Essential features for proactive risk management.

We propose a proactive approach to the management of occupational health risks in emerging technologies based on six features: qualitative risk assessment; the ability to adapt strategies and refine requirements; an appropriate level of precaution; global applicability; the ability to elicit voluntary cooperation by companies; and stakeholder involvement.

[1]  Steffen Foss Hansen,et al.  Late lessons from early warnings for nanotechnology. , 2008, