Risk Communication. Colton Bond, MS

Transcription

1 Risk Communication Colton Bond, MS

2

3 The Framework for Risk Communication

4 Framework for Risk Communication Frame as risk rather than safety The risk equation as scaffolding for risk communication A proposed checklist

5 Why risk, when people ask about safety? Safety Yes or No No precautions necessary Safe is safe for everyone Easy to explain Risk More risky Less risky Precautions reduce risk Risk is higher for certain people Harder to explain The impression of safety Careless behaviors, lack of vigilance Increased risk

6 Imagine asking your doctor about a new medication You ask Is it Safe? Yes Trust me. Which response would inspire the most trust? Yes, as long as You tell me about all of your current medications, allergies and symptoms. We watch for signs like (this) and (that), which might mean that we should adjust the dose. We do not add other medications without talking about it together. etc. No

7 Now imagine someone asked about the safety of a pesticide application Is it Safe? Yes Trust me. Yes, as long as You tell me about all of your concerns (children, pets, well, etc) You can take precautions beforehand (close window, turn off air intakes, move or cover sensitive items, move feeders, etc). You can wait X hours to return Describe precautions you intend to take during the application. etc. No

8 Re- framing the safe question Is it safe? The risk is low, but tell me about your specific concerns Listen Consider tailored approaches Quickly explain why safe isn t the right word or mindset Discuss risk level and things that affect it

9 The risk equation as scaffolding Informed Risk Decision- making Toxicity Exposure

10 The power of the risk equation Toxicity X Exposure = Risk Careless behaviors, lack of vigilance 10 X 10 = X 50 = X 5 = X 1 = X 0 = 0 5 X 10 = 50 5 X 5 = 25

11 Talking about toxicity and exposure Risk = Toxicity X Exposure Toxicology of active ingredient Product signal word Dose estimate Effects (signs, symptoms) reported in the literature Onset, duration and resolution of symptoms Distance to application site Route of potential exposure Physical/chemical properties of active ingredient Duration/frequency of exposure Bioavailability by the route in question

12 Risk Perception Factors Who benefits? How much? Who defines the way we measure the risk? Gut feelings, probability neglect Worldview Outrage factors (dread, voluntary, etc.)?

13 Personal outrage factors In person s control Out of person s control Voluntary Imposed Beneficial Not beneficial Natural Man-made Affects only adults Affects children Lower risk perceived Familiar Exotic Trusted entity Untrusted entity Higher risk perceived

14 Word choice High-emotion words Consider saying Pesticide Insecticide, weed-killer Chemical Material, mixture Toxic or Safe Harmful in high enough doses, use with caution

15 Risk Communication Checklist: Listen, ask questions, paraphrase: Frame as risk rather than safety: Toxicity information: Exposure information: Benefit(s) of the application: Action items in person s control: Where to get more info:

16

17 Digging Deeper: Toxicity and Environmental Fate Risk = Toxicity X Exposure Intro to pesticide toxicology Environmental fate Formulation related-considerations Resources

18 What is Toxicity? All things are poison and nothing is without poison; only the dose makes a thing not a poison - Paracelsus

19 LD 50 /LC 50 + or

20 Toxicity: High Moderate Low Very Low hzp://

21 Signal Word: DANGER WARNING CAUTION None req. Toxicity: High Moderate Low Very Low hzp://

22 Acute Toxicity to Wildlife hzp:// science- and- assessing- pesticide- risks/technical- overview- ecological- risk- assessment

23 Examples

24 Glyphosate Aq. Inverts. (Water Flea, Myaid Shrimp) hzp:// science- and- assessing- pesticide- risks/technical- overview- ecological- risk- assessment Data Source: hzp://npic.orst.edu/hpt/refs//glyphosate_epadoc1.pdf Fish

25 Imazapyr hzp:// science- and- assessing- pesticide- risks/technical- overview- ecological- risk- assessment Data Source: hzp://npic.orst.edu/hpt/refs//imazapyr_epadoc1.pdf

