The 25th annual symposium of The Society for Risk Analysis Japan was held at the Sanjo conference hall, The University of Tokyo on Sunday, June 17,2012, 14:00-17:00. The theme was titled ”Another measure against Catastrophic Disaster••• use of the monetary function”, and as an academic cross-lateral symposium, the monetary function’s point of view was added to the aspect of disaster prevention and the disaster mitigation . Being presided over by Dr. Hideya Kubo, the director of this society and the director of Center for Risk Research at Shiga University, 4 symposiasts were invited. The symposium was started with presentations from 4 symposiasts, followed by their discussion, and then audiences joined the debate. The heated discussion made the symposium longer than as scheduled and it took 3 hours and a half in all. This collected paper is chiefly consisted of the outline of the symposium and reports from 3 symposiasts who consented to contribute the paper.
Authors critically reviewed the current chemical management in Japan, Europe and U.S.A. focusing on the interaction between “science” and “policy” which would affect in the chemical management. Risk assessment is one of the useful trendy tools for the chemical management. The chemical management should be based on the well-balanced regulations and self-initiatives. The regulation needs decision making which is always affected both by science and policy. The weight of science and policy is varied within countries because of the differences in history and culture of the society. What chemical management should be all about? What the interaction between science and policy should be all about? Compared with Europe and U.S.A., Japan seems to have a good compromise with science and policy in chemical management followed by decision making. This report will make a proposal to the good use of science in policy and also a proposal to the smarter chemical management.
The present paper provides a brief review on the concept risk to facilitate better consideration and meditation on the very subject of risk research or risk communication. Despite the heavy use and dependency on the term “risk” in the contemporary Japanese society, the definition of risk is often quite obscure and misleading. The term risk is often used without a clear definition in daily communication to share information on something that is believed to pose hazard or danger in various contexts. Based on past research, the authors confirm and suggest the most fundamental aspects of the concept “risk” in social science research and practice. The authors also provide explanation on risk perception, and a simple yet fundamental understanding that the concept of risk comprises of other concepts such as hazard and vulnerability was explained. Distinction between peril, danger, hazard, vulnerability and risk were also discussed.
New toxicity testing method using in vitro assays and in silico models as an alternative approach to animal testing has been rapidly evolving in the past few years. PBPK model is a powerful tool which can relate the results from in vitro assays to the exposure scenarios by calculating biologically effective dose. Age-Dependent Biologically Effective Dose Evaluation System calculates the biologically effective dose of general Japanese population using PBPK model. In this study, we have evaluated the result and re-consider the estimation method for partition coefficient.
Relationships between risk perception and demographic characteristics were not well examined in Japan, while many studies have been reported in the U.S. (e.g., white-male effects). There was scant evidence that Japanese survey showed similar results to findings from the U.S. studies, since backgrounds of communities differ between countries. In this study, basic information on risk perception of Japanese was investigated through the use of 1,314 questionnaire survey data and following results have been shown. Personal risk perception differed from according to respondents’ educational level, composition of the family and location of residence. Social risk perception was affected by respondents’ age and gender.