Its Utilization and Limitations, Risk Characterization and Epidemiologic Transition of Disease - Case Study Example

? Risk Assessment: Its Utilization and Limitations, Risk Characterization and Epidemiologic Transition of Disease Risk Assessment: Its Utilization and Limitations, Risk Characterization and Epidemiologic Transition of Disease Introduction Risk management encompasses a variety of elements, some of which are vital to be incorporated in the early stages of designing a certain pathway (Grunwald et al., 2012). For risk management to be effective, it is apparent and necessary that the risk must first be identified and assessed so as to determine the rank or level of risk in terms of estimated likelihood, impact and immediacy (Grunwald et al., 2012). This paper aims to explore the concepts related to risks. In particular, this paper deems to tackle the utilization and limitations of risk assessment, risk characterization and epidemiologic transition of disease. Risk Assessment and Related Concepts It is essential that concepts associated with risk assessment be given high regard. Hence, the different concepts related to risk assessment need to be understood through discussion of its definition. Uncertainty There are diverse predicaments confronting the performance of risks assessment. Moreover, as stressed by Ramachandran (2011), a high level of uncertainty can make it rather daunting to lessen impacts through prescriptions for safe utilization or through the redesign of materials, products or technologies. Uncertainties may also result to lessened patronage of individuals of certain products since they are hesitant or unsure of the consequences once they employ the use of a certain product or procedure. Conversely, there are three standard approaches in reducing the likelihood of uncertainties in risk assessment as highlighted by Ramachandran (2011) and these include: data collection, extrapolation and modeling. Adequate and appropriate data generation and collection can aid in coming up with reliable data for risk assessment. Subsequently, data can also be extrapolated from studies done on similar populations to identify standards which are unavailable (Ramachandran, 2011). Finally, employing the use of numerical models may also lessen the probability of uncertainties in risk assessment for they are flexible and can incorporate diverse kinds of information and use subjective expert decision to be able to gauge standards crucial to risk assessment. Variability Loeber and Farrington (2012) had given emphasis that “considerable variability exists in the way in which risk assessments are designed and reported.” The said variations or differences may transpire first at the origin of the assessment; furthermore, instances of variability may also happen in the utilization of methods in performing risk assessments (Loeber & Farrington, 2012). Case Study After having an overview of the definitions of uncertainty and variability and when it could occur during risk assessment, this paper will then look into “Drinking Water Toxicity Profiles” by the Human Risk Assessment Branch in 1992. In the aforementioned document, particular information is provided regarding health effects and other essential data that can help in dealing with contamination of drinking water; moreover, non-regulatory concentrations of drinking water contaminants were also illustrated at which adverse health effects would not be anticipated to transpire over particular exposure durations (Human Risk Assessment Branch, 1992). This paper will specifically focus on the component, dipropylene glycol 1, 2-dinitrate. With the information presented, if human effects were taken into consideration in deriving safe water levels, uncertainty and variability issues may be evident. Since no detailed information was derived regarding human effects, it is uncertain whether it is a crucial factor in identifying safe water levels. Moreover, if ever there are certain data available, variances may be apparent since it may not be representative of the whole population. Some population groups if their lifestyle is given regard may or may not experience water contaminants detrimental to their health. Certain thresholds of individuals may also pose difficulty in determining what is hazardous for them. Like in the document, it is evident that an array of reactions was obtained when exposed to the substance, dipropylene glycol 1, 2-dinitrate. Some of the volunteers despite the fact that they were healthy experienced disruption in the organization of visual response and headache. On the other hand, other individuals exposed to the chemical suffered from nasal congestion, dizziness, eye irritation to vasomotor collapse and unconsciousness. Indeed, this proves that variability issues really exist. Just like human effects, uncertainty and variability issues may also arise whenever animal effects were considered. In the document, no sufficient data were provided; hence, this may cause uncertainties regarding the role of animal effects in determining safe drinking water levels. On the contrary, variability issues can transpire also when utilizing animal effects in identifying safe drinking water levels. For instance, what may not be detrimental to animals may be detrimental to humans so it cannot be an appropriate gauge in determining safety parameters. Variances can also happen when different species are employed as the study group, there is a probability that results may differ from one population group to another. For instance, in the document, exposure to dipropylene glycol 1, 2-dinitrate was tested with rats and results showed that there was a complete conversion of hemoglobin to methemoglobin associated with a variety of clinical symptoms such as ataxia, lethargy and respiratory depression which further on may lead to anoxia causing death (Human Risk Assessment Branch, 1992). However, such data may still not be representative of other populations unless tested on different species. If given the opportunity to be the risk assessor, the author of this paper deems that uncertainty and variability issues needs to be communicated to the risk manager even before the start of the assessment. Furthermore, possible factors that may affect the result of the assessment must be discussed beforehand. Brainstorming along with other members of the risk assessment team may be utilized so as to cover every issue that may influence the results of the assessment. Related studies and literature may also be looked upon so as to guide in identifying the standards or parameters that needs to be met during risk assessment. Other Related Terms Risk Characterization Risk Characterization is said to be an integral element of the risk assessment process for both ecological and health risks for it is the final and integrative step of risk assessment (Environmental Protection Agency, 2000). The Environmental Protection Agency (2000) also highlighted that risk characterization incorporates information from the preceding factors of the risk assessment and comes up with an overall conclusion about risk that is “complete, informative and useful for decision-makers”. Epidemiologic Transition of Disease Another concept vital in risk assessment is epidemiologic transition of disease. According to Booth et al. (2012), the epidemiologic transition is responsible for altering the global patterns from a specific type of disease such as infectious diseases to another type like chronic diseases at a variety of time periods. Hence, knowing such may facilitate what aspects needs to be tackled when making risk assessments depending on what are the present trends with regards to the disease process. Conclusion After gaining an insight regarding uncertainty and variability in risk assessment, it can be concluded that understanding and further discussion of such concepts beforehand may aid in the facilitation of accurate and reliable risk assessments. References Booth, L.W., Cross, R., & Lowcock, D. (2012). Contemporary Health Studies: an Introduction. United States of America: Polity Press. Environmental Protection Agency. (2000). Risk Characterization Handbook. United States of America: Office of Science Policy. Grunwald, I.Q., Fassbender, K., & Wakhloo, A.K. (2012). How to Set Up an Acute Stroke Service. United States of America: Springer. Human Risk Assessment Branch. (1992). Drinking Water Toxicity Profiles. United States of America: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Loeber, R., & Farrington, D.P. (2012). From Juvenile Delinquency to Adult Crime. United States of America: Oxford University Press. Ramachandran, G. (2011). Assessing Nanoparticle Risks to Human Health. United States of America: Elsevier. Read More