Risk Communication in  Chemical Sector in Connection to the Role of Risk Assessment

Akihiro Tokai; Naoya Kojima

doi:10.20965/jdr.2014.p0603

single-dr.php

« previous

JDR Vol.9 No.sp pp. 603-607

(2014)

doi: 10.20965/jdr.2014.p0603

Review:

Views over last 60 days: 534

Risk Communication in Chemical Sector in Connection to the Role of Risk Assessment

Akihiro Tokai and Naoya Kojima

Graduate School of Engineering, Osaka University, 2-1 Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka 565-0871, Japan

Received:

June 17, 2014

Accepted:

July 21, 2014

Published:

September 1, 2014

Keywords:

comparative risk, chemicals, risk assessment

Abstract

Chemical related risk analysis and communication were discussed in connection with the role of risk assessment. Some of the chemicals are thought to be one of the hazards that tend to consider as dread and unknown risk. Owing to the institutionalization of Pollutant Release Transfer Register (PRTR) and development of risk assessment have gradually revealed new aspect of risk analysis and communication. In this review, we briefly discuss about the representative cases and discuss the role of risk assessment to risk communication.

Cite this article as:

A. Tokai and N. Kojima, “Risk Communication in Chemical Sector in Connection to the Role of Risk Assessment,” J. Disaster Res., Vol.9 No.sp, pp. 603-607, 2014.

Data files:

References

[1] National Research Council, “Improving risk communication,” National Academy Press, 1989.
[2] Cabinet Office, “National opinion research on chemical substances,” 2012.
[3] National Institute of Technology and Evaluation (NITE).
http://www.safe.nite.go.jp/management/risk/trend/mokuteki.html [accessed August 12, 2008]
[4] Risk assessment document Nos.1-25, Maruzen Puiblishing Company, Japan.
[5] T. Tsuchiya, M. Kosugi, and T. Taniguchi, “Why do the general public differ from experts in risk perceptions toward controversial technologies?” Japanese Journal of Risk Research, Vol.18, No.2, pp. 77-85, 2008.
[6] J. Grahm, “Risk versus Risk Tradeoffs in Protecting Health and the Environment,” 1997.
[7] T. Kinoshita, Presentation at Japanese annual meeting for risk analysis, Shizuoka University.
[8] J. Park, T. P. Seager, P. S. Rao, and M. Convertino, “Linkov Integrating risk and resilience approaches to catastrophe management in engineering systems,” Risk Analysis, Vol.33, No.3, pp. 356-67, 2013.
[9] National Resilience Act, Japan, Dec. 2013.

This article is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 Internationa License.

[1] [1] National Research Council, “Improving risk communication,” National Academy Press, 1989.

[2] [2] Cabinet Office, “National opinion research on chemical substances,” 2012.

[3] [3] National Institute of Technology and Evaluation (NITE).
http://www.safe.nite.go.jp/management/risk/trend/mokuteki.html [accessed August 12, 2008]

[4] [4] Risk assessment document Nos.1-25, Maruzen Puiblishing Company, Japan.

[5] [5] T. Tsuchiya, M. Kosugi, and T. Taniguchi, “Why do the general public differ from experts in risk perceptions toward controversial technologies?” Japanese Journal of Risk Research, Vol.18, No.2, pp. 77-85, 2008.

[6] [6] J. Grahm, “Risk versus Risk Tradeoffs in Protecting Health and the Environment,” 1997.

[7] [7] T. Kinoshita, Presentation at Japanese annual meeting for risk analysis, Shizuoka University.

[8] [8] J. Park, T. P. Seager, P. S. Rao, and M. Convertino, “Linkov Integrating risk and resilience approaches to catastrophe management in engineering systems,” Risk Analysis, Vol.33, No.3, pp. 356-67, 2013.

[9] [9] National Resilience Act, Japan, Dec. 2013.