The growing perception of the public and politicians that life is extremely risky has led to a dramatic and increasing interest in risk analysis. The risks may be very diverse as demonstrated by the range of subjects covered at the annual meetings of the Society for Risk Analysis. There is a need to pause and see how well the present approaches are serving the nation. The theme, "Setting National Priorities," which was chosen for the 1987 SRA Annual Meeting, reflects the concern that in dealing with individual kinds of risks, society may be more concerned with the trees than the forest. It is surprising how little attention is being given to the holistic aspects of risk. Who, for instance, is responsible for a national strategy to manage the reduction of health or other risks? Individual agencies have the responsibility for specific patterns of exposure, but these are not integrated and balanced to determine how the nation as a whole can obtain the greatest benefit for the very large investment which is made in risk-related research and analysis.

The regulation of potentially hazardous substances has become a controversial issue. This volume evaluates past efforts to develop and use risk assessment guidelines, reviews the experience of regulatory agencies with different administrative arrangements for risk assessment, and evaluates various proposals to modify procedures. The book's conclusions and recommendations can be applied across the entire field of environmental health.

For any government agency, the distribution of available resources among problems or programs is crucially important. Agencies, however, typically lack a self-conscious process for examining priorities, much less an explicit method for defining what priorities should be. Worst Things First? illustrates the controversy that ensues when previously implicit administrative processes are made explicit and subjected to critical examination. It reveals surprising limitations to quantitative risk assessment as an instrument for precise tuning of policy judgments. The book also demonstrates the strength of political and social forces opposing the exclusive use of risk assessment in setting environmental priorities.

The public depends on competent risk assessment from the federal government and the scientific community to grapple with the threat of pollution. When risk reports turn out to be overblownâ€"or when risks are overlookedâ€"public skepticism abounds. This comprehensive and readable book explores how the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can improve its risk assessment practices, with a focus on implementation of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. With a wealth of detailed information, pertinent examples, and revealing analysis, the volume explores the "default option" and other basic concepts. It offers two views of EPA operations: The first examines how EPA currently assesses exposure to hazardous air pollutants, evaluates the toxicity of a substance, and characterizes the risk to the public. The second, more holistic, view explores how EPA can improve in several critical areas of risk assessment by focusing on cross-cutting themes and incorporating more scientific judgment. This comprehensive volume will be important to the EPA and other agencies, risk managers, environmental advocates, scientists, faculty, students, and concerned individuals.

Adolescents obviously do not always act in ways that serve their own best interests, even as defined by them. Sometimes their perception of their own risks, even of survival to adulthood, is larger than the reality; in other cases, they underestimate the risks of particular actions or behaviors. It is possible, indeed likely, that some adolescents engage in risky behaviors because of a perception of invulnerabilityâ€"the current conventional wisdom of adults' views of adolescent behavior. Others, however, take risks because they feel vulnerable to a point approaching hopelessness. In either case, these perceptions can prompt adolescents to make poor decisions that can put them at risk and leave them vulnerable to physical or psychological harm that may have a negative impact on their long-term health and viability. A small planning group was formed to develop a workshop on reconceptualizing adolescent risk and vulnerability. With funding from Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Workshop on Adolescent Risk and Vulnerability: Setting Priorities took place on March 13, 2001, in Washington, DC. The workshop's goal was to put into perspective the total burden of vulnerability that adolescents face, taking advantage of the growing societal concern for adolescents, the need to set priorities for meeting adolescents' needs, and the opportunity to apply decision-making perspectives to this critical area. This report summarizes the workshop.