Environmental Encyclopedia

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

Ribonucleic acid

Great Indian rhinoceros. (Photograph by Gerald Davis. Phototake. Reproduced by permission.)

The smaller two-horned black rhinoceros (Diceros bi-

cornis) has a pointed upper lip for feeding on leaves and twigs.

Black rhinos can be aggressive but their poor eyesight makes

for blundering charges. Black rhinos (which are actually dark

brown) were once common throughout sub-Saharan Africa

but are now found only in Kenya, Zimbabwe, Namibia, and

South Africa. Today, there are only 2,600 black rhinos left in

the wild, compared to 100,000 30 years ago.

Widespread

poaching

has diminished rhino popula-

tions. The animals are slaughtered for their horns, which are

made of hardened, compressed hair-like fibers. In Asia, the

horn is prized for its supposed medicinal properties, and pow-

dered horn brings $28,000 per kg. In Yemen, a dagger handle

made of rhino horn can command more than $1,000. As a

result, rhinos now survive only where there is strict protection

from poachers. Captive breeding programs for endangered

rhinos are hindered by the general lack of breeding success for

most species in zoos and a painfully slow reproduction rate of

only one calf every three to five years. The present world rhino

population of about 16,000 is little more than half the esti-

mated “safe” long-term survival number of 22,500.

[Neil Cumberlidge Ph.D.]

1207

ESOURCES

OOKS

Cumming, D. H. M., R. F. Du Toit, and S. N. Stuart. African Elephants

and Rhinos: Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan. Gland, Switzerland:

IUCN-The World Conservation Union, 1990.

Penny, M. Rhinos, Endangered Species. New York: Facts on File, 1988.

ERIODICALS

“Southern White Rhino comes back after Its Brush with Extinction.”

Winston-Salem Journal, January 23, 2000, D6.

Tudge, C. “Time to Save the Rhinoceroses.” New Scientist 28 (September

1991): 30–5.

THER

Save the Rhino. [cited May 2002]. <http://www.savetherhino.org/index>.

Ribonucleic acid

Ribonucleic

acid

(RNA) exists as a polymer constructed of

four kinds of nucleotides. Ribonucleic acids are ordinarily

involved in the conversion of genetic information from DNA

into protein: information flows from the genetic material

via RNA for the fabrication of an organism. Ribosomes are

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

Ellen Henrietta Swallow Richards

cytoplasmic particles structured of protein and ribosomal

RNA (rRNA) and are the sites of protein synthesis. Messen-

ger RNA (mRNA), transcribed from genomic DNA, trans-

locates genetic information to the ribosomes. In addition,

there are about 20 transfer RNAs (tRNA), which bind to

specific amino acids and to particular regions of mRNA

for the assembly of amino acids into proteins. The genetic

material of some viruses is RNA.

Ellen Henrietta Swallow Richards

(1842 – 1911)

American chemist

Ellen Swallow Richards was born in Ipswich, Massachusetts,

and was a daughter of Peter and Fanny Swallow, who were

school-teachers and part-time farmers. Ellen Swallow ob-

tained a Baccalaureate (the equivalent of an undergraduate

degree) from Vassar Female College, and in 1870 she became

the first woman to be accepted as a student by the Massachu-

setts Institute of Technology (M.I.T.). Founded in Boston

in 1865, MIT had rapidly become a highly regarded school

of engineering and applied science. In 1873, she graduated

as a Bachelor of Science in chemistry and in the same year

received a Master of Arts degree from Vassar, based on a

thesis involving examination of the vanadium content of an

iron ore.

Ellen Swallow then spent several years studying to-

wards a doctorate at MIT, but did not graduate, apparently

because the faculty members of the department in which

she was studying, all of whom were men, were unwilling to

allow a woman to be the first-ever Doctor of Science gradu-

ate from their program. Ellen Swallow was undaunted by

this and other forms of gender bias that were pervasive at the

time. She went on to become a pioneer in the development of

the new engineering field of public

sanitation

, and was a

strong advocate of domestic science and home economics.

In 1875 Ellen Swallow married Robert Hallowell

Richards, a professor of metallurgy and mining engineering

at M.I.T. The couple shared a devotion to science and to

each other, but had no children. Ellen Richards collaborated

with her husband in his metallurgical and mining work, and

her contributions in those fields were recognized later on,

when she became the first woman to be elected to the Ameri-

can Institute of Mining and Metallurgical Engineers.

Ellen Richards understood that one of her major re-

sponsibilities was to foster the scientific education of Ameri-

can women. She was central in the establishment of a Wom-

en’s Laboratory at M.I.T., as well as other facilities and

programs that made important contributions towards

allowing women to pursue careers in science. Some of her

early research involved investigations of household and food

1208

chemistry and

food additives

. In 1882, she published The

Chemistry of Cooking and Cleaning, and in 1885 Food Materi-

als and Their Adulterations.

In 1884, Ellen Richards was appointed to a position

in a new chemical laboratory at M.I.T. that specialized in

the study of public sanitation. She held this position for 27

years until her death in 1911. One of her initial accomplish-

ments was running the chemical laboratory responsible for

the first survey of lakes and rivers in Massachusetts, an

extensive study that became a classic in its field.

In 1890, M.I.T. established a ground-breaking pro-

gram in sanitary engineering in which Ellen Richards taught

the chemistry and analyses of water, sewage, and

atmo-

sphere

. In collaboration with A. G. Woodman, in 1900

she published Air, Water, and Food Chemistry for Colleges,a

textbook in support of the teaching of public sanitation. Her

most important scientific contributions were in the field of

water sanitation. She was, for example, an influential advo-

cate of the

chlorination

of drinking water to kill pathogenic

bacteria. This practice was critical in lowering the high death

rates that were being caused by drinking unsanitary water

in most towns and cities of the time.

