, “Weighing the Risks”, Environment, 21 #4, 17–20, 32–38, 1979.
Litai, D., D.D. Lanning and N.C. Rasmussen, “The Public Perception of Risk”, The Analysis of Actual Versus Perceived Risk, p. 213, Covello, Vincent T., W. Gary Flamm, Joseph V. Rodricks and Robert G. Tardiff, Eds., 1983, New York: Plenum Press.
Milvy, Paul, “A General Guideline for the Management of Risk from Carcinogens”, Risk Analysis, 6,#1, 1986.
National Research Council, Toxicity Testing: Strategies to Determine Needs and Priorities, 1984, Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Slavic, Paul, Baruch Fischhoff and Sarah Lichtenstein, “Rating the Risks”, Environment, 21, #3, 14–20, 36–39, 1979.
Slovic, Paul, Baruch Fischhoff and Sarah Lichtenstein, “Facts and Fears: Understanding Perceived Risk”, Societal Risk Assessment: How Safe is Safe Enough?, Schwing, R.C. and W.A. Albers, Jr., (Eds.), 1980, New York: Plenum Press.
United States Environmental Protection Agency Status Report Chemical Activities, V. II, Fourth Edition, (EPA 560/TIIS-84–001b) February, 1984
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1987 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Milvy, P. (1987). Towards an Acceptable Criterion of Acceptable Risk. In: Lave, L.B. (eds) Risk Assessment and Management. Advances in Risk Analysis, vol 5. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-6443-7_59
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-6443-7_59
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-1-4757-6445-1
Online ISBN: 978-1-4757-6443-7
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive