Risk Assessment - Toxicology of Metals - page 294

make a reliable dose-response assessment for humans.
An ongoing discussion in Europe is about the new com-
ponent of chemicals control REACH (Registration and
Evaluation of Chemicals; see http://ecb.jrc. it), requiring
manufacturers and importers of chemical substances,
including metals, to furnish a specifi ed amount of toxi-
cological data for the substance to be used in the EU.
Some consider that the requirements for toxicologi-
cal information are too limited (Rudén and Hansson,
2006). It is hoped that this new legislation will provide
additional data relevant for risk assessment for some
of the metals and metal compounds that are presently
incompletely investigated.

6. Meet the needs of the media. The media are
usually more interested in politics than risk,
simplicity than complexity, danger than safety.
7. Speak clearly and with compassion. Never let
your efforts prevent your acknowledging the
tragedy of an illness, injury, or death. People
can understand risk information, but they may
still not agree with you; some people will not be
satisfi ed.
8. Communicate important information to soci-
etal decision makers such as legislators, who
must frequently make decisions about the need
to use public resources for regulatory actions
or clean up activities. One mechanism is to
use the World Wide Web or Internet for this
purpose, because this is a common source of
information ( cf www.atsdr.cdc.gov/cabs).

6.3 Risk Communication
Risk communication is the process of communica-
tion between professionals performing risk assess-
ments and risk managing on the one hand and on the
other hand workers in the case of occupational expo-
sures or the general public for general environmental
exposures.
In a democratic society, risk communication is of
great importance. In the case of occupational risks
communication, it may be direct between risk asses-
sors/risk managers in central agencies and workers by
means of workers' unions and safety organizations in
companies. Such risk communication may sometimes
involve considerations like those used when commu-
nication involves factors of outrage (see later), but in
other cases, such communications are characterized by
mutual understanding and acceptance of risks and risk
reduction measures suggested by risk assessors.
When communicating with the public, the behavior
of the risk assessor is crucial for acceptance.
The following principles are listed by US ATSDR
concerning risk communication:

Depending on the situation and the risk under con-
sideration, risk perception by the public may be differ-
ent than that perceived by the risk assessor. A number
of factors, for example, how familiar, widespread, and
dreaded the risks are and whether risks are control-
lable or not determine the degree of outrage by the
public (WHO/IPCS, 1999). Increased interaction with
the public may be useful in such situations. Commu-
nication with the public sometimes is described as a
converging process. On the basis of the risk charac-
terization, information about the risk in question is
communicated to the group of the public with the
highest exposure at a public meeting, and feedback is
requested. It is important for the risk assessor, present-
ing risks to the public, to fi nd out about reasons for
possible discrepancies in risk perception. Depending
on comments received, answers to questions and new
information adapted to the needs of the public are pre-
pared and presented at a new meeting, for example,
comparisons between the risks from exposures to the
agent under consideration and other risks in society.
This procedure may be repeated. Often, a convergence
of opinions will occur between risk assessors and the
public.

1. Accept and involve the public as a partner. Your
goal is to produce an informed public, not to
defuse public concerns or replace actions.
2. Plan carefully and evaluate your efforts. Differ-
ent goals, audiences, and media require differ-
ent actions.
3. Listen to the public's specifi c concerns. People
often care more about trust, credibility, compe-
tence, fairness, and empathy than about statis-
tics and details.
4. Be honest, frank, and open. Trust and credibility
are diffi cult to obtain; once lost, they are almost
impossible to regain.
5. Work with other credible sources. Confl icts and
disagreements among organizations make com-
munication with the public much more diffi cult.

References

ACGIH. (2006). 2006 TLVs and BEIs. ACGIH, Cincinnati, OH.
Belman, S., and Nordberg, G. F., Eds. (1981). Environ. Health Perspect .
40, 1-42.
Berglund, F., et al . (1971). Expert Group on Methyl Mercury in Fish.
Nord. Hyg. Tidskr . Suppl. 4.
Berglund, M., Elinder, C. G., and Jarup, L. (2001). Human Exposure
Assessment: An Introduction. who/sde/oeh/01.3
Budtz-Jørgensen, E., Keiding, N., and Grandjean. P. (2001). Biometrics
57, 698-706.
Chen, L., Jin, T., Huang, B. , et al . (2006). Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol .
215(1), 93-99.