The analysis and management of risks is an evolving field with applications to human health, safety and environmental quality. Various aspects of the theory and practice of study of risk continue to be debated among risk professionals, policy makers, and the risk-interested public.

Although there is debate, yet there is an agreement among all parties that risk assessment, comparative risk analysis and risk management are the essential pillars of the field. This article throws light on the importance of these elements in the field.

Generally, risk assessments are conducted to estimate how much damage or injury can be expected from exposures to a given risk agent and to assist in judging whether these consequences are great enough to require increased management or regulation.

Risk frequently is expressed in quantitative probability terms — such as, some number of additional cancer deaths over a lifetime in a population of one million exposed people. (A risk of one in 10,000 is often described as a “10–4 risk”, one in one million as a “10–6 risk”, and so on.) Risks of less than 10–6 in magnitude have not been the object of concern.

Contemporary risk assessments ordinarily rely on many branches of science and the process consists of a source assessment, an exposure assessment, an effects assessment, and is normally concluded by an integrative risk characterisation.

Source assessment seeks to identify and evaluate the sequence of events through which an exposure to a risk agent could arise.

Exposure assessment seeks to determine the number and kinds of people exposed to a risk agent, along with the magnitude, duration, and timing of their exposures.

Effects assessment determines the extent of adverse effects likely to result from given levels of exposure to a risk agent. Risk characterisation, which serves as an integrative part, is the last step in the process.

Contemporary risk assessment has been an aspect of risk analysis since the late 1980s. In essence, it is directed at developing risk rankings and priorities that would put various kinds of hazards on an ordered scale from small to large.

The methods for conducting comparative risk assessment are still developing. Methods to appropriately conduct these kinds of analyses remain controversial, as is the concept of using relative risk comparisons to establish priorities for hazard reduction.

The challenges are particularly difficult when comparisons across widely different risks are involved.

The essential tasks of risk management are: One, to determine what hazards present more danger than society is willing to accept; two, consider what control options are available; and three, decide on appropriate actions to reduce (or eliminate) unacceptable risks. However, such assessments do not, in themselves, provide answers to many questions that risk managers must answer, like will new risks arise as a consequence of reducing existing risks? Such issues are clearly influenced by society’s values and priorities, and dealing with them requires the political considerations associated with establishing policy in a democratic manner.

Hazard or risk-reduction measures include regulations, permits and enforcement actions. Other measures are focused upon market-based economic incentives, voluntary reductions of risk-producing activities, promotion of pollution prevention and information, and education programmes to change behaviours by alerting consumers of the risk involved in their choices.

Lastly, those with the responsibility to manage risks in society’s interest must make responsible decisions about risk control and hazard reduction and work through issues that are not always easy to resolve, including legal obligations and uncertainties in the process of assessment.

Proper risk assessment, cost analyses, and other analytical tools can assist the good judgment of a policy maker in making such decisions, especially under uncertain situations.