After about 1890, Ellen Richard’s interests increas-

ingly focused on what was to become known as the “home

economics movement.” This involved the study and teaching

of nutrition, food preparation, household sanitation and hy-

giene, and related subjects, mostly in the public school sys-

tem. The home economics movement can be likened to a

domestic-science literacy program for the masses, and it

became an important means by which urban women learned

how to run economical and healthy households. Ellen Rich-

ards wrote numerous papers and several books in this subject

area, including Home Sanitation: A Manual for Housekeepers

in 1887, Domestic Economy as a Factor in Public Education

in 1889, and Euthenics: The Science of Controllable Environ-

ments in 1912. Today Ellen Richards is considered a parent

of home economics in the United States. For this contribu-

tion, she is indirectly responsible for many pervasive im-

provements in living conditions throughout America and in

other countries where home economics has become a popular

subject in school curricula.

[Bill Freedman Ph.D.]

ESOURCES

OOKS

James, E. T., J. W. James, and P. S. Boyer, eds. Notable American Women.

1607–1950. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 1971.

Stern, M. B. “The First Woman Graduate of M.I.T.—Ellen H. Richards,

Chemist.” In We the Women: Career Firsts of Nineteenth Century America.

New York: Schulte Pub. Co., 1962.

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

Right-to-act legislation

On September 3, 1991, 25 men and women perished in a fire

in a chicken-processing plant in Hamlet, North Carolina.

Workers were trapped inside the burning building because

managers of the plant had illegally bolted emergency exits

in order to prevent possible theft of chickens. The American

public reacted with outrage to news of the fire because it

was recognized that the employees’ deaths could have been

prevented if

Occupational Safety and Health Administra-

tion

(OSHA) standards regarding access to fire exits had

been enforced. As a result, labor representatives have repeat-

edly called for new, more effective means for protecting

Americans from the hazards of injury, illness, and death at

their workplaces.

In North Carolina, the site of the 1991 poultry plant

fire, Worker Right to Act (RTA) legislation has been en-

acted in an effort to meet those demands, and such legislation

is being proposed in other states. RTA legislation is designed

to give workers some of the power they need to avoid or

prevent exposure to such workplace hazards as those leading

to the poultry plant fire and those associated with use of

toxic

chemicals

. It is important to note that the goals of

RTA legislation overlap with those of

Toxics Use Reduc-

tion legislation

(TUR). TUR laws, which have been enacted

in at least 26 states, require business facilities to reduce their

use of toxic substances, thus protecting workers and other

community residents.

Although North Carolina has adopted a number of

RTA provisions through a series of separate statutes instead

of in a comprehensive, single package, RTA laws are only

in the proposal stage in most states in which they are being

advocated. In New Jersey, an initial four-year campaign for

adoption of Worker and Community RTA was unsuccessful.

Advocates of RTA in that state were optimistic that future

efforts will be successful and that their experiences would

benefit groups and individuals working for the enactment

of RTA laws in other states. Several years later, Passaic

County in New Jersey passed the nation’s first right-to-act

law in the spring of 1999. The measure allows 25 or more

neighbors and/or workers to petition the county Health

Officer for creation of a Neighborhood Hazard Prevention

Advisory Committee to monitor a specific facility. In addi-

tion, such committees have the authority to conduct walk-

through surveys of the plant, accompanied by technical ex-

perts. If a company refuses to cooperate, the county can sue

on behalf of the committee.

In Michigan, a comprehensive RTA bill was first con-

sidered in 1993 and has been reintroduced before the state

legislature several times since then. Therefore, the bill pro-

posed in Michigan is used here to illustrate the provisions

of a comprehensive RTA statute. Second, some of North

1209

Carolina’s RTA provisions are described to provide further

examples of RTA mechanisms.

Michigan’s proposed RTA law

A Worker RTA bill considered in Michigan in 1993

includes five sets of RTA protections. First, the bill mandates

that worker-management committees be established at each

worksite where the number of employees regularly exceeds

ten. If there is a government-certified labor organization at

the worksite, it will select the workers’ representatives. If

there is no certified labor organization, nonsupervisory em-

ployees will select their own representatives. The committee

must: (1) inspect the site at least monthly for existing or

potential safety, health, and environmental problems; (2)

investigate accidents and exposures that have the potential

to harm employees and the

environment

; and (3) conduct

annual reviews. The committee’s duties are cross-referenced

to a proposed Toxics Use Reduction and Community Right

to Act (TUR/CRTA) bill.

Second, the Michigan Worker RTA bill mandates

that each employer develop and implement a worksite safety

and health plan. Such plans must provide for periodic inspec-

tions of the worksite and require documentation of hazards

and actions taken to correct them.

Third, there are provisions giving any employee or

employee representative the right to request an inspection

by the Michigan Department of Labor or the Michigan

Department of Health if he or she believes that there is a

violation of a standard and that that violation threatens

physical harm to an employee. Before a representative of

one of those agencies makes a determination as to imminent

danger, an employee may choose not to perform an assigned

task if the employee has a reasonable apprehension of death

or serious injury and he or she reasonably believes that no

less drastic alternative is available.

