On risk and risk analysis

Reliability Engineering and System Safety 31 (1991) 155-178

On Risk and Risk Analysis Yosef. S. S h e r i f California State University, Management Science, Fullerton, California 92634, USA (Received 1 November 1989; accepted 11 December 1989)

ABSTRACT Currently, an increasing number of researchers and organizations are recognizing the importance of adopting a well-focused research in risk, risk analysis and risk management that will also address the establishment of new risk measures which reflect the public's concerns, and that can be demonstrated to be valid, credible and reliable. This paper gives a brief introduction to risk and classifies relevant literature related to risk and risk analysis for ease of use by the readers.

1 INTRODUCTION Risk may be defined as the potential for the realization o f unwanted negative consequences o f an event. Generally, risk involves two major components: (1) the existence o f a possible unwanted consequence or loss and (2) an uncertainty in the occurrence of that consequence which can be expressed in the form o f a probability o f occurrence. Risk analysis deals with the identification of hazards, measurement o f their occurrence probabilities and estimating their consequences as judged by the public's timely and carefully considered, expressed and revealed preferences and values.

2 RISK I D E N T I F I C A T I O N A N D P E R C E P T I O N Risk in general can be identified by the methods of scientific research. These methods include the establishment of standards and measures that can 155 Reliability Engineering and System Safety 0951-8320/90/$03"50 © 1990 Elsevier Science Publishers Ltd, England. Printed in Great Britain

156

Yosef S. Sherif

detect hazards during the total life cycle of any complex system such as screening, inspection, surveillance, diagnosis, etc. Risk may be classified as follows: (1) catastrophic-minor, (2) controllable-not controllable, (3) directindirect, (4) equitable-inequitable, (5) expected-not expected, (6) familiarnew, (7) fatal-non-fatal, (8) general-specific, (9) interactive-independent, (10) internal-external, (11 ) instantaneous-gradual, (12) reversible-irreversible, (13) temporary-permanent and (14) voluntary-involuntary. Perception of risks deals with how people compute risks intuitively and judge risk probabilities, and what heuristics people use to reach such judgments.

3 RISK M E A S U R E M E N T The measurement of the probability of occurrence of risk can be approached by two methods: (1) qualitative techniques such as surveys (simple, delphi, etc.), and Bayesian adaptive techniques; and (2) quantitative techniques such as actuarial measurements, rare events analysis, simulation, and scientific extrapolation. Fischhoff 1°° argues that subjective judgments of fact and value are an inevitable component of society's risk-benefit decisions; however, he states that recent psychological research suggests that such judgments, whether made by experts or lay people, are prone to systematic biases. To understand these biases and to differentiate between elitist or democratic processes in decision making, Fischhoff encourages research that can answer the following questions. (1) Just how fallible are the experts and the non-experts? (2) Do their respective errors cancel or augment one another? (3) How trainable are they? (4) What opportunities to learn are afforded today? It has yet to be established, for either the short run or the long run, that additional expert consultants are a better investment than the development of competent lay judgment.

4 RISK ESTIMATION The methods for estimating the consequences of risk include the following: (a) Cost-benefit analysis (b) Risk-benefit analysis (c) Multi-objective programming (conflicting goals)

On risk and risk analysis

157

(d) Stochastic programming (e) Decision-game theory (f) Theory of choice. Schulze & Kneese a12 argue that cost-benefit analysis, which is a special case of utilitarianism, emphasizes the good of the whole and that it differs sharply in decision outcomes from those methods which emphasize the rights of the individual, such as libertarianism. Because cost-benefit analysis has been increasingly applied to large society decision problems such as the management of nuclear waste, the costs and benefits of developing a fast breeder energy economy, and environmental pollution, Schulze & Kneese examine the ethical foundations of cost-benefit analysis and what effect the application of alternative ethical criteria (utilitarian, egalitarian, elitist and libertarian) would have on the outcome of such analysis. All these systems would reject the imposition of non-compensated risk by the majority onto an objecting minority or individual. Each of these systems might then reject cost-benefit analysis as it is traditionally performed. Schulze & Kneese suggest that an alternative to traditional cost-benefit analysis is to weigh benefits and costs in a manner consistent with a number of alternative systems. Kaplan & Garrick ~64 advance the notion that risk involves both uncertainty and some kind of loss or damage that might be received, and that risk can be minimized by increasing the safeguards against hazards or sources of danger. Symbolically, this could be written as: risk -- uncertainty + damage

(1)

risk -- hazard/safeguards

(2)

and

Fullwood 1°5 indicates that risk is composed of two parts: (1) the probability of an accident occurrence, and (2) the effects of this occurrence on a population group. One interpretation considers the effects on a very large population to result from the linear superposition of the effects of individual accidents in a fairly idealized manner. The linear form is: N

risk = ~

PiCi

(3)

i=1

where P~ is the probability per unit time of accident type i, C i represents the consequences, and N is the total number of accident types. Another

158

Yosef S. Sher([ TABLE 1

Classification of Literature by Subject Area Area

Risk Identification Perception

Measurement

Consequences Management Risk analysis Methodology (general concepts, criteria, etc.)

Techniques Qualitative Quantitative Benefit/cost (benefit/risk) Decision theory Impact on society General Acceptability Human risks

Risks of nuclear power plants Hazards Various studies Managing nuclear wastes Health risks from energygenerating sources

References

45, 58, 101, 108, 117, 126, 135, 137, 153, 154, 214, 298, 299, 367 42,43,46, 49, 57, 60, 69, 74,78,82,95, 102, 103, 120,137,145,153,161,196, 197,199, 202,230, 282, 316, 323, 337 1, 2, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 29, 34, 40, 57, 61, 62, 65, 68, 86, 93, 94, 98, 112, 123, 132, 141, 155, 234, 239, 244, 268, 284, 285, 302,304 2,3, 20, 73, 85, 87,94, 99,119,169, 180, 189, 198, 203, 207,325, 355, 362 154, 162,166,183, 201,206, 221,225, 232, 249, 250, 253, 265, 267, 337

42, 51, 76, 97, 147,148,159,176, 178,181,192,193, 215, 216, 238, 240, 256, 261,264, 270,286,294, 296, 319, 336, 339,340,369 12, 63, 167, 173, 211,288, 290, 324, 326, 328, 330, 345,366 10, 53,83, 105, 129, 139, 163, 164, 187, 222, 228, 233, 263, 280, 283, 300, 313, 329 18, 39, 55, 82, 84, 100, 172, 223, 236, 243, 246, 257, 307, 310, 311,312, 332,338,353 17, 36, 37, 47, 59, 88, 104, 150, 194, 210, 276, 293, 294, 349 111, 170, 182, 226, 245, 255, 259, 295, 346, 348, 359, 364 121, 198, 200, 218, 247, 258, 260, 274, 306, 367, 368 38, 40, 52, 56, 64, 83, 115, 116, 118, 125, 127, 128, 136, 143, 151, 158, 175, 180, 195, 204, 209, 213, 225, 227, 231,241,244, 28t, 317, 334, 335, 344, 347, 360 1,9,14, 23, 24, 31,32, 66, 70, 101,106, 124, 130, 138, 149, 165,168, 174, 188, 190,217,242, 248, 249, 301,318, 322. 331,333, 351, 352 21, 22, 192, 252,254, 288,356 7,45, 50, 122, 222,237, 308 8,44, 48, 54, 55,75,92,96, 133, 134, 140, 156,157, 160, 171, 184, 197, 205, 224, 229, 230, 271,273, 277, 303, 309, 341,342, 351,353, 363

159

On risk and risk analysis TABLE l--contd. Area

References

5, 28, 33, 41, 71, 72, 79,80, 88, 89, 90, 91,107,110, ll3, 131,146,219, 220, 251,287, 289, 321,327, 343, 358

Transportation risks Environmental risks Pollution Rapid growth of cities Natural disasters Chemicals

4, 6, 67,123,185,186,191,208, 272, 305, 311,320, 354, 357 25, lll, 125, 155,173,195, 212, 235, 278,346,364 26, 27,30, 33, 77, 81,142, 152, 266, 279, 291,305, 350 19, 35, 63, 67, 114, 141, 144, 177, 179, 262, 268, 269, 275, 292, 297, 314, 315, 361,365

interpretation o f risk is that of utility theory, 264 which attempts to consider public perception o f risk rather than just the physical consequences, i.e. N

risk = ~ ' Pi(Ci) K ¢

(4)

d

i=1

where P~, Ci, i and N have the same definition as given above and K is a parameter to be selected to provide a greater weight to high-consequence accidents than to smaller ones occurring so frequently that the physical effects on the whole population are the same. 1,12 The selection of the values for K is problematic and may require the elicitation of subjective measures. Similarly, a risk-benefit analysis can be performed when for example we want to compare the cost o f failure (risk) o f a project and its expected benefits over the project's useful life. So, The Risk to Benefit Ratio (RBR) is" T

RBR

V C(t).(1 + R ) - t . Pc(t) = ,/~ B(t). (1 -+ ~ - P - - ~

(5)

t=O

where c(t) = R= Pc(t) = B(t) = i= PB(t) = T=

cost of failure o f project at year t societal rate of discount probability o f failure at year t benefits o f project at year t interest rate probability o f attaining benefits for year t useful life o f the project.

