Top > JDR > Interdisciplinary Framework of Risk Communication as an Inte ...

single-dr.php

JDR Vol.9 No.sp pp. 628-637
(2014)
doi: 10.20965/jdr.2014.p0628

Review:

Views over last 60 days: 624

Interdisciplinary Framework of Risk Communication as an Integral Part of Environmental Risk Analysis in Postindustrial Risk Society: Three Case Studies of the 1999 Amendment of Air Pollution Control Law, Dioxins, and the EMF Risks

Saburo Ikeda

Professor Emeritus, University of Tsukuba, 3-1 Tennodai, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-0006, Japan

Received:
February 15, 2014
Accepted:
June 17, 2014
Published:
September 1, 2014
Creative Commons License
Keywords:
risk communication, risk characterization, peer-review, precautionary approach, endocrine disrupter, EMF risk
Abstract
This paper concerns controversial risk communication issues related to emerging environmental and technological risks in postindustrial risk society. The interdisciplinary risk communication framework is set up to discuss communication issues originating in the high uncertainties and stakes involved in framing and evaluating scientific evidence attached to environmental risk events. Three controversial cases of risk communication – 1) the 1999 Amendment of Air Pollution Control Law, 2) dioxins as endocrine disruptors, and 3) EMF risks – are discussed based on an interdisciplinary risk communication framework focusing on communication issues in terms of “peer review,” “risk characterization,” and “precautionary approach.”
Cite this article as:
S. Ikeda, “Interdisciplinary Framework of Risk Communication as an Integral Part of Environmental Risk Analysis in Postindustrial Risk Society: Three Case Studies of the 1999 Amendment of Air Pollution Control Law, Dioxins, and the EMF Risks,” J. Disaster Res., Vol.9 No.sp, pp. 628-637, 2014.
Data files:
References
  1. [1] U. Beck, “Risk Society and the Provident State,” in S. Lash, B. Szerszynski, B. Wynne (Eds.), “Risk, Environment & Modernity,” pp. 27-43, London Sage Pub., 1996.
  2. [2] K. R. Smith and M. Ezzati, “How environmental health risk change with development: The epidemiological and environmental risk transition revisited,” Annual review of Environment and Resources, Vol.30, pp. 291-333, 2005.
  3. [3] O. Renn, “Risk Governance: Coping with Uncertainty in a Complex World,” London, Earthscan, 2008.
  4. [4] S. Ikeda, “Introduction of the interdisciplinary risk analysis,” in S. Ikeda, Y. Sakai and M. Tawada (Eds.), “Risk, Environment and Economy,” Keisou Pub., 2004 (in Japanese).
  5. [5] US NRC (National Research Council), “Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process,” Washington, D.C., National Academy Press, 1983.
  6. [6] US NRC, “Improving Risk Communication,” Washington, D.C., National Academy Press 1989.
  7. [7] US NRC, “Understanding Risks: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society,” Washington, D.C., National Academy Press 1996.
  8. [8] S. Ikeda, “Chemical risk management and practices in Japan – Towards a new management perspective,” Journal of Risk Research, Vol.1, No.1, pp. 7-12, 1998.
  9. [9] S. Ikeda and T. Morioka, “Interdisciplinary definition of risk in high-technology induced society,” Japanese Journal of Risk Research, Vol.5, No.1, pp. 14-17, 1993 (in Japanese).
  10. [10] S. Kaplan and B. Garrick, “On the quantitative definition of risk,” Risk Analysis, Vol.1, No.1, pp. 11-18, 1981.
  11. [11] S. Ikeda and T. Fukuzono, and T. Sato, “Towards an integrated management framework for emerging disaster risk in Japan,” Natural Hazards. Vol.44, pp. 267-280, 2008.
  12. [12] H. Hirose, “Risk perception and nationalities,” Japanese Journal of Risk Analysis, Vol.9, No.1, pp. 21-23, 1997 (in Japanese).
  13. [13] S. Ikeda, “Managing technological and environmental risks in Japan,” Risk Analysis, Vol.6, No.4, pp. 389-401, 1986.
  14. [14] SRA Japan, Symposium on “What is acceptable risk level of hazardous air pollution,” Japanese Journal of Risk Analysis, Vol.9, No.1, pp. 3-34, 1997 (in Japanese).
  15. [15] S. Ikeda and I. Uchiyama, “Scientific peer-review processes in setting environmental quality standards in Japan,” Risk Analysis, Vol.26, No.1, pp. 21-23, 2006.
  16. [16] Japan Responsible Care Council,
    http://www.nikkakyo.org/organizations/jrcc/index.html [accessed 2013]
  17. [17] T. Murayama and M. Satoh, “Site-based risk communication: case of chemical and industrial waste disposal facilities,” Proc. of Annual Conf. Japan Society for Risk Analysis, Vol.13, pp. 13-18, 2000 (in Japanese).
  18. [18] Ministry of Environment, Bureau of Health and Chemicals,
    http://www.env.go.jp/en/chemi/ed.html/ [accessed 2013]
  19. [19] Environment Agency, Japan, “Risk Assessment of Dioxins,” Tokyo, Cyuoh-Hokisya, 1997 (in Japanese).
  20. [20] S. Ikeda, “Revisit to science policy issue involved in risk characterization process within risk assessment framework,” Japanese Journal of Risk Analysis, Vol.16, No.1, pp. 7-15, 2006 (in Japanese).
  21. [21] Ministry of Environment, Bureau of Health and Chemicals,
    http://www.env.go.jp/chemi/communication/seisakutaiwa [accessed 2013]
  22. [22] US NIH, “Report of Rapid Project,” 2002,
    http://www.niehs.nih.gov/emfrapid/ [accessed 2013]
  23. [23] WHO, The International EMF Project,
    http://www.who.int/pehemf/project/en/ [accessed 2013]
  24. [24] M. Kabuto, H. Nitta et al., “Childhood leukemia and magnetic fields in Japan: A Case-Control Study of Childhood Leukemia and Residential power-frequency magnetic fields in Japan,” International Journal of Cancer, Vol.119, pp. 643-650, 2006.
  25. [25] IARC, “Monograph on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans 80,” 2002.
  26. [26] IARC, “Monograph on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans 102,” 2011.
  27. [27] ICNIRP, “Guidelines for Limiting Exposure to Time-Varying Electric, Magnetic, and Electromagnetic Fields (up to 300 GHz),” Health Physics, Vol.74, No.4, pp. 494-522, 1998.
  28. [28] L. Kheifets, J. D. Sahl, R. Shimkhada, and M. H. Repacholi, “Developing policy in the face of scientific uncertainty: Interpreting 0.3 µT or 0.4 µT cutpoints from EMF epidemiologic studies,” Risk Analysis, Vol.25, No.4, pp. 927-935, 2005.
  29. [29] Citizen’s groups concerned to EMF, for example,
    http://www.shiminkagaku.org/emf.html, http://denziha.net/ [accessed 2013]
  30. [30] WHO, “Establishing a Dialogue on Risks from Electromagnetic Fields Risk,” 2002.
  31. [31] METI, Report by working group for evaluating measures on ELFEMF risks, 2008,
    http://www.meti.go.jp/report/data/g80630bj.html [accessed 2013]
  32. [32] M. Siegrist, T. C. Earle et al., “Perceptions on mobile phone and base station risks,” Risk Analysis, Vol.25, pp. 1253-1264, 2005.
  33. [33] J. Stilgoe, “Controlling mobile phone health risks in the UK: a fragile discourse of compliance,” Science and Public Policy, Vol.32, No.1, pp. 1-9, 2005.
  34. [34] P. Wiedemann et al., “The impacts of precautionary measures and the disclosure of scientific uncertainty on EMF risk perception and trust,” Journal of Risk Research, Vol.9, No.4, pp. 361-372, 2007.
  35. [35] J. Barnett, L. Timotijevic, and M. Vassallo, “Precautionary advice about mobile phones: public understandings and intended responses,” Journal of Risk Research, Vol.11, No.4, pp. 525-540, 2008.
  36. [36] A. Masuchi and T. Takigawa, “The influence of knowledge and effects of message on risk perception: A study of electromagnetic wave, aluminum and genetically modified foods,” Proc. of the Annual Conf., Japan Society for Risk Analysis, Vol.13, pp. 98-103, 2000 (in Japanese).
  37. [37] Kosugi et al., “Identification of information contents for public: A mental model approach for health risk of electromagnetic fields,” Central Res. Inst. of Electric Power Industries, Report (y03200), 2004 (in Japanese).
  38. [38] T. Osada, “EMF risk communication,” Journal of National Inst. Public Health, Vol.56, No.4, pp. 371-377, 2007 (in Japanese).
  39. [39] G. Morgan, B. Fischhoff et al., “Risk Communication: A Mental Model Approach,” Cambridge Univ. Press, 2001.
  40. [40] S. Ikeda, “Scientific uncertainties and governance structure for emerging environmental and technological risks,” Environmental Science, Vol.19, No.2, pp. 139-148, 2006 (in Japanese).
  41. [41] M. Aoyagi and M. Kabuto, “Precautionary framework and societal governance of EMF issue,” Environmental Science, Vol.19, No.2, pp. 167-175, 2006 (in Japanese).
  42. [42] B. Wynne, “Risk as globalizing ‘democratic’ discourse? Framing subjects and citizens, in “Science and Citizens”,” pp. 15-38, London, Zed Books, 2005.
  43. [43] Society for Risk Analysis Japan, “Emerging Issues Learned from the 3.11 Disaster as Multiple Events of Earthquake, Tsunami and Fukushima Nuclear Accident,” S. Ikeda and Y. Maeda (Eds.), 2013, http://www.sra-japan.jp/cms/uploads/311booklet.pdf [accessed 2013]
  44. [44] K. Yamori, “Risk Communication against Catastrophic Disasters: A new perspective of disaster information,” Kyoto, Minerva Shobo, 2013 (in Japanese).
  45. [45] S. Emori, “Extreme Weather and Mankind’s Choice,” Tokyo, Kadokawa Magazine, 2013 (in Japanese).

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

*This site is desgined based on HTML5 and CSS3 for modern browsers, e.g. Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Edge, Opera.

Last updated on Apr. 22, 2024