Fourth, the Michigan bill increases the authority of

state inspectors regarding citations and penalties and autho-

rizes employees to contest the failure of such inspectors to

conduct inspections and issue citations. There are substantial

penalties for willful or repeated violations of the Act. Fifth,

an employer cannot

discharge

an employee or in any way

discriminate against an employee or job applicant because

he or she has filed a complaint under the Act or testified at

a proceeding under the Act.

It is significant that the Michigan TUR bill, entitled

the “Toxic Use Reduction and Community Right to Act Bill”

(TUR/CRTR), also includes RTA provisions. A summary of

some provisions of Michigan’s TUR/CRTA bill illustrates

the interrelationship between RTA and TUR laws. First,

TUR/CRTA establishes a goal of a 50% reduction in toxics

use and toxics waste generation over a period of five years, thus

reducing workers’ exposure to toxics. Second, companies and

governmental bodies that must report information under the

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

Right-to-act legislation

federal Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know

Act (EPCRA) must conduct audits of toxics used and gener-

ated as waste, and they must prepare plans and set goals for

reducing the amounts of those toxics at their facilities. Then,

annual reports must be filed, documenting progress in reach-

ing those goals. Third, communities are granted rights to

monitor business facilities through “community environmen-

tal committees.”This provision is cross-referenced to workers’

rights to investigate hazards under the Worker RTA bill.

Also, workers, through their committees established under

Worker RTA, have the opportunity to review and provide

inputon the facility’s TUR planbefore it is completed.Fourth,

there are provisions giving workers and community members

the right to take companies to court to compel them to comply

with the TUR/CRTA law.

North Carolina’s RTA statutes

North Carolina’s RTA statutes include some of the

same kinds of mechanisms in Michigan’s Worker RTA bill,

but, overall, they are not as comprehensive. For example,

North Carolina requires workplace safety committees and

the establishment of health and safety programs, but those

requirements are imposed only on employers of 11 or more

employees if those employers have a poor “experience rating”

under workers’ compensation laws. (A “1.5” rating or worse

is the measure used.)

North Carolina’s RTA statutes do include several pro-

visions which are not in the Michigan bill. North Carolina

has created a special emphasis inspection program to target

employers with high rates of violations or high rates of

illness, injury or death. Also, an interagency task force has

been created to study and issue a report setting out a plan

for reorganization of the occupational health and safety and

fire safety networks within North Carolina.

Significance of RTA laws

Labor leaders and workers in Michigan and in other

states continue to advocate adoption of RTA and are opti-

mistic that it will be adopted as leaders and citizens become

aware of the need for it and its benefits. RTA laws are

designed to lead to better enforcement of existing OSHA

standards. Under RTA, worker-management committees

conduct inspections of a workplace on a regular basis instead

of waiting for OSHA or its state counterpart to do so. Thus,

management and workers, as a team, become the primary

watchdogs for the work facility. A major reason for the lack

of enforcement by OSHA and its state counterparts is their

lack of funding for inspectors. Use of worker-management

committees provides a means of protecting workers despite

scarce government resources.

By mandating that employers prepare worksite safety

and health plans and that employee representatives be in-

cluded in that planning process, RTA laws are designed to

prompt employers and their employees to take a proactive

1210

stance with respect to workplace hazards. Workers are in-

cluded in planning because they are on the job on a day-

to-day basis and are in a good position to identify hazards

and recommend safer ways of working.

An important feature of RTA laws is that protections

are extended to non-unionized as well as unionized workers.

This is significant in view of figures showing that as of 1993

union membership in the United States had shrunk to a

five-decade low—16% of the work force.

Worker RTA also recognizes that even workers who

know about on-the-job hazards often lack viable alternatives

for safer ways to earn a living and support their families.

RTA provides the worker with mechanisms for reporting

hazards as well as the right to refuse to perform an assigned

task because of a reasonable apprehension of death or serious

injury. Also, anti-discrimination provisions encourage work-

ers to exercise their rights under the RTA law.

Finally, the interrelationships between the goals and

provisions of RTA and TUR statutes and the fact that such

laws are being supported by a coalition of labor interests

and environmentalists appear to signal a shift in public policy

in this country. For decades, United States laws have divided

laws on health and safety regulatory authority according

to site: OSHA in the workplace and the

Environmental

Protection Agency

(EPA) outside the workplace. Also, ex-

isting laws have mandated different approaches to regulation

of different media pursuant to such separate laws as the

Clean Air Act

, the

Clean Water Act

, and the

Occupational

Safety and Health Act

. Supporters of RTA and TUR laws

view workplace and environmental problems as interrelated

parts of an integrated “whole.” Therefore, the provisions of

RTA and TUR have been drafted to reflect an

holistic

approach

to regulation. New Jersey’s experience, however,

suggests that environmentalists, community leaders, and

workers need to work together more closely to secure ade-

quate right-to-act legislation. Many environmentalists do

not fully understand the intensity of the fear of unemploy-

ment among workers, and their perception that job loss

results from environmental regulation.

In terms of right-to-act legislation, Canada has pro-

gressed further than the United States. As of January 2002,

Canadian workers are guaranteed the right to refuse danger-

ous work as well as the right to report unsafe conditions

and to participate in workplace health and safety committees.

It remains to be seen whether legislators and citizens

throughout the United States will be convinced that enact-

ment of RTA laws is an appropriate way to deal with hazards

faced by American citizens within and outside of their work-

places.