26 Imazapic hzp:// science- and- assessing- pesticide- risks/technical- overview- ecological- risk- assessment Data Source: hzp://npic.orst.edu/hpt/refs//imazapic_epadoc1.pdf

27 Flumioxazin Aq. Inverts. (Water Flea, Mysid Shrimp) hzp:// science- and- assessing- pesticide- risks/technical- overview- ecological- risk- assessment Data Source: hzp://npic.orst.edu/hpt/refs//flumioxazin_epadoc1.pdf Fish

28 Oryzalin Aq. Inverts. (Water Flea, Mysid Shrimp) hzp:// science- and- assessing- pesticide- risks/technical- overview- ecological- risk- assessment Data Source: hzp://npic.orst.edu/hpt/refs//oryzalin_epadoc1.pdf Fish

29 Environmental Fate Soil Mobility Persistence (Half-life) Vapor pressure

30 (Donald E. Ney, Jr., Fate and Transport of Organic Chemicals in the Environment: A Practical Guide, 2 nd Ed. Pg 30 )

31 Soil Mobility/Leaching Potential Adsorption (K oc ) Water Solubility (ppm) Environmental factors (soil type, weather) Persistence (half-life)

32 Examples

33 Data Source: hzp://npic.orst.edu/hpt Glyphosate K oc : ~33-44,000 (High) Water solubility: 12,000.0 mg/l (High) Soil half-life: days (aerobic)

34 Imazapyr K oc : 19.4 (Low binding potential) Water solubility: 11,100.0 mg/l (High) Soil half-life: 296 days (aerobic) Aqueous half-life (Hydrolysis): Stable Data Source: hzp://npic.orst.edu/hpt/refs//imazapyr_epadoc1.pdf

35 Flumioxazin K oc : 112 1,190 (Low to Moderate) Water solubility: 1.8 mg/l (Low) Soil half-life: 14.7 days (avg., aerobic) 0.2 days (anaerobic) Aqueous half-life (Hydrolysis): days, depending on ph Data Source: hzp://npic.orst.edu/hpt/refs//flumioxazin_epadoc1.pdf

36 Oryzalin K oc : 602 1,109 (Low to Moderate) Water solubility: 2.5 mg/l (Low) Soil half-life: 63 days (aerobic) 10 days (anaerobic) Aqueous half-life (Hydrolysis): stable Data Source: hzp://npic.orst.edu/hpt/refs//oryzalin_epadoc1.pdf

37 Imazapic K oc : binding does not depend on organic carbon content. (K d values low) Water solubility: 479,000.0 mg/l (High) Soil half-life: 2010 days (aerobic) Aqueous half-life (Hydrolysis): Stable Source: hzp://npic.orst.edu/hpt/refs//imazapic_epadoc1.pdf

38 Vapor Pressure Flumioxazin 2.4x10-6 mmhg (25 C) Imazapyr <1.0x10-7 mmhg (25 C) Oryzalin 1.0x10-7 mmhg (25 C) Imazapic <1.0x10-7 mmhg (25 C) Glyphosate 9.75x10-10 mmhg (25 C) Data Source: hzp://npic.orst.edu/hpt

39

40 Formulation Considerations Inerts may change the overall toxicity. Example: Glyphosate Pure Active Ingredient Formulated Products Source: hzp://npic.orst.edu/hpt/refs//glyphosate_epadoc1.pdf

41 Formulation Considerations Differences in dermal hazard: o EC>Solution>WP=DF>Dust>Granule Granules may be attractive to some wildlife, such as birds. Pellets can potentially roll on slopes. Emulsifiable concentrates: o Odors & foliage burn.

42 Helpful Resources Herbicide Properties Tool (NPIC): Pesticide Properties DataBase (University of Hertfordshire): Herbicide Handbook (Weed Science Society of America, 10 th Edition) NPIC: (M-F, 8-noon)