The cost o f failure o f the project (risk) m a y include loss o f economic activity, cost o f decreased production, loss o f life, etc. The societal rate of discount (R)

Yosef s. Sher(f

160

depends upon the society's perceived risk and may require the elicitation of subjective measures. Table 1 classifies relevant literature on risk by subject area, for ease of use by the readers.

6 PROSPECTS, PROBLEMS AND CONCLUSION In any risk analysis study, the decision maker is faced with many problems whose solutions may be unknown, unattainable or partially known and attainable. Some of these problems are: (1)

What weight should decision makers attach to public perceptions of risk? (2) How can a society increase its capacity for dealing with technological risks in a rational manner? (3) How can a society allocate its limited capacity and resources of time, effort, money and imagination to manage risks? In addition to the above, it seems that the assessment of risk will suffer whenever the following conditions exist: • Lack of public policy analyses • Lack of proper environmental policy • Concern for short-term achievements • Short social planning horizon • Pre-occupation with current and immediate economic problems • Cultural poverty • Absence of public participation • • • • •

Poor public awareness Low level of literacy Politicians with short-term bias Politicians with low ecological knowledge Decadence of society

• High growth rate In order to increase our effectiveness in dealing with technological risks, it seems to me that the following recommendations are in order: (1) Establish a risk management system that has the following functions: (a) participation in all phases of the life cycle of complex systems (specification, design, operation, maintenance, disposal) with emphasis on risk studies so as to eliminate hazards, reduce them to an adequate level or include adequate contingency measures to cope with residual hazards; (b)

On risk and risk analysis

161

development and maintenance of a coordinated program with a consistent approach to enforce codes for handling hazardous systems; and (c) search for new ways to involve the public in the decision-making process. The public can be well informed when the information presented is clear and relevant. (2) Strengthen risk assessment capabilities by (a) encouraging rigorous scientific analysis; (b) encouraging decision makers to understand how people think, since without this understanding, well-intended policies may be rendered ineffective or even counterproductive; (c) establishing a highquality database with multi-expert systems and instituting a strong earlywarning system; (d) letting environmental considerations be an integral part of the developmental process; and (e) not allowing political considerations to influence the assessment of risks. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The author would like to express his sincere thanks to the Editor, Professor G. Apostolakis, and two referees for their exhaustive review and valuable comments and suggestions which were very helpful in improving this paper. REFERENCES 1. A Guide to the Performance of Probabilistic Risk Assessments .]'or Nuclear Power Plants. PRA Procedures Guide, NUREG/CR-2300, Vol. !, US Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, 1983. 2. A Methodology and Data Base for Examining the Health Risks of Electricity Generation from Uranium and Coal Fuels. Science Applications Inc., Oak

Ridge, TN, Report SAI-OR-79-14-20, Dec. 1979. 3. A Study of Social Costs for Alternative Means of Electrical Power Generation for 1980 and 1990. Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois, 1972. 4. A Nationwide Inventory of Air Pollution Emissions. Air Pollution Control

Directorate, Fisheries and Environment, Canada, Ottawa, Report 3-AP-78-2, Dec. 1978. 5. Adams, J. G., Risk and Freedom: The Record of Road Safety Regulation. Transport Publishing Projects, New York, 1985. 6. Adham, K., Fuel failure mechanisms in operating US plants from 1981-1986. Nuclear Safety, 29(4) (1988) 487-500. 7. Alternatives for Managing Wastes from Reactors and Post-Fission Operations in the L WR Fuel Cycle. Energy Research and Development Administration Rep. ERDA 76-43, Vol. 3, Section 19, 1976.

8. American Medical Association, Health evaluation of energy-generating sources. JAMA, 240(20) (1978) 2193-5. 9. Analysis of the Risk to the Public from Possible Damage to the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Station from Seismic Events. US Nuclear Regulatory

Commission Docket Numbers 50-275 and 50-323, Aug. 1977.

162

Yose[ S. Sher([

10. Anderson, E. L. Quantitative approaches in use to assess cancer risk. Risk Analysis, 3(2) (1983) 277-95. 11. Apostolakis, G. Data analysis in risk assessment. Nucl. Eng., Des., 71(3) (1982) 375-81. 12. Apostolakis, G. Probability and risk assessment: the subjective viewpoint and some suggestions. Nucl. Safety, 19(3)(1978) 305-15. 13. Apostolakis, G. & Kaplan, S. Pitfalls in risk calculations Reliab. Eng., 2(2) (1981) 135-45. 14. Apostolakis, G. & Mosleh, A., Expert opinion and statistical evidence: an application to reactor core melt frequency. Nucl. Sci. Eng., 70(2) (1979) 135-49. 15. Apostolakis, G., Kaplan, S., Garrick, B. & Dickter, W., Data specialization for plant specific risk studies. Nucl. Eng,, 56 (1980) 321-9. 16. Asbeck, E. & Haimes, Y., The partitioned multi-objective risk method. Large Scale Systems, 6(I) (1984) 13-38. 17. Atakan, Y., Stack gas radioactivity monitoring in a nuclear plant in the Federal Republic of Germany. Nuclear Safety, 29(2) (1988) 167 76. 18. Baecher, G. B., Pate, M. E. & Neufville, R., Risk of dam failure in benefit-cost analysis. Water Resources Research, 16(3) (1980) 449-56. 19. Bach, W., Fossil fuel resources and their impacts on environment and climates. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, 6 (1981) 185-201. 20. Bazelon, D. L., Risk and responsibility. Science, 205 (1979) 277-80. 21. Bayer, A. & Henser, F. W., Basic aspects and results of the German risk study. Nuclear Safety, 22(6) (1981) 695-709. 22. Barsell, A. W. & Wall, I. B., German Risk Study--Main Report, a Study of the Risk due to Accidents in Nuclear Power Plants. Report EPRI-NP-1804-SR, Electric Power Research Institute, 1981. 23. Bell, G. D., The calculated risk--a safety criterion. In Nuclear Reactor Safety, ed. F. R. Farmer. Academic Press, New York, 1977, pp. 49-72. 24. Benjamin, A. S., Program Plan for the Investigation of Vent-Filtered Containment Conceptual Designs for Light-Water Reactors. NRC Report, NUREG/CR-1029, Sandia Laboratories and Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, 1979. 25. Biswas, M. R. & Biswas, A. K., Loss of productive soil. Int. J. Environ. Studies, 12 (1980) 189-97. 26. Biswas, A. K. & Chatterjee, S., Dam disasters: an assessment. Engineering Journal, 54(3) (1971) 21-7. 27. Blake, V. E., A Prediction of the Hazards from the Random Impact of Meteorites in the Earth's Surface. SC-RR-68-388 Aerospace Nuclear Safety, Albuquerque, NM; Sandia Labs, 1968. 28. Bonzon, L. L. & McWhirter, M. Special tests of plutonium shipping containers. In Transport Packaging for Radioactive Materials (Int. Atomic Energy, Symp. Proc., Vienna), 1976, pp. 335-49. 29. Bowondor, B., Issues in environmental risk assessment. J. Environ. Systems, 10 (1981) 305-332. 30. Boykin, R. F., Kazarians, M. & Freeman, R. A., Comparative fire risk study of PCB transformers. Risk Analysis, 6(4) (1986) 477-88. 31. Breen, R. J., Defense in depth: approach to safety in light of TMI-2. Proc. Amer. Nuclear Socie O, 26th Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada, 1980, pp. 120-9.

On risk and risk analysis

163

32. Broad, W. J., Fallout from nuclear power in space. Science, 219(7) (1983) 38-9. 33. Brooker, P., Aircraft collision risk in the North Atlantic region. J. Opl Res. Soc., 35(8) (1984) 695-703. 34. Brown, S. L., Risk assessment as a predictive tool. Risk Analysis, 7(3) (1987) 285~. 35. Brown, S. M. & Silvers, A., Chemical spill exposure assessment. Risk Analysis, 6(3) (1986) 291-300. 36. Buckley, J. J., Entropy principles in decision making under risk. Risk Analysis, 5(3) (1985) 303-13. 37. Cannell, W., Probabilistic reliability analysis, quantitative safety goals and nuclear licensing in the United Kingdom. Risk Analysis, 7(3) (1987) 311-20. 38. Campbell, G. & Ott, K. O., Statistical evaluation of major human errors during the development of new technological systems. Nucl. Sci. Eng., 71 (1979) 267-79. 39. Carlson, D. D. & Hickman, J. W., Value/Impact Comparison of Alternate Containment Designs. DOE Report SAND-77-1103C, Sandia Laboratories, 1977. 40. Carter, L. J., How to assess cancer risks. Science, 204 (1979) 811-16. 41. Carter, L. J., AMOCO Cadiz incident points up the elusive goal of tanker safety. Science, 200 (1978) 514-20. 42. Cates, R. W., Hohenemser, C. & Kasperson, J. X., Perilous Progress: Managing the Hazards of Technology. Westview Press, Boulder, CO, 1985. 43. Cave, L., Holmes, R. E. & Holmes, P. J., Public attitudes in relation to the risks presented by new technologies. In Probabilistic Analysis of Nuclear Reactor Safety, Vol. II, American Nuclear Society, La Grange Park, I1, 1978, Part IV, pp. 8-11. 44. Chen, R. S., Environmental risks of energy production. In Proc. Int. Sci. Forum on the Geopolitics of Energy, ed. B. Kursunogin, A. Millunzi & A. Perlmutter. Lexington Books, Lexington, (1981) 190-5. 45. Claiborne, H. C. & Gera, F., Potential Containment Failure Mechanisms and their Consequences at a Radioactive Waste Repository in Bedded Salt in New Mexico. Oak Ridge National Laboratory Report ORNL-TM-4639, 1974. 46. Clark, W. C., Witches, floods and wonder drugs: historical perspectives on risk management. In Societal Risk Assessment: How Safe is Safe Enough? ed. R. Schwing, C. Schwing & W. A. Albers. New York, Plenum Press, 1980, pp. 287-311. 47. Clausen, M. J., Fraley, D. W. & Denning, R. S., Improved Methods for Incorporating Risk in Decision Making. Report PNL-3523, Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, 1980. 48. Cohen, A. V. & Pritchard, D. K., Comparative Risks of Electricity Production Systems: A Critical Survey of the Literature. Health and Safety Executive Research Paper, Vol. 11, HMSO, London, 1980. 49. Cohen, B. L., Society's evaluation of lifesaving and radiation protection and other contexts. Health Physics, 38 (1980) 33-51. 50. Cohen, B. L., The disposal of radioactive wastes from fission reactors. Sci. Am., 236(6) (1977) 21-6. 51. Cohen, B. L. & Lee, I., A catalog of risks. Health Physics, 36 (1979) 707-22. 52. Cole, P., Cancer and occupation: Status and needs of epidemiologic research. Cancer, 39 (1977) 1788-91.

164

Yosef S. Sher!/

53. Comar, C. L., Risk: a pragmatic de minimis approach. Science, 203 (1979) 319-23. 54. Comar, C. L. & Sagan, L. A., Health effects of energy production and conversion. Annual Review of Energy, 1 (1976) 581-600. 55. Comparative Risk-Cost-Benefit Stud), of Alternative Sources of Electrical Energy. US Atomic Energy Commission Report WASH~I224, December 1974. 56. Conley, B., The value of human life in the demand for human safety. American Economic Review, 66 (1976) 45-57. 57. Conrad, J., Society, Technology and Risk Assessment. Academic Press, London, 1980. 58. Cooper, M. G., Risk: Man-Made Hazards to Man. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1985. 59. Covello, V. T., Decision analysis and risk management decision making: issues and methods. Risk Analysis, 7(2) (1987) 131~,0. 60. Covello, V. T., The perception of technological risks: a literature review. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 23(4) (1983) 285 97. 61. Covello, V. T., Menkes, J. & Mumpower, J., Risk Evaluation and Management. Plenum Press, New York, 1987. 62. Cox, L. A., Probability of causation and the attributable proportion of risk. Risk Analysis, 4(2) (1984) 221-30. 63. Crough, E. A. & Wilson, R., Inter-risk comparisons. In Assessment and Managment of Chemical Risks, ed. J. V. Rodricks & R. G. Tardiff. American Chemical Society, Washington, DC, 1984. 64. Crouch, E. A. & Wilson, R. Regulation of carcinogens. Risk Analysis, 1(1) (1981) 47 57. 65. Crouch, E. A. & Wilson, R. Risk Benefit Analysis. Ballinger, Cambridge, 1982. 66. Cybulskis, P., Wooten, R. O. & Denning, R. S., Effect of Containment Venting on the Risk from LWR Meltdown Accidents. NRC Report NUREG/CR0138, Battelle Columbus Laboratories, 1978. 67. Davenport, J. A., A survey of vapor cloud incidents. Chemical Engineering Progress, 73(9) (1977) 54-63. 68. David, H. A. & Moeschberger, M. L., Life tests under competing causes of failure and the theory of competing risks. Biometrics, 27(4) (1971) 909-33. 69. Delcoigne, G., Education and public acceptance of nuclear power plants. Nuclear Safety, 20 (1979) 655-64. 70. Denning, R. S. & Cybuiskis, P., Reduction in reactor risk by the mitigation of accident consequences, Nuclear Safety, 22(2) (1981) 165-72. 71. Dennis, A. W., Predicted occurrence rates of severe transportation accidents involving large casks. Int. Symp. Packaging Transport, Radioactive Mater., Las Vegas, Nevada, 1978, pp. 105-9. 72. Dennis, A. W., Foley, J. T., Hartman, W. F. & Larson, D. W., Severities of Transportation Accidents Involving Large Packages. Sandia Laboratories Report SAND-77-0001, 1978. 73. Derby, S. L. & Keeney, R. L., Risk analysis: Understanding 'How safe is safe enough?'. Risk Analysis, 3 (1981) 217-24. 74. Dion, K. L., Baron, R. S. & Miller, N., Why do groups make riskier decisions than individuals? In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 5, ed. L. Berkowitz. Academic Press, New York, 1970.

On risk and risk analysis

165

75. Donakowski, T., Health risks of high-BTU gas pipeline and electric power transmission systems, Energy--The International Journal, 5(7) (1980) 609-16. 76. Douglas, M., Environments at risk. In Ecology: The Shaping Enquiry, ed. J. Benthall. Longman, London, 1972. 77. Earle, T. C. & Lindell, M. K., Public perception of industrial risks: a freeresponse approach. In Proc. 1982 Meeting of the Society for Risk Analysis. ! 13 (1984) 55-70. 78. Edwards, W. & Winterfelds, D. V., Public values in risk debates. Risk Analysis 7(2) (1987) 141-58. 79. Elder, H. K., Risk of shipping spent fuel in the US, Trans. Am. Nucl. Soc., 30 (1978) 319-24. 80. Elder, H. K., An Assessment of the Risk of Transporting Spent Nuclear Fuel by Truck. Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories Report PNL-2588, 1978. 81. Emergency Investigation of Coal Mine Embankments. NTIS Report No. PB 234 104/8WP, June 1974. 82. Englemann, P. A. & Renn, O., On the methodology of cost-benefit analysis and risk perception. In Directions in Energy Polit3', ed. B. Kursunegls & A. Perlmutter. Ballinger, Cambridge, MA, 1979, pp. 357-64. 83. Enterline, P. E., A method for estimating lifetime cancer risk from limited epidemiologic data. Risk Analysis, 7(1) (1987) 91-6. 84. Epstein, S. S., Information requirements for determining the benefit-risk spectrum. In Perspectives on Benefit-Risk Decision Making. Report of a colloquium on benefit-risk relationships for decision making conducted by the Committee on Public Engineering Policy, National Academy of Engineering, Washington, DC, 1972. 85. Erdmann, R. C., A TWS: A Reappraisal Part H Evaluation of Societal Risks Due to Reactor Protection System Failure, Vols. I and 2, BWR Risk Analysis. Electric Power Research Institute Report NP-265, 1976. 86. Erdmann, R. C., Status Report on the EPRI Fuel Cycle Accident Risk Assessment. Electric Power Research Institute Report NP-1128, 1979. 87. Eschenroeder, A. Q., Doyle, C. P. & Faeder, E. J., Health risks of PCB spills from electrical equipment. Risk Analysis, 6(2) (1986) 213-22. 88. Evans, L., Double pair comparisons: a new method to determine how occupant characteristics affect fatality risk in traffic crashes. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 18 (! 986) 217-27. 89. Evans, L., Estimating fatality reductions from increased safety belt use. Risk Analysis, 7(1) (1987) 49-58. 90. Evans, L., Risk homeostatis theory and traffic accident data. Risk Analysis, 6(1 ) (1986) 81-94. 91. Evans, L., The effectiveness of safety belts in preventing fatalities. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 18 (1986) 229-41. 92. Fagnani, F. & Maccia, C., L'evaluation des risques associes aux differentes energies. Paper presented at Colloque Sur Les Risques Des Differentes, Paris, 1980. 93. Fairley, W. B., Assessment for catastrophic risks. Risk Analysis, 1(3) (1981) 197-204. 94. Fairley, W. B., Market risk assessment of catastrophic risks. In The Risk Analysis Controversy, ed. H. C. Kunreuther & E. V. Ley, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1982.

166

YosefS. Sher~

95. Farmer, F. R., Letter to the editor: Risk quantification and acceptability. Nuclear Safety, 17(4) (1976) 418-21. 96. Ferguson, R. A., Comparative Risks of Electricity Generating Fuel Systems in the UK. Peter Peregrinus Ltd, Stevenage, UK, 1981. 97. Fiksel, J., The impact of artificial intelligence on the risk analysis profession. Risk Analysis, 7(3) (1987) 277-80. 98. Fiksel, J. & Covello, V. J., Biotechnology Risk Assessment. Pergamon Press, New York, 1986. 99. Fischhoff, B. Setting standards: a systematic approach to managing public health and safety risks. Management Science, 30(7) (1984) 823-43. 100. Fischhoff, B., Behavioural aspects of cost-benefit analysis. In Energy Risk Management, ed. G. Goodman & W. T. D. Rowe. Academic Press, London, 1979. 101. Fischhoff, B., Watson, S. & Hope, C., Defining risk. Policy Science, 17 (1984) 123-39. 102. Fischhoff, B., Lichtenstein, S., Slovic, P., Derby, S. L. & Keeney, R. L., Acceptable Risk. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1981. 103. Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S., Reed, S. & Coombs, B., How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological benefits. Policy Science, $ (1978) 127 52. 104. Frohner, F. H., Analytic Bayesian solution of the two stage Poisson type problem in probabilistic risk analysis. Risk Analysis, 5(3) (1985) 217-25. 105. Fullwood, R. R., Letter to the Editor: Risk as consequence expectation value from linear superposition. Nuclear Safety, 18(1) (1977) 44-5. 106. Fussell, J. B. & Burdick, G. R. (eds), Nuclear Systems Reliability Engineering and Risk Assessment. Papers presented at the International Conference on Nuclear Systems Reliability Engineering and Risk Assessment, Gatlinburg, TN, 20-24 June 1977. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia, 1977. 107. Gardenier, J. S., Congress for Analysis of Massive Spill Accident Risk in Maritime Bulk Liquid Transport. US Coast Guard Office of Research and Development, Report No. 723111, Washington, DC, 1971. 108. Garrick, B. J., Considerations in the achievement of quality in probabilistic risk assessment. In On PRA Quality and Use, ed. D. Okrent, G. Apostolakis, R. Whitely & B. J. Garrick Report UCLA-ENG 8629, University of California, Los Angeles, 1982. 109. Garrick, B. J., Lessons learned from first-generation nuclear plant PRAS. Paper presented at the Workshop on Low-Probability/High-Consequence Risk Analysis, Arlington, VA. Society for Risk Analysis, 1982. 110. Geffen, C. A., An Assessment of the Risk of Transporting Uranium Hexafluoride by Truck and Train. Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories Report BNWL-2211, 1978. 1! 1. Giddings, J. C., World population, human disasters nuclear holocaust. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 29(7) (1973) 24-50. 112. Glickman, T. S., A methodology for estimating time of day variations in the size of a population exposed to risk. Risk Analysis, 6(3) (1986) 317-24. 113. Glickman, T. S. & Rosenfield, D. B., Risks of catastrophic derailments involving the release of hazardous materials. Management Science, 30(4) (1984) 503 11.

On risk and risk analysis

167

114. Goller, O., Report on three serious accidents in oxygen plants. In Loss Prevention and Safety Promotion in the Process Industries, ed. C. H. Buschmann. Elsevier, New York, 1974, pp. 325-30. 115. Gori, G. B., Low-risk cigarettes: a prescription. Science, 194 (1976) 1243-6. 116. Graham, J. & Shakow, D. Risks and rewards: hazard pay for workers. Environment, 23 (1981) 14-45. 117. Graham, J. D. & Vaupel, J. W., Value of a life: what difference does it make? Risk Analysis, 1(1) (1981) 89-95. 118. Graham, J., Shakow, D. & Cyr, C., Risk compensation in theory and practice. Environment, 25(1) (1983) 14-40. 119. Green, C. H., Revealed preference theory: assumptions and presumptions. In Society, Technology and Risk Assessment, ed. J. Conrad. Academic Press, London, 1980, 49-56. 120. Green, C. H., Risk attitudes and beliefs. In Behavior in Fires, ed. D. V. Canter. Milay, Chichester, UK, 1980. 121. Green, C. H. & Brown, R. A., The Acceptability of Risk: Summary Report. University of Dundee, Dundee, Scotland, UK, 1978. 122. Gregory, R. & Lichtenstein, S., A review of the high level nuclear waste repository siting analysis. Risk Analysis, 7(2) (1987) 219-24. 123. Gribbin, J., Carbon dioxide and climate. Energy Policy, 6 (1978) 314-19. 124. Gruenstein, P. & Sandier, R. H., Power from fission: potential for catastrophe. The Progressive, 37(11) (1973) 36-41. 125. Gupta, R. B. & Rao, G. R., Effect of elimination of different causes of death on expectation of life--Bombay, 1960-1961. Indian Journal of Medical Research, 61(6) (1973) 950-61. 126. Hadden, S. G., Read the Label: Reducing Risk by Providing In/brmation. Westview Press, Boulder, CO, 1986. 127. Hagen, E. W., Quantification of human error associated with instrumentation and control system components. Nuclear Safety, 23(6) (1982) 665-8. 128. Hagen, E. W., The human: key factor in nuclear safety. Nuclear Safety, 21(4) (1980) 480-5. 129. Haimes, Y., Integrated risk and uncertainty assessment in water resources within a multiobjective framework. Journal of Hydrology, 68 (1984) 405-17. 130. Hall, R. E., A Risk Assessment of a Pressurized-Water Reactor for Class 3-8 Accidents. NRC Report NUREG/CR-0603, Brookhaven National Laboratory, 1979. 131. Hall, R. J., An Assessment of the Risk of Transporting Plutonium Dioxide and Liquid Plutonium Nitrate by Train. Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories Report BNWL-1996, 1977. 132. Hallenbeck, W. H. & Cunningham, K. M., Quantitative Risk Assessment For Environmental and Occupational Health. Lewis Pub., Chelsea, MI, 1986. 133. Hamilton, L. D., Areas of uncertainty in estimates of health risks. In Human Costs of Electric Power Generation, Symposium on Energy and Human Health, Pittsburgh, PA. Environmental Protection Agency, 1979, pp. 499-568. 134. Hamilton, L. D., Comparative risks from different energy systems: evolution of the methods of studies. IAEA Bulletin, 22(5/6) (1980) 35-71. 135. Hammond, K. R., Anderson, B. F., Sutherland, J. & Marrin, B. Improving scientists' judgments of risk. Risk Analysis, 4(1) (1984) 69-78.

168

Yosef S. Sher([

136. Hans, J. M. & Sell, T. C., Evacuation Risks--An Evaluation. EPA-520/6-74002, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, 1974. 137. Harding, C. M. & Eiser, J. R., Characterizing the perceived risk of some health issues. Risk Analysis, 4(1)(1984) 131-41. 138. Hartung, J. & Rutherford, P. Lessons from major core damage accidents. Trans. Am. Nucl. Soc., 43 (1982) 676-677. 139. Hattis, D. B., The promise of molecular epidemiology for quantitative risk assessment. Risk Analysis, 6(2) (1986) 181-94. 140. Haupmanns, U., Risk assessment for interconnected electrical power grids. Risk Analysis, 4(2) (1984) 97 101. 141. Hawley, J. K., Assessment of health risk from exposure to contaminated soil. Risk Analysis, 5(3) (1985) 289-302. 142. Hazelwood, J., Quakes lbrce new look at dam safety. Ind. Res. Dev., 95 (1980) 30-4. 143. Hively, L. M., Database construction for a computerized radiological risk investigation system. Nuclear Safety, 29(3) (1988) 318-26. 144. Hoerger, F., The need for risk assessment of chemicals in corporate decision making. In Assessment and Management of Chemical Risks, ed. J. V. Rodricks & R. G. Tardiff. Americal Chemical Society, Washington, DC, 1984. 145. Hohenemser, C., Public distrust and hazard management success at the rocky flats nuclear weapons plant. Risk Analysis, 7(2) (1987) 243-60. 146. Hohenemser, C. & Kates, R., Target: highway risks. Environment, 21(2) (1979) 7-15, 29-3. 147. Hohenemser, C., Kates, R. & Slovic, P., The nature of technological hazard. Science, 220 (1983) 378-84. 148. Holdren, J. P., Anderson, K., Gieick, P. H., Mintzer, I., Morris, S. & Smith, K. R., Risk of Renewable Energy Sources: A Critique of the Inhaber Report. Report ERG 79-3, Energy Resources Group, University of California, Berkeley, CA, 1979. 149. Hosser, D., Seismic risk analysis for the fast breeder prototype SNR-300 in Kalkar (FRG). Reactor Technology (Smirt-7), Paper M 5/9, 1983. 150. Hoyden, J. & Larsson, T. J., Risk: culture and concepts. In Risk and Decisions, ed. W. J. Singleton & J. Hovden. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, UK, 1987. 151. Howard, R. A., On making life and death decisions. In Societal Risk Assessment: How Safe Is Safe Enough? ed. R. C. Schwing & W. A. Atbers. Plenum Press, NY, 1982. pp. 89-106. 152. Hoy, R. P., Fire prevention in solvent extraction plants. In Loss Prevention and Safety Promotion in the Process Industries, ed. C. H. Buschmann. Elsevier, New York, 1974, pp. 325-30. 153. Hubber, P., Discarding the double standard in risk regulation. Technology Review, 87 (1984) 10-14. 154. Ikeda, S., Managing technological and environmental risks in Japan. Risk Analysis, 6(4) (1986) 389-402. 155. Ikeda, S. & Winterfeld, D. V., Standards against noise pollution: the case of Shinkansen trains in Japan. J. Env. Man, 14 (1982) 3-6. 156. Inhaber, H., Risk of Energy Production. Atomic Energy Control Board (Ottawa) Report AECB-1119/REV-3, 1980. 157. Inhaber, H., Energy Risk Assessment. Gordon & Breach, New York, 1982.

On risk and risk analysis

169

158. International Commission on Radiological Protection, Radiation Protection Recommendations of the ICRP, ICRP Publication 26, 2nd edn. Pergamon Press, New York, 1977. 159. Ives, J., The Export of Hazard. Routledge & Keegan Paul, New York, 1985. 160. Jassby, A. D., Environmental Effects of Hydroelectric Power Development. University of California at Berkeley, Lawrence Radiation Laboratory, Report LBL-5296, 1976. 161. Johnson, E. J. & Tversky, A. Effect, generalization and the perception of risk. J. Personality Social Psychology, 45 (1983) 20-31. 162. Johnson, F. R. & Luken, R. A., Radon risk information and voluntary protection: evidence from a natural experiment. Risk Analysis, 7(1) (1987) 97-108. 163. Kaplan, S., A matrix theory formalism for event tree analysis--application to nuclear risk analysis. Risk Analysis, 2(1) (1982) 9-18. 164. Kaplan, S. & Garrick, B. J., On the quantitative definition of risk. Risk Analysis, 1(1)(1981) 11-27. 165. Kaplan, S., Perla, H. F. & Bley, D. C., A methodology for seismic risk analysis of nuclear power plants. Risk Analysis, 3(2) (1980) 169-80. 166. Kasperson, R. E., Six propositions on public participation and their relevance for risk communications. Risk Analysis, 6(3) (1986) 275-82. 167. Kasperson, R., Hohenemser, C. & Kasperson, J. X., Institutional response to different perceptions of risk. In Accident at Three Mile Island: The Human Dimensions, ed. D. L. Sills, C. P. Wolfe & V. B. Shelanski. Westview Press, Boulder, CO, 1982, pp. 39-48. 168. Keeney, R. L., An analysis of the portfolio of sites to characterize for selecting a nuclear repository. Risk Analysis, 7(2) (1987) 195 218. 169. Keeney, R. L., Equity and public risk. Operations Research, 28(3) (1980) 527-34. 170. Keeney, R. L., Ethics, decision analysis and public risk. Risk Analysis, 4(2) (1984) 117-29. 171. Keeney, R. L., Kalkarni, R. & Nair, K., A risk analysis of an LNG terminal. Omega, 7 (1979) 191-205. 172. Kennedy, E. M., Risk/Benefit Decisions in the Regulatory Environment. In Risk~Benefit Decisions and the Public Health (Proceedings of the Third FDA Science Symposium, 15-17 February 1978; FDA 80-1069), ed. J.A. Staffa. Office of Health Affairs, Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, MD, 1980. 173. Kleindorfer, P. R., (1982) Group decisions making methods for evaluating social and technological risks. In The Risk Analysis Controversy, ed. H.C. Kunreuther & E.V. Ley Springer-Verlag, New York, 1982. 174. Kletz, T. A., The Flixborough cyclohexane disaster. Loss Prevention, 9 (1975) 106-10. 175. Konstantinov, L. V. & Gonzalez, A. J., The radiological consequences of the Chernobyl accident. Nuclear Safety, 30(1)(1989) 53-69. 176. Kunreuther, H. C. & Ley, E. V., The Risk Analysis Controversy. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1982. 177. Kuzmach, A. M. & McGaughy, R. E., Quantitative Risk Assessment for Community Exposure to Vinyl Chloride. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, 1975. 178. Lagadec, P., Major Technological Risk. Pergamon Press, New York, 1982.

170

Yosef S. Sher(f

179. LaGoy, P. K., Estimated soil ingestion rates for use in risk assessment. Risk Analysis, 7(3) (1987) 355-60. 180. Laird, N. M., Thyroid cancer risk from exposure to ionizing radiation: a case study in the comparative potency model. Risk Analysis, 7(3) (1987) 299-310. 181. Lathrop, J. W., Evaluating technological risk: prescriptive and descriptive perspectives. In The Risk Analysis Controversy, ed. H. C. Kunreuther & E. V. Ley. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1982. 182. Lathrop, J. & Linnerooth, J., The role of risk assessment in a political decision process. In Analyzing and Aiding Decision Processes, ed. P. Humphreys & A. Vari. North Holland, Amsterdam, 1982. 183. Lave, L. B., Regulating risks. Risk Analysis, 4(1) (1984) 79-81. 184. Lave, L. B. & Freeburg, L. C., Health effects of electricity generation from coal, oil and nuclear fuel. Nuclear Safeo,, 14(5) (1973) 409-28. 185. Lave, L. B. & Seskin. E. P., Air pollution and human health. Science, 109 (1970) 723 32. 186. Lawless, E. W., Technology and Social Shock. Rutgers University Press, New Jersey, 1977. 187. Leach, M. R. & Haimes, Y. Y., Multiobjective risk impact analysis method. Risk Analysis, 7(2) (1987) 225~,2. 188. Lennett, D. J., Handling hazardous wastes. Environment, 22(8) (1980) 6-15. 189. Lerch, I., Risk and fear. New Scientist, 185 (1980) 8-11. 190, Levine, S., The role of risk assessment in the nuclear regulatory process. Anal. Nuclear Energy, 6 (1979) 281-7. 191, Lewin, R., Extinction leaves its mark on ecology. Science, 218 (1982) 42-3. 192. Lewis, H. W., Risk Assessment Review Group Report to the US Nuclear Regulatoo, Commission. NRC Report NUREG/CR-0400, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1978. 193. Libby, L. M., Technological Risk Versus Natural Catastrophe. The Rand Corporation, Santa Monica, CA., 1971. 194. Lichtenstein, S., Slovic, P., Fishhoff, B., Layman, M. & Combs, B., Judged frequency of lethal events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memoo', 4 (1978) 551-78. 195. Leiblich, A., The effects of stress on risk taking. Journal of Psychonomic Science, 10(8) (1968) 3034. 196. Lindell, K. M. & Earle, T. C., How close is close enough?: Public perceptions of the risks of industrial facilities. Risk Analysis, 3(2) (1983) 245-53. 197. Litai, D., Lanning, D. D. & Rasmussen, N. C., The Public Perception of Risk. Dept. of Nuclear Energy, Draft Paper, MIT, Cambridge, MA, 1981. 198. Lombard, J. & Fagnani, F., (1981). Equity aspects of risk management: tradeoffs between public and occupational hazards in the nuclear industry. Nuclear Safety, 22(5) (1981) 570-6. 199. Lopes, L. L., Between hope and fear: The psychology of risk. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 20 (1987) 255-95. 200. Lowrance, W. W., Of Acceptable Risk. Kaufman, Los Altos, CA, 1976. 201. MacCrimmon, K. R. & Wehrung, D. A., Taking Risks: The Management of Uncertainty. Free Press, New York, 1986. 202. Macgregor, D. & Slovic, P., Perceived acceptability of risk analysis as a decision making approach. Risk Analysis, 6(2) (1986) 245-56. 203. MacLean, D., Values at Risk. Rowman & Allenheld, Totowa, New Jersey, 1986.

On risk and risk analysis

171

204. Maltoni, C. & Lefemine, G., Carcinogenicity bioassays of vinyl chloride: research plan and early results. Environmental Research, 7 (1974) 387-91. 205. Mandl, C. & Lathrop, L., Comparing risk assessment for liquefied energy gas terminals--some results. In The Risk Analysis Controversy, ed. H.C. Kunreuther & E.V. Ley. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1982. 206. March, J. G. & Shapira, Z., Managerial perspectives on risk and risk taking. Management Science 33(11) (1987) 1404-18. 207. Marks, G. & Winterfeldt, D. V., Not in my backyard: Influence of motivational concerns on judgments about a risky technology. J. Applied Psychology, 69 (1984) 408-15. 208. Marshall, E., EPA smog standard attacked by industry, science advisors. Science, 202 (1978). 949-50. 209. Marshall, E., Gene splicers simulate a 'disaster', find no risk. Science, 203 (1979) 1223-31. 210. Martz, H. F., On broadening failure rate distributions in PRA uncertainty analysis. Risk Analysis, 4(1) (1984) 15-23. 211. Martz, H. F. & Johnson, J. W. Assessing compatibility with reactor safety goals using uncertain risk analysis results with application to core melt. Nuclear Safety, 25(3)(1984) 305-16. 212. M artz, H. F. & Johnson, M. E., Risk analysis of terrorist attacks. Risk Analysis, 7(1) (1987) 35-48. 213. Maugh, T. H., Chemical carcinogens: How dangerous are low doses? Science, 202 (1978) 37-41. 214. Maybury, R., Violent Forces of Nature. Lomond Pub., Mt Airy, MD, 1986. 215. Mazur, A. & Conant, B., Opposition to a local nuclear waste repository. Social Studies of Science, 8 (1978) 235-43. 216. McCormick, N. J., Reliability and Risk Analysis. Academic Press, New York, 1981. 217. McDonald, A. & Temme, M. I., (1978) The role of risk criteria in nuclear plant decisions. In Probabilistic Analysis of Nuclear Reactor Safety, Vol. 1I. American Nuclear Society, La Grange Park, IL 1978, pp. 2-11. 218. McKinley, O., Unacceptable Risk: The Nuclear Power Controversy. Bantam Books, New York, 1976. 219. McSweeney, T. I. & Johnson, J. F., An Assessment of the Risk of Transporting Plutonium Oxide by Cargo Aircraft. Bateile Pacific Northwest Laboratories Report BNWL-2030, 1977. 220. McSweeney, T. I., An Assessment of the Risk of Transporting Plutonium Oxide and Liquid Plutonium Nitrate by Truck. Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories Report BNWL-1846, 1977. 221. Merkhofer, M. W., Decision Science and Social Risk Management, Reidel, Boston, 1987. 222. Merkhofer, M. W. & Keeney, R. L., A multiattribute utility analysis of alternative sites for the disposal of nuclear waste. Risk Analysis, 7(2) (1987) 173-94. 223. Miettinen, J., Savolainen, I., Silvennoinen, P., Tornio, E. & Vuori, S., Risk-benefit evaluation of nuclear power plant siting. Journal of Nuclear Energy, 3 (1976) 489-500. 224. Miller, M. W. & Kaufman, G. E., High voltage overhead. Environment, 20(1) (1978) 6-10.

172

Yosef S. Sher([

225. Milvey, P., A general guideline for management of risk from carcinogens. Risk Analysis. 6(1) (1986) 69-80. 226. Mitchell, R. C., Public response to a major failure of a controversial technology. In Accident at Three Mile Island: The Human Dimensions, ed. A. Sills, Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado, 1982, pp. 21-38. 227. Monan, W. P., Distraction--A Human Factor in Air Carrier Hazard Events. Ninth Quarterly Report, NASA Technical Memorandum 78608, Washington, DC, 1979. 228. Moore, P. G., The handling of acceptable risks, J. Opl. Res. Soc., 39(7) (1988) 629-36. 229. Morgan, M. G., Uncertainty and quantitative assessment in risk management. In Assessment and Management of Chemical Risks, ed. J. V. Rodricks & R. G. Tardiff. American Chemical Society, Washington, DC, 1984. 230. Morgan, M. G., Slovic, P., Nair, I., Geisler, D., MacGregor, D., Fischhoff, B., Lincoln, D. & Florig, K., Powerline frequency and magnetic field: A pilot study of risk perception. Risk Analysis, 5(1) (1985) 139~49. 231. Morison, R. S., Misgivings about life-extending technologies. Daedalus, 107 (1978) 211-26. 232. Mumpower, J., An analysis of the de minimis strategy for risk management. Risk Analysis, 6(4) (1986) 437-46. 233. Munera, H. F. & Yadigarolyu, G., A new methodology to quantify risk perception, Nuclear Science Eng., 75 (1980) 211-15. 234. Murray, M. L., Chambers, D. B., Knapp, R. A. & Kaplan, S., Estimation of long-term risk from Carodiam uranium mill tailings. Risk Analysis, 7(3) (1987) 287 98. 235. Myers, N., The problem of disappearing species. Ambio, 9 (1980) 229-35. 236. National Radiological Protection Board, The Application of Cost Benefit Analysis to the Radiological Protection of the Public. HMSO, London, 1980. 237. National Research Council, A Review of the Swedish KBS-H Planjbr Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel. PTO Subcommittee for Review of the KBS-II Plan, Commission on Natural Resources. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC, 1980. 238. Nehnevajsa, J. & Menkes, J., Technology assessment and risk analysis. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 19(3) (1981) 245-55. 239. Nelkin, D., The Language of Risk. Sage Publications, New York, 1985. 240. Nelkin, D., The role of experts on a nuclear siting controversy. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 30 (1974) 29-36. 241. Nelson, N., Use of toxicity test data in the estimation of risks to human health. In Assessment and Management of Chemical Risks, ed. J. V. Rodricks & R. G. Tardiff. American Chemical Society, Washington, DC, 1984. 242. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Reactor SaJety Study: An Assessment of Accident Risks in US Commercial Nuclear Power Plants. NRC Report WASH1400 (NUREG-75/014), 1975. 243. O'Donnell, E. P. & Mauro, J. J., A cost-benefit comparison of nuclear and nonnuclear health and safety protective measures and regulations. Nuclear Safety, 20 (1979) 525-31. 244. Oftedal, P. & Brogger, A., Risk and Reason. Risk Assessment in Relation to Environmental Mutagens and Carcinogens. Alan R. Liss, New York, 1986.

On risk and risk analysis

173

245. Okrent, D., Comment on social risk. Science, 208 (1980) 372-5. 246. Okrent, D., Risk-benefit evaluation for large technological systems. Nuclear Safety, 20 (1979) 148-53. 247. Okrent, D. & Whipple, C., An Approach to Societal Risk Acceptance Criteria and Risk Management. UCLA-ENG-7746. University of California, Los Angeles, 1977. 248. Okrent, D., Some recent developments on safety goals for LWRs. In Probabilistic Risk Assessment, Proceedings of International ANS/ENS Topical Meeting, Port Chester, New York, 20-24 September 1981, Vol. 1. American Nuclear Society, 1982, p. 60. 249. Oliveira, L. F., Barros, E. B., Fleming, P. V. & Rosa, L. P., Cost effectiveness of risk reduction measures from a national view point: a case study of the Angara nuclear plant in Brazil. Risk Analysis, 7(3) (1987) 321-8. 250. O'Riordan, T., Kemp, R. & Purdue, H. M., On weighing gains and investments at the margin of risk regulation. Risk Analysis, 7(3) (1987) 361-70. 251. Oseredko, Y. S., Laricher, O. I. & Mechitor, O. l., Main gas pipeline route selection problems, taking into consideration risk and uncertainty factors. In The Risk Analysis Controversy, ed. H.C. Kunreuther & E. V. Ley, SpringerVerlag, New York, 1982. 252. Ott, K. O. & Marchaterre, J. F., Statistical evaluation of design-error related nuclear reactor accidents. Nuclear Technology, 52 (1981) 179-88. 253. Otway, H. J., Risk and Regulation. Butterworths, London, 1985. 254. Otway, H. J., Risk assessment and the social response to nuclear power, British Nuclear Energy Society Journal, 16 (1977) 327-425. 255. Otway, H. J., Risk Assessment and Social Choices, IIASA Research Memorandum RM-75-2. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria, 1975. 256. Otway, H. J., Risk estimation and evaluation. In Proceedings of the IIASA Planning Conference on Energy Systems. IIASA-PC-3. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria, 1973. 257. Otway, H. J. & Cohen, J. J., Revealed Preferences, Comments on the Starr RiskBenefit Relationship, IIASA-RM-75-5, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria, 1975. 258. Otway, H. J. & Winterfeldt, D. V., Beyond acceptable risk: on the social acceptability of technologies. Policy Sciences, 14 (1982) 247-56. 259. Otway, H. J., Linnerooth, J. & Niehaus, F., On the social aspects of risk assessment. In Nuclear Systems Reliability Engineering and Risk Assessment, ed. J. B. Fussell & G. R. Burdick. Soc. Industrial Applied Math., Philadelphia, PA, 1977, p. 56. 260. Otway, H. J., Pahner, P. D. & Linnerooth, J., Social Views in Risk Acceptance, IIASA RM-75-54. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria, 1975. 261. Otway, H. J., Maderthaner, R. & Galtman, G., Avoidance Response to the Risk Environment: A Cross-Cultural Comparison. IIASA RM-75-14. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria, 1975. 262. Page, T., A generic view of toxic chemicals and similar risks. Ecology Law Review, 7 (1978) 207-43. 263. Papp, R., A new concept in risk analysis for nuclear facilities. Nuclear News, 17(14) (1974) 62-5.

174

Yos(f S. Sher(f

264. Parry, G. W. & Winter, P. W., Characterization and evaluation of uncertainty in probabilistic risk analysis. Nuclear Safety, 22(1) 0981) 28-42. 265. Pate, M. E., Acceptable decision processes and acceptable risks in public sector regulations. IEEE Trans. System., Man, and Cybern., 13(2)(1983) 113-24. 266. Pate, M. E., Fire risks in oil refineries: economic analysis of camera monitoring. Risk Analysis, 5(2) (1985) 277--88. 267. Pate-Cornell, M. E., Warning systems in risk management. Risk Analysis, 6(2) (1986) 223-34. 268. Pederson, D. H. & Hornung, R. W., Computerized estimates of potential occupational health risk due to chemical exposure. Risk Analysis, 6(1) (1986) 3-14. 269. Perera, F., New approaches in risk assessment for carcinogens. Risk Analysis, 6(2) (1986) 195-202. 270. Perry, W. & Articola, W. P., Study to Modify the Vulnerability Model of the Risk Management System. Technical Report CG-D-22-80, US Department of Transportation, Washington, DC, 1980. 271. Philadelphia Electric Company, Liberick Generating Station--Probabilistic Risk Assessment, Vols 1 and 2, Dockets 50-352 (Unit 1) and 50-353 (Unit 2), March 1981. 272. Pickles, J. H., Health risks and air pollution: error analysis for a cross-sectional mortality study. Risk Analysis, 6(2) (1986) 203-12. 273. Pigford, T. H., Environmental aspects of nuclear energy production. Ann. Rev. Nuel. Sei., 24 (1974) 545-59. 274. Pochin, E. E., The acceptance of risks. British Medica/Bulletin, 31(3) (1975) 184-90. 275. Posner, H. S., Biohazards of methanol in proposed new uses. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, 1(1) (1975) 153 71. 276. Raiffa, H., Science and policy: their separation and integration in risk analysis. In The Risk Analysis Controversy, ed. H. C. Kunreuther & E. V. Ley. SpringerVerlag, New York, 1982. 277. Ramsay, W., Unpaid Costs of Electrical Energy: Health and Environmental Impacts from Coal and Nuclear Power. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD, 1979. 278. Ranjitsingh, M. K., Forest destruction in Asia and South Pacific. Ambio, 8 (1979) 192-201. 279. Rao, N.S., Failure of the Khadakwala and Panshet dams. Journal of the Institution of Engineers (India), 47(11) (1967) 1123-44. 280. Rarig, H. & Haimes, Y., The risk dispersion index method. IEEE Trans. System., Man, and Cybern., 13(3) (1983) 317-28. 281. Raudenbush, M. H., Human engineering factors in control-board design for nuclear power plants. Nuclear Safety, 13(1) (1973) 21-6. 282. Rayner, S. & Cantor, R., How fair is safe enough? The cultural approach to societal technology choice. Risk Analysis, 7(1) (1987) 3-9. 283. Reid, S. G., Frequency-cost curves and derivative risk profiles. Risk Analysis, 7(2) (1987) 261-8. 284. Ricci, P. F., Principles of Health Risk Assessment. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N J, 1985. 285. Ricci, P. F. & Rowe, M. D., Health and Environmental Risk Assessment. Pergamon Press, New York, 1985.

On risk and risk analysis

175

286. Ricci, P. F. & Molton, L. S., Risk and benefit in environmental law. Science, 214(4525) (1981) 1096-100. 287. Rhoads, R. E. & Johnson, J. F., Risks in transporting materials for various energy industries. Nuclear Safety, 19 (1978) 135-7. 288. Roberts, J. C. & Castore, C. H., The effects of conformity, information, and confidence upon subjects' willingness to make risky decisions following a group discussion. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 8 (1972) 384-94. 289. Robertson, L. S., A critical analysis of Peltzman's 'The Effects of Automobile Safety Regulation', Journal of Economic Studies, II (1977) 587-600. 290. Rodricks, J. V. & Tardiff, R. G., Conceptional basis for risk assessment. In Assessment and Management of Chemical Risks, ed. J.V. Rodricks & R.G. Tardiff. American Chemical Society, Washington, D.C, 1984. 291. Rose, D., Risk of catastrophic failure of major dams. J. Hydraulic Div. American Soc. Civil Eng, 104 (1978) 1011-26. 292. Rowe, J. N. & Springer, J. A., Asbestos lung cancer risks: comparison of animal and human extrapolations. Risk Analysis, 6(2) (1986) 171-80. 293. Rowe, W. D., Decision making with uncertain utility functions. Doctoral Thesis, American University, Washington, DC, 1973. 294. Rowe, W. D., The Application of Structured Value Analysis to Models using Value Judgements as a Data Source. M70-14, The Mitre Corporation, McLean, VA, 1970. 295. Rowe, W. D., An Anatomy of Risk. Wiley, New York, 1977. 296. Rowe, W. D., Governmental regulation of societal risks. The George Washington Law Review, 45(5) (1977) 944-68. 297. Rowe, W. D., Risk assessment methods and approaches. In Society, Technology and Risk Assessment, ed. Jobst Conrad. Academic Press, London, 1980, pp. 3-29. 298. Ruckelshaus, W. D., Risk in a free society. Risk Analysis, 4(I) (1984) 157-62. 299. Ruckelshaus, W. D., Science, risk and public policy. Science, 221 (1983) 1026-8. 300. Saaty, T. L., Risk--Its priority and probability: the analytic hierarchy process. Risk Analysis, 7(2) (1987) 159-72. 301. Sadee, C., Samuels, D. E. & O'Brien, T. P., The characteristics of the expansion of cyclohexane at the Nypro (UK) Flixborough Plant. Journal Occupational Accidents, 1 (1976) 203-35. 302. Sagan, L. A., Beyond risk assessment. Risk Analysis, 7(1) (1987) 1-2. 303. Sagan, L. A., Health costs associated with the mining, transport, and combustion of coal in the steam-electric industry. Nature, 250 (1974) 107-11. 304. Sage, A. P. & White, E. B., Methodologies for risk and hazard assessment: a survey and status report. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man. and Cyber., I 0 (1980) 425-46. 305. Saia, S. A., Vapor clouds and fires in a light hydrocarbon plant. Chemical Engineering Progress, 72(11) (1976) 56-61. 306. Salem, S. L., Solomon, K. A. & Yesley, M. S., Issues and Problems of Inferring a Level of Acceptable Risk. R-2561-DOE, Rand Corp., Santa Monica, CA, 1980. 307. Sather, H. N., Biostatistical Aspects of Risk-Benefit: The Use of Competing Risk Analysis. UCLA-ENG-7477. Prepared for the National Science Foundation by University of California School of Engineering and Applied Science, Los Angeles, 1974.

