Characterization and Analysis of Risks - Case Study Example

? Characterization and Analysis of Risks Characterization and Analysis of Risks Introduction Risk assessment has to be equally applied to the exact activity type upon which such an assessment has been designed. This is normally not the case due to the existing differences when it comes to risk types that have to be understood. A good example is the way bio-terrorists’ threats have no frequency or history of occurrence which can be based on to estimate the real risk. This leaves the options and variation to be looked at to be endless. Describe the differences between communicating a risk for a typical project or activity for which risk assessments are usually conducted and for an acute infectious disease or a bio-terrorist threat. Communication risk targeting a particular project has been seen to have an effective communication network as compared to a risk assessment on a bio-terrorist threat. When it comes to a typical project, the issue is normally contingent on effective communication within the responsible agencies. Risk communication efforts in such a case rely heavily on professional and organizational networks. A bio-terrorism threat, on the other hand, is much more particular and depends mostly on individual personality. Such risk assessment serves as a mechanism which gives rise to networks made up of people who trust one another putting aside the odd mandates from their respective organizations. It is this trust among individuals that facilitates further communication among interested agencies and thus their communication risks of the public (Hough, 2011). Communication risk on a typical project is also flexible in such a way that risk guidelines are detailed, comprehensive and flexible. Such flexibility is normally introduced through default options incorporated in the assessment. This way, the person carrying out the communication makes use of an option that has already been designed. This gives room for possible adjustment in case of any arising issues during communication. This is not the case when it comes to bio-terrorist risks analysis as in the occurrence of any issue that had not been anticipated, the process will be faced with serious problems. Common problems that may arise during this type of risk assessment include coordination problems (Essien, 2011). Typical projects communication risks are independent from the management of the project. The individuals conducting the assessing have the mandate to come up with their own recommendations without involving the management. What takes place during the communication solely depends on the judgment of the assessors and not what the management of the project feel is right (Chess & Clarke, 2011) .In bio-terrorist attacks, such assessments involve the coordination of all the involved parties thus the final decision will depended on each of the interested parties’ options. This normally results to conflicts and disagreements. During risk analysis related to bio-terrorists attacks, its main aim is working to manage the risk using all means. This analysis has to be independent of the organizational factors that may result from risk communication issues but take into consideration the organizational efforts that facilitated risk communication. This makes this assessment a problem solving process while risk communication on an event is out to help the public by identifying the risks associated with the event and educate the same public on how to deal with such risks in future. This communication defines the decisions involvement levels, policies or actions that are intended at controlling or managing environmental or health risks. How would you communicate the risk of an event or threat that has never occurred in recent history? Would you apply the experience of other countries with a particular risk to that of this country? Is just stating that the risk of an event occurring is greater than "zero' sufficient? Considering a threat or an event that has not taken place in the recent, risk communication in such a case will involve more than just having a summary of the findings obtained from dose-response as well as exposure models applied in the risk assessment. This implies that the stakeholders in such an event have to be involved in the risk assessment either by surrogate representatives or directly represented. To make the communication relevant to all the parties involved, both the analytical and the deliberation components have to be included. The communication will involve the summary and synthesis of the information on possible hazardous situation which are out to meet the needs of the parties that have been affected by the event and the decision makers (Marks, 2011). The communication will also include the deliberation process which will involve the exchange of opinions, ideas, contemplation or reflection on the opinion of others. The communication should be done in both formal and informal ways and will include the collection and raising issues. In such an event regarding its time span, the risk communication should give the stakeholders means to base on while defending their own interests thus ensuring a decision process that is fair despite what the assessors may think about the use of information leading to the facts in absolute sense (Essien, 2011). Such a risk communication is too expansive in that a government of a given country cannot afford to give out information which may in the long run be used to create doubts about the decisions made by the earlier. This risk communication only gives the stakeholders the chance to argue and review their views. This makes the risk communication sensitive and complicated to be shared to another country. For any risk communication, it is not just enough for the finding to state that the risk is greater than zero. This is because risks may end up having both positive and negative effects on the objective of the assessment. Risks come in several characteristics, namely; representing future events, have the probability of a risk occurring to be more than 0% but still remain with 100% and the risks consequences have to be unplanned for or unexpected (Chess & Clarke, 2011). This leaves many option of a risk happening thus by just saying the risk is greater than zero is not an enough assessment. Discuss why risk assessment is important and valuable for supporting public policy decisions. Risk assessment has been associated with several benefits especially when it comes to decisions on public policies. Through risk assessment and communication, the decision making process both collectively or individually is normally improved. The nature as well as the purpose of the exchange of the information impacts the public in beneficial ways. Considering the personal, situation or the anxieties of the public, risks on the environment can be easily reduced through the assessment raising the public concern on a particular risk thus prompting positive action. Risk assessment also leads to a public that is better educated about the possible risks, makes the public appreciate the scarcity of resources as well as the difficult choices made by the government, improve the coordination between various government levels and comes up with working relationships among diverse public groups that are interested in risk assessment (Hough, 2011). As the public gets involved more as risk assessment participants, they end up being part of the process and contribute in coming up with solutions. References Chess, C., & Clarke, L. (2011) Facilitation or risk communication during the Anthrax attacks of 2001: The organizational back story. American Journal of the Public Health, 97(9), 1578-83. Essien, E. (2011). Influence of educational status and other variables on Human Immunodeficiency Virus risk perception among military personnel: A large cohort. Military Medicine 172(11), 1177-81. Hough, R., et al. (2011). Assessing and communicating risks with communities living on contaminated land. International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, 12(1), 1-8. Marks, H. (2011). Contemplating risk assessment: A critique of NRC (1983, 1996). Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 13(1), 7-19. Read More