Ralph Nader

pointed out during his presidential

campaign in 2000 that not a single control standard for toxic

chemicals was passed during the Clinton administration,

thus reflecting the longest period of inactivity in OSHA’s

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

Riparian land

history. Nader’s platform called for national right-to-act leg-

islation, defined as “an unambiguous statutory right for em-

ployees to refuse dangerous work.” Although job security

remains a pressing concern for American workers, the inci-

dents that have focused public attention on workplace haz-

ards over the last twenty years have brought about a funda-

mental shift in public opinion. In the words of Frances

Lynn, “ordinary people are challenging the assertion that a

regrettable but necessary cost of business is environmental

damage and threats to human health.”

[Paulette L. Stenzel and Rebecca J. Frey, Ph.D.]

ESOURCES

ERIODICALS

“Exits Blocked, 25 Die As Blaze Sweeps Plant.” Chicago Tribune, September

4, 1991.

Garland, S. B. “What a Way to Watch Out for Workers.” Business Week,

September 23, 1991.

Lynn, Frances M. “Public Participation in Risk Management Decisions:

The Right to Define, the Right to Know and the Right to Act.” Risk:

Issues in Health and Safety 1 (1990): 95–102.

Stenzel, P. L. “Right to Act: Advancing the Common Interests of Labor

and Environmentalists.” 57 Albany Law Review (1993): 1–40.

Young, Jim. “Jersey County Gives Workers and Residents ‘Right to Act’

Against Corporate Polluters. Labor Notes May, 1999.

THER

Engler, Rick. Right to Act Backgrounder. Lawrenceville, NJ: New Jersey

Work Environment Council, October 28, 2001.

Industry Canada. A Canadian Guide to Occupational Health and Safety.

Sydney, Nova Scotia: University College of Cape Breton, 2002.

Michigan Senate Bill 946 (1992).

Nader 2000 News Room. Statement on Occupational Safety and Health.

Issued October 31, 2000.

RGANIZATIONS

New Jersey Work Environment Council (NJWEC), 1543 Brunswick

Avenue, Lawrenceville, NJ USA 08648-4627 (609) 695-7100, Fax: (609)

695-4200, Email: rickengler@aol.com, <http://www.njwec.org>

Right-to-know

Many states and local governments, as well as the federal

government, have passed legislation, referred to as right-to-

know laws, that requires the release of information on the

hazards associated with

chemicals

produced or used in a

given facility. Most right-to-know laws address both com-

munity and employee access to information about potential

hazards. Requirements of these laws usually include provid-

ing public access to information on hazardous materials pres-

ent, conducting inventories or surveys, establishing record-

keeping and exposure reporting systems, and complying with

labeling regulations. Notification of emergency releases of

hazardous substances into the

environment

is also required

under right-to-know laws, such as the Federal

Emergency

1211

Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act

of 1986

(EPCRA).

Rio Conference

see

United Nations Earth Summit (1992)

Riparian land

Riparian land refers to terrain that is adjacent to rivers and

streams and is subject to periodic or occasional

flooding

The plant

species

that grow in riparian areas are adapted

to tolerate conditions of periodically waterlogged soils. Ri-

parian lands are generally linear in shape and may occur as

narrow strips of streambank vegetation in dry regions of the

American Southwest or as large expanses of bottomland

hardwood forests in the wetter Southeast. The ecosystems

of riparian areas are generally called riparian

wetlands

.In

the western United States, riparian vegetation generally in-

cludes willows, cottonwoods, saltcedar, tamarisk, and mes-

quite, depending on the degree of dryness.

The riparian zone of bottomland hardwood forests can

be differentiated into several zones based on the frequency

of flooding and degree of wetness of the soils. Proceeding

away from the channel of the river, the zones may be de-

scribed as follows: intermittently exposed, semipermanently

flooded, seasonally flooded, temporarily flooded, and inter-

mittently flooded. The vegetation of each zone is adapted

to survive and thrive under the conditions of flooding pecu-

liar to that zone. Due to the irregularities in

topography

and the formation of streambank levees that are normal to

any landscape, it is rare that these zones always occur in the

same predictable sequence.

Intermittently exposed zones have standing water pres-

ent throughout the year and the vegetation grows in saturated

soil

throughout the growing season. Bald cypress and water

tupelo are typical trees of this zone and have adaptations such

as stilt roots and

anaerobic

root

respiration

to cope with

the permanently flooded conditions. Semipermanently

flooded zones have standing water or saturated soils through

most of the year, and flooding duration may last more than

six to eight weeks of the growing season. Black willow and

silver maple are abundant tree species of this zone. Seasonally

flooded zones are areas where flooding is usually present for

three to six weeks of the growing season. A number of hard-

wood tree species thrive in this zone, including green ash,

American elm, sweetgum, and laurel oak. Temporarily

flooded zones have saturated soils for one to three weeks of

the growing season. For the rest of the year, the

water table

will be well below the soil surface. Many oaks, such as swamp

chestnut oak and water oak, as well as hickories may be found

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

Riparian rights

here. Intermittently flooded zones are areas where soil satura-

tion is rarely present and flooding occurs with no predictable

frequency. This is an area that may actually be difficult to dis-

tinguish from the adjacent uplands. Many transitional and

upland species such as eastern red cedar, beech, sassafras, and

hop-hornbeam are common.

For all riparian wetlands in the field, these zones of

moisture and vegetation gradients occur in an overlapping,

intergrading fashion, and the plant species are distributed

in varying degrees throughout the riparian zone. Riparian

wetlands are valued for their specialized plantlife and

wild-

life

values. They are recognized as interfaces where uplands

and aquatic areas meet to form intermediate ecosystems that

are themselves unique in their diversity, productivity, and

function. They also provide significant economic benefits

by minimizing flood and

erosion

damage.