176

Yosef S. Sher(f

308. Schneider, K. J. & Platt, A. M., High-Level Radioactive Waste Management Alternatives. Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories Report BNWL-1900, 1974. 309. Schneider, S. H., Comparative risk assessment of energy systems. Energy, 4 (1979) 919-31. 310. Schwing, R. C., Longevity benefits and costs of reducing various risks. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 13 (1979) 333-45. 311. Schwing, R. C., Southworth, B. W., Buseck, C. R. & Jackson, C. J., Benefit-cost analysis of automotive emissions reductions. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 7 (1980) 44-56. 312. Schulze, W. D. & Kneese, A. V., Risk in benefit-cost analysis. Risk Analysis, 1 (1981) 81-8. 313. Seiler, F. A., Attributable risk, probability of causation, and uncertainty. Environ. Int., 12 (1986) 635-41. 314. Seiler, F. A. & Scott, B. R., Mixtures of toxic agents and attributable risk calculations. Risk Analysis, 7(1) (1987) 81-90. 315. Selikoff, I. J. & Lee, D. H., Asbestos and Disease. Academic Press, New York, 1978. 316. Sharlin, H. I., EDB: A case study in communicating risk. Risk Analysis 6(1) (1986) 61-8. 317. Sherif, Y. S., The reliability and validity of correlating human health hazards and nicotine content in cigarettes. Microelectronics and Reliability, 27(5) (1987) 859-65. 318. Sherman, M. P., The Behavior of Hydrogen During Accidents in Light- Water Reactors. NRC Report NUREG/CR- 1561 (SAND-80-1495), Sandia National Laboratories, 1980. 319. Shrader-Frechette, K. S., Risk Analysis and the Scientific Method Reidel Publishing Co., New York, 1985. 320. Siegenthaler, U. & Oeschger, H. Predicting future carbon dioxide levels. Science, 199 (1978) 388-95. 321. Singleton, W. J. & Hovden, J., Risk and Decision. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK, 1987. 322. Siu, N. & Apostolakis, G., Modeling the detection rate of fires in nuclear plants: development and application of a methodology for treating imprecise evidence. Risk Analysis, 6(1) (1986) 43-59. 323. Sjoberg, L., Risk generation and risk assessment in a social perspective. Foresight, The Journal of Risk Management, 3 (1978) 4-12. 324. Sjoberg, L., Strength of belief and risk. Public Policy, 2 (1979) 39-52. 325. Slovic, P., Informing and educating the public about risk. Risk Analysis, 6(4) (1986) 403-15. 326. Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B. & Lichtenstein, S., Characteristics of perceived risk. In Technological Hazard Management, ed. R. W. Kates & C. Hohenemser. Gunn & Hain, Cambridge, MA, 1981. 327. Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B. & Lichtenstein, S., Accident probabilities and seat belt usage. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 10, (1981) 281-5. 328. Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B. & Lichtenstein, S., Facts and fears: understanding perceived risk. In Social Risk Assessment: How Safe is Safe Enough? ed. R. Schwing & W. A. Albers, Jr. Plenum Press, New York, 1980. 329. Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B. & Lichtenstein, S., Perceived risk and quantitative safety goals for nuclear power. Trans. Amer. Nuclear Society, 35 (1980) 400-1.

On risk and risk analysis

177

330. Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B. & Lichtenstein, S., Rating the risks. Environment, 21(3) (1979) 14-20. 331. Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B. & Lichtenstein, S. Modeling the societal impact of fatal accidents. Management Science, 30 (1984) 464-74. 332. Smith, V. K., Benefit analysis for natural hazards. Risk Analysis 6(3) (1986) 325-34. 333. Sorensen, J., Soderstrom, J., Copenhaver, E., Carnes, S. & Bolin, R., Impacts of Hazardous Technology: The Psycho-Social Effects of Restarting TMI-1. State University of New York Press, Albany, NY, 1987. 334. Sorsa, M. & Norppa, H., The Monitoring of Occupational Genotoxicants. Alan R. Liss, New York, 1986. 335. Stang, L., Health Effects of Photovoltaic Technology, Report BNL 51118, Brook Haven National Laboratory, Upton, New York, 1980. 336. Starr, C., Risk criteria for nuclear power plants. Risk Analysis, 1 (1981) 113-20. 337. Starr, C., Risk management, assessment and acceptability. Risk Analysis, 5(2) (1985) 97-102. 338. Starr, C., Social benefits vs. technological risk. Science, 165 (1969) 1232-8. 339. Starr, C. & Whipple, C., Risks of risk decisions. Science, 208 (1980) 1114-19. 340. Starr, C., Rudman, R. & Whipple, C., Philosophical basis for risk analysis. Ann. Rev. Energy, 1 (1976) 629-35. 341. Stewart, T. R. & Leschine, T. M., Judgment and analysis in oil spill risk assessment. Risk Analysis, 6(3) (1986) 305-16. 342. Sugarman, R., Nuclear power and the public risk. IEEE Spectrum, 16 (1979) 59-79. 343. Swoveland, C., Risk analysis of regulatory options for the transport of dangerous commodities by rail. Interfaces, 17(4) (1987) 90-107. 344. The Potential Radiological Implications of Nuclear Facilities in the Upper Mississippi River in the Year 2000. Report WASH-1209, Atomic Energy Commission, Washington, DC, 1973. 345. Thompson, M., A three dimensional model of risk perception. In Essays in The Sociology of Perception, ed. M. Douglas. Routledge & Paul, London, 1981. 346. Thompson, M., The aesthetics of risk, culture or context. In Social Risk Assessment ed. R. Schwing & W. Albons. Plenum, New York, 1980. 347. Thorslund, T. W., Brown, C. C. & Charnley, G., Biologically motivated cancer risk models. Risk Analysis, 7(1) (1987) 109-20. 348. Tiemann, A. R., Risk, technology and society. Risk Analysis, 7(1)(1987) 11-13. 349. Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D., Judgement under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science, 85 (1974), 1124-31. 350. Twisdale, L. A., A Tornado Missile Risk Analysis. Electric Power Research Institute Report NP-769, 1978. 351. US Congress, House Committee on Science and Technology, Subcommittee on Energy Research and Production, Plans for Improved Safety of Nuclear Power Plants Following the Three Mile Island Accident, 96th Congress, 1st Session, September, Washington. USGPO, 1980. 352. Vaurio, J. K., Learning from nuclear accident experience. Risk Analysis, 4(2) (1984) 103-5. 353. Vlek, C. & Stallen, J. P., Judging risks and benefits in the small and large. Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance, 28 (1981) 235-71. 354. Voros, M. & Honti, G., Explosion of a liquid CO2 storage vessel in a carbon dioxide plant. In Loss Prevention and Safety Promotion in the Process

178

355. 356. 357. 358. 359. 360. 361. 362. 363. 364. 365. 366. 367. 368. 369.

YoseJ S. Sher~] Industries, ed. C. H. Buschmann. Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co., New York, 1974, pp. 337-46. Weinberg, A. M., Informing and educating the public about risk. Risk Analysis, 7(3) (1987) 281-2. Whipple, C. & Starr, C. Nuclear power safety goals in light of the Chernobyl accident. Nuclear Safety, 29(1) (1988) 20-8. Whittermore, A. S., Facts and values in risk analysis for environmental toxicants. Risk Analysis, 3(1) (1983) 23-33. Wiener, E. L., Midair collisions: the accidents, the systems, and the real politick. Human Factors, 22(5) (1980) 521-33. Wildavski, A., No risk is the highest risk of all. American Scientist, 67 (1979) 32-7. Wilde, G. J., The theory of risk homeostasis: implications for safety and health. Risk Analysis, 2(2) (1982) 209-25. Williams, G. P., Causes of ammonia plant shutdowns. Ammonia Plant Safety, 20 (1978) 123-30. Wilson, E., Informing and educating the public about risks of daily life. Risk Analysis, 7(3) (1987) 283-4. Wilson, R., The environmental and public health consequences of replacement electricity supply. Energy, 4 (1979) 81-6. Wilson, R., The risks of daily life. Technology Review, 81 (1979) 40-6. Winegar, B. H., Partial collapse of an atmospheric ammonia storage tank. Ammonia Plant Safety, 22 (1980) 226-30. Winterfeldt, D. V. & Edwards, W., Decision Analysis and Behavioral Research. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1987. Winterfeldt, D. V. & Edwards, W., Patterns of conflict about risky technologies. Risk Analysis, 4(1)(1984) 55-68. Wirtz, K. J., Acceptable levels of risk and why. Proc. Fast Reactor Safety Meeting. US Atomic Energy Commission Report CONF-740401, 1974. Wodicka, V. O., Use of risk assessment and safety evaluation. In Assessment and Management of Chemical Risks, ed. J.V. Rodricks & R.G. Tardiff. American Chemical Society, Washington, DC, 1984.