[Usha Vedagiri]

ESOURCES

OOKS

Mitsch, W. J., and J. G. Gosselink. Wetlands. New York: Van Nostrand

Reinhold, 1986.

Riparian rights

Riparian rights are the rights of persons who own land border-

ing a river, bay, or other natural surface water. A riparian right

entitles the property owner to the use of both the shore and

the bed as well as the water upon it. Such rights, however, may

not be exercised to the detriment of others with similar rights

to the same watercourse. As Sir William Blackstone observed

in his Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765–69), “If a

stream be unoccupied, I may erect a mill thereon, and detain

the water; yet not so as to injure my neighbor’s prior mill, or

his meadow; for he hath by the first occupancy acquired a

property in the current.”

Riparian rights, or riparianism, is a legal doctrine used

in the eastern United States to govern water claims. Riparian

landowners have rights to the use of the water adjoining

their property, but not to

groundwater

or artificial water-

ways such as canals. Riparian rights were once subject to

the “natural flow doctrine,” which held that the right-holder

could use and divert the water adjoining his or her property

at will unless this use diminished the quantity or quality of

the natural flow to other right-holders. Since almost any use

could be said to diminish the natural flow, this doctrine has

given way to the “reasonable use” rule. David H. Getches

explains the “reasonable use” rules in this way: “If there is

insufficient water to satisfy the reasonable needs of all ripari-

ans, all must reduce usage of water in proportion to their

rights, usually based on the amount of land they own.”

1212

In the

arid

western states,

water rights

are governed

by the “prior appropriation” doctrine, under which rights

are derived from the first use of water rather than ownership

of riparian property. If someone bought land on a river and

simply let it flow past, for instance, someone else could

acquire a right to that water by putting it to use. The right

remains in force, furthermore, unless the right-holder aban-

dons the use of the water. Prior appropriation rights may

also be transferred, and some cities in Arizona and elsewhere

in the arid Southwest have recently taken advantage of this

option by buying large ranches with established water rights

in order to secure water supplies for their residents.

California has given its name to a hybrid system, fol-

lowed in several states, that combines features of the riparian

and prior appropriation doctrines. Whatever the system,

water rights are limited by the “reserved rights doctrine,”

intended to assure adequate water for Native American reser-

vations and public lands.

State and federal agencies have the legal right to regu-

late

land use

in the protection of riparian areas. Some states

have established setbacks, or

buffer

zones, along shorelines

or riverfronts that regulate development activities within the

area. For example, in 1996, Massachusetts enacted the Rivers

Protection Act that required property owners to follow a

permitting procedure before developing any part of a corridor

of 200 ft (61 m) along a riverfront or stream. New Hamp-

shire, Wisconsin, and Montana are among the other states

that have implemented state regulations of activity in riparian

areas. Some of these state regulatory actions have been chal-

lenged in the federal court system as violating the Fifth

Amendment constitutional right of citizens to be protected

from “takings,” by any government entity.

Takings

law pro-

hibits the government from appropriating property for a

non-public use, or from failing to provide the owner with

suitable and just compensation. The placement of develop-

ment, the destruction of

wetlands

, and the amounts of fair

compensation to property owners are common points of

contention in court cases that challenge the government’s

ability to control development in riparian areas. For example,

the Federal Circuit Court determined that a mining com-

pany in Florida was due compensation when it was prohib-

ited from removing minerals from a portion, but not all of

its property located in a wetland. The Court ruled that

the restriction placed on the company constituted a “partial

takings,” because it forced the company to bear an expense

that was the public’s responsibility.

Other issues that have been increasingly contested in

the courts are the rights of private property owners to build

docks on their waterfront property. In the 2001 case in New

York, Stutchin vs. the Village of Lloyd Harbor, the plaintiffs

charged that the action by the Village to deny them the

right to build a longer dock than the regulations allowed

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

Risk analysis

constituted a takings because the action denied them the

use of their riparian rights. Reparian rights include the right

to wharf out to a navigable depth as long as navigation is

not impeded. The Village was acting on the regulations

developed along the guidelines of the New York Coastal

Management Program, which assists communities in protec-

tion of coastal resources. In this case, a New York district

court judge ruled that the municipality of Lloyd Harbor had

the authority and the right to restrict the length of the private

dock because the plaintiff’s access to the water was not

eliminated, and the local jurisdiction has the right to insure

that public rights are protected. The judge saw that the

construction of the planned dock would interfere with navi-

gation and pose a threat to the

natural resources

of the

area. See also Irrigation; Water allocation; Water conserva-

tion; Water resources; Water table draw-down

[Richard K. Dagger and Marie H. Bundy]

ESOURCES

OOKS

Davis, C. Riparian Water Law: A Functional Analysis. Arlington, VA:

National Water Commission, 1971.

Water Rights in the Fifty States and Territories. Denver, CO: American

Water Works Association, 1990.

Waters and Water Rights. Charlottesville, VA: Michie, 1991.

Risk analysis

Risk is the chance that something undesirable will happen.

Everyone faces personal risks daily; we all have a chance of

being struck by a car or by lightning or of catching a cold.

None of these are certain to happen today, but they all can

and do happen occasionally, some more frequently than

others. Even though all risk is unpleasant, the consequences

of being struck by an

automobile

are much more serious

than those of catching a cold. Most people would do more

and pay more to avoid the risks they consider most serious.

Thus, risk has two important components: (1) the conse-

quences of an event and (2) its

probability

. In addition,

while the threat of lightning has always been present, the

possibility of being struck by a car emerged only in the last

century. Modern risks are constantly evolving.

Events that challenge the health of ecological systems

are also becoming apparent. Ecosystems have always faced

the risk of severe damage from fire,

flooding

, and volcanoes.

More recently, however, population increases, especially in

cities; global climate change;

deforestation

;

acid rain

; pes-

ticides; and sewage,

garbage

, and industrial waste disposal

have all threatened ecosystems.

Healthy ecosystems supply air, water, food, and raw

materials that make life possible; they also process the wastes

1213

human societies produce. For these compelling reasons, we

must protect them. In the United States, the

National Envi-

ronmental Policy Act

, the Toxic Substances Control Act,

the

Clean Water Act

, the Federal Insecticide,

Fungicide

and Rodenticide Act, and other legislation has been passed

by Congress to protect the

environment

Risk analysis can determine whether proposed actions

will damage ecosystems. This screening process evaluates

plans that might prove destructive, and allows people to

make informed decisions about which would be most envi-

ronmentally sound. Proposed utilities, roads, waste-disposal

sites, factories, and even new products can use risk analysis

to address environmental concerns during planning stages,

when changes are most easily made. The process also allows

people to rank environmental problems and allocate atten-

tion, resources, and corrective efforts.

Risk analyses are made by both scholars and govern-

ment decision makers. Scientists are interested in a thorough

understanding of the way ecosystems function, but decision

makers need quick and efficient tools for making choices.

Scholarly approaches take many forms: Synoptic sur-

veys assess the characteristics of stressed and unstressed natu-

ral systems. Experiments determine how the whole or one

part of an

ecosystem

(such as fish) will respond to stress.

Extrapolations apply specific observations to other ecosys-

tems,

chemicals

, or properties of interest by analyzing dose-

response curves, establishing relationships between the mo-

lecular structure of a chemical and its likely environmental

effects, or simulation of entire ecosystems on a computer.

Using these tools, scientists can also measure change in

ecosystems and translate the results for the general public.

A less precise method, often used by public officials

and other nonscientists, is called ecosystem

risk assess-

ment

. It uses available toxicological, ecological, geological,

geographical, chemical, and sociological information to esti-

mate possible damage. The process has three steps:

The problem is identified. For example: could

nutrient

runoff

from local agriculture affect

commercial fishing

on a nearby lake?

Available scientific information is gathered to predict both

the level of stress that could result and the likely ecosystem

response. Where do the nutrients go and how are organisms

exposed to them? How does increasing nutrient levels affect

biological systems, especially fish?

Risk is quantified by comparing exposure and effects data.

If the predicted stress level is lower than those known to

cause serious damage, risk is low. On the other hand, if

the predicted stress is higher, risk is high.

Despite the reams of data available, there is never

enough information about the possible effects of any stress.

An assessment based squarely on facts is more reliable than

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

Risk assessment (public health)

one that uses scarce, preliminary information. Anyone

charged with making decisions must weigh all options.

The possibility of an undesirable occurrence, the seri-

ousness of the consequences, and the uncertainty involved

in any prediction all factor into the estimate. Alternative

actions and their risks and benefits must also be considered,

and the consistency of the action balanced with other societal

goals. An action’s risks and benefits are often not distributed

evenly in society. For example, people sharing the

water

table

with a proposed

landfill

may shoulder more risk, while

those who use many nonrecyclable consumer products may

benefit disproportionately. Who benefits and who loses can

also affect decisions.

Risk predictions are similar to weather forecasts—they

are based on careful observation and are useful, but they are

far from perfect. They indicate useful precautions—whether

these involve carrying an umbrella or treating waste before

it enters the water. They help us understand ecosystems

and allow us to consider the environment before potentially

harmful action is taken. If ecological risks are considered

when decisions are being made, ecosystems on which people

depend can be protected. See also Environmental policy;

Environmental stress; Greenhouse effect; Industrial waste

treatment; Sewage treatment; Solid waste

[John Cairns Jr. and B. R. Neiderlehner]

ESOURCES

OOKS

Bartell, S. M., R. H. Gardner, and R. V. O’Neill. Ecological Risk Estimation.

Chelsea, MI: Lewis Publishers, 1992.

Ehrlich, P. R., and A. H. Ehrlich. Healing the Planet: Strategies for Solving

the Environmental Crisis. New York: Addison-Wesley Publishing, 1992.

National Research Council. Risk Assessment in the Federal Government:

Managing the Process. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1983.

ERIODICALS

Norton, S. B., et al. “A Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment at the

EPA.” Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 11–12 (1992): 1663–672.

THER

Cairns Jr., J., K. L. Dickson, and A. W. Maki, eds. Estimating the Hazard

of Chemical Substances to Aquatic Life, STP 657. Philadelphia: American

Society for Testing and Materials, 1978.

Risk assessment (public health)

Risk assessment refers to the process by which the short and

long-term adverse consequences to individuals or groups in

a particular area resulting from the use of specific technology,

chemical substance, or natural hazard is determined. Gener-

ally, quantitative methods are used to predict the number

of affected individuals, morbidity or

mortality

, or other

outcome measures of adverse consequences. Many risk as-

1214

sessments have been completed over the last two decades to

predict human and ecological impacts with the intent of

aiding policy and regulatory decisions. Well-known exam-

ples of risk assessments include evaluating potential effects

of herbicides and insecticides, nuclear

power plants

, incin-

erators,

dams

(including dam failures),

automobile pollu-

tion

tobacco

smoking, and such natural catastrophes as

volcanoes, earthquakes, and hurricanes. Risk assessment

studies often consider financial and economic factors as well.

Human health risk assessments

Human health risk assessments for chemical sub-

stances that are suspected or known to have toxic or carcino-

genic effects is one critical and especially controversial subset

of risk assessments. These health risk assessments study

small populations that have been exposed to the chemical

in question. Health effects are then extrapolated to predict

health impacts in large populations or to the general public

who may be exposed to lower concentrations of the same

chemical.

One mathematical formula that determines an individ-

ual’s risk from chemical exposures is:

(emissions) × (transport) ×

Risk = (loss factor) × (exposure period) ×

(uptake) × (toxicity factor)

For the case of a

hazardous waste

incinerator, emis-

sions might be average

smoke stack emissions

of gas; the

transport term represents dilution in the air from the stack

to the community; the loss factor might represent chemical

degradation of reactive contaminants as stack gases are trans-

ported in the

atmosphere

; the exposure period is the num-

ber of hours that the community is downwind of the inciner-

ator; uptake is the amount of contaminants absorbed into

the lung (a function of breathing rate and other factors); and

toxicity is the chemical potency. Multiplying these factors

indicates the

probability

of a specific adverse health impact

caused by contaminants from the incinerator. In typical ap-

plications, such models give the incremental lifetime risk of

cancer

or other health hazards in the range of one in a

million (equivalent to 0.000001). Cancers currently cause

about one-third of deaths, thus, a one in a million probability

represents a tiny increase in the total cancer incidence. How-

ever, calculated risks can vary over a large range—0.001 to

0.00000001.

While the same equation is used for all individuals,

some assumptions regarding uptake and toxicity might be

modified for certain individuals such as pregnant women,

children, or individuals who are routinely exposed to the

chemicals

. In some cases, monitoring might be used to

verify exposure levels. The equation illustrates the complexity

of the risk assessment process.

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

Risk assessment (public health)

Risk assessment process

The risk assessment/management procedure consists

of five steps: (1) Hazard assessment seeks to identify causative

agent(s). Simply put, is the substance toxic and are people

exposed to it? The hazard assessment demonstrates the link

between human actions and adverse effects. Often, hazard

assessment involves a chain of events. For example, the re-

lease of

pesticide

may cause

soil

and ground

water pollu-

tion

. Drinking contaminated

groundwater

from the site

or skin contact with contaminated soils may therefore result

in adverse health effects. (2) Dose-response relationships de-

scribe the toxicity of a chemical using models based on

human studies (including clinical and epidemiologic ap-

proaches) and animal studies. Many studies have indicated

a threshold or “no-effect” level, that is, an exposure level

where no adverse effects are observed in test populations.

Some health impacts may be reversible once the chemical

is removed. In the case of potential carcinogens, linear mod-

els are used almost exclusively. Risk or potency factors are

usually set using animal data, such as experiments with mice

exposed to varying levels of the chemical. With a linear

dose-response model, a doubling of exposure would double

the predicted risk. (3) Exposure assessment identifies the ex-

posed population, detailing the level, duration, and frequency

of exposure. Exposure pathways of the chemical include in-

gestion, inhalation, and dermal contact. Human and techno-

logical defenses against exposure must be considered. For

example, respirators and other protective equipment reduce

workplace exposures. In the case of prospective risk assess-

ments for facilities that are not yet constructed—for example,

a proposed hazardous waste incinerator—the exposure as-

sessment uses mathematical models to predict emissions and

distribution of contaminants around the site. Probably the

largest effort in the risk assessment process is in estimating

exposures. (4) Risk characterization determines the overall

risk, preferably including quantification of uncertainty. In

essence, the factors listed in the equation are multiplied for

each chemical and for each affected population. To arrive

at the total risk, risks from different exposure pathways and

for different chemicals are added. Populations with the maxi-

mum risk are identified. To gauge their significance, results

are compared to other environmental and societal risks.

These four steps constitute the scientific component of risk

assessment. (5) Risk management is the final decision-making

step. It encompasses the administrative, political, and eco-

nomic actions taken to decide if and how a particular societal

risk is to be reduced to a certain level and at what cost. Risk

management in the United States is often an adversarial

process involving complicated and often conflicting testi-

mony by expert witnesses. In recent years, a number of

disputes have been resolved by mediation.

1215

Risk management and risk reduction

Options that result from the risk management step

include performing no action, product labeling, and placing

regulations and bans. Examples of product labeling include

warning labels for consumer products, such as those on

tobacco products and cigarette advertising, and

Material

Safety Data Sheets

(MSDS) for chemicals in the work-

place. Regulations might be used to set maximum permissi-

ble levels of chemicals in the air and water (e.g., air and

water quality

criteria is set by the U.S.

Environmental

Protection Agency

). In the workplace, maximum exposures

known as Threshold Limit Values (TLVs) have been set by

the U.S.

Occupational Safety and Health Administra-

tion

. Such regulations have been established for hundreds

of chemicals. Governments have banned the production of

only a few materials, including DDT and PCBs, and product

liability concerns have largely eliminated sales of some pesti-

cides such as Paraquat and most uses of

asbestos

A variety of social and political factors influence the

outcome of the risk assessment/management process. Op-

tions to reduce risk, like banning a particular pesticide that

is a suspected

carcinogen

, may decrease productivity, prof-

its, and jobs. Furthermore, agricultural losses due to insects

or other pests if pesticide is banned might increase malnutri-

tion and death in subsistence economies. In general, risk

assessments are most useful when used in a relative or com-

parative fashion, weighing the benefits of alternative chemi-

cals or agricultural practices to another. Risk management

decisions must consider what degree of risk is acceptable,

whether it is a voluntary or involuntary risk, and the public’s

perception of the risk. A risk level of one in a million is

generally considered an acceptable lifetime risk by many

federal and state regulatory agencies. This risk level is mathe-

matically equivalent to a decreased life expectancy of 40

minutes for an individual with an average expected lifetime

of 74 years. By comparison, the 40,000 traffic fatalities annu-

ally in the United States represent over a 1% lifetime chance

of dying in a wreck—10,000 times higher than acceptable

for a chemical hazard. The discrepancy between what an

individual accepts for a chemical hazard in comparison to

risks associated with personal choices like driving or smoking

might indicate a need for more effective communication

about risk management.

Risk assessments are often controversial. Scientific

studies and conclusions about risk factors have been ques-

tioned. For example, animals are often used to determine

dose-response and exposure relationships. Results from these

studies are then applied to humans, sometimes without ac-

counting for physiological differences. The scientific ability

to accurately predict absolute risks is also poor. The

accu-

racy

of predictions might be no better than a factor of 10,

thus 10 to 1,000 cancers or other health hazard might be

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

Risk assessors

experienced. The uncertainty might be even higher, a factor

of 100, for example. Risks due to multiple factors are consid-

ered independent and additive. For instance, smoking and

asbestos exposure together have been shown to greatly in-

crease health risks than exposure to one factor alone. Con-

versely, multiple chemicals might inhibit or cancel risks. In

nearly all cases, these factors cannot be modeled with our

present knowledge. Finally, assessments often use a worst-

case scenario, for example, the complete failure of a

pollution

control

system, rather than a more modest but common

failure like operator error.

Ecological risk assessment

Ecological risk assessments are similar to human

health risk assessments but they estimate the severity and

extent of ecological effects associated with an exposure to

anthropogenic

agent or a perturbational change. Again,

the risk estimate is stated in probability terms that reflect

the degree of certainty. Ecological assessments tend to be

more complex than human health assessments since a variety

of dynamic ecological communities or systems may be in-

volved, and these systems have important but often poorly

understood interactions and feedback loops. In addition the

current status and health of ecological systems must be de-

fined by measurements and analysis before an assessment

can begin. In some cases, animal

species

or ecosystems

may be more sensitive than humans. Contingency or hazard

assessment resembles that made for human health but fo-

cuses on low probability events such as failure of dams,

nuclear power

plants, and industrial facilities that have the

potential for significant public health and welfare damage.

Finally, risk reduction approaches have been suggested that

shift focus from end-of-pipe controls, for instance, pollution

control equipment, to preventing pollution in the first place

by minimizing waste and

recycling

[Stuart Batterman]

ESOURCES

OOKS

Chemical Risk: A Primer. Washington, DC: American Chemical Society,

1984.

ERIODICALS

Naugle, D. F., and T. K. Pierson. “A Framework for Risk Characterization

of Environmental Pollutants.” Journal of the Air and Waste Management

Association 4 (1992): 1298–1307.

THER

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Integrated Risk Information System

Background Document. Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Of-

fice, 1991.

1216

Risk assessors

Risk assessors endeavor to define a risk that will be realized

under actual or anticipated conditions by establishing the

“average truth” from numerous probabilities. Assessing risk

based on conclusions drawn from an infinite number of

integrations cannot be expressed in terms of “safe” or “non-

toxic.” Such expressions imply that a chemical or an event

(e.g., accident) is without risk or harm, which may be mis-

leading. Instead a chemical or an event is ranked as minor,

moderate, or high to reflect the degree of risk that it repre-

sents within a given set of parameters. Such is the role of

the risk assessor to calculate the effects of variables while

classifying the uncertainties and presenting risk managers

with a list of choices.

Comprehending the number of variables and uncer-

tainties associated with an event can be explored in the

following example. If one were to assess the number of deaths

from

cancer

following a lifetime exposure to a chemical

contained in drinking water, one must examine a diverse

array of interlocking factors, such as the composition of the

chemical, the chemical’s observable effects on animals and/

environment

, and whether the reported dose-exposure

rates are applicable to humans. Likewise, if one were to

examine the amount of chemical which can remain in the

soil

and not create

groundwater

contamination following

a chemical spill, factors such as the following should be

examined: the composition of the spilled chemical, its spe-

cific gravity, solubility, and viscosity; the soil’s composition,

, precipitation and

infiltration

rates; and hydrologic set-

ting, the depth to the

water table

and its vertical and

horizontal flow.

In addition to these factors, one must also take into

account underlying uncertainties in data acquisition. For

example, health databases and findings are typically derived

from experimental or laboratory animal tests on a specific

chemical or in connection with unrelated human studies.

Therefore predictions from these studies may not be applica-

ble to human subjects.

Sometimes lifestyle choices can also play a role in

risk

assessment

. In addition to the chemical that a person is

exposed to, other factors—such as smoking or exposure to

another chemical substance—can have additive, accumula-

tive, or antagonistic effects. Such anomalies require supple-

mental research, such as mathematical

modeling

Mathematical modeling mirrors the processes and in-

terrelationships of real-life systems. The mathematical con-

tent of a model may extend to different equations or to

simple look-up tables; its purpose is to reflect the required

outcome of interest. For example, a health model frequently

employed by the

Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA)

is a Linearized Multistage Model because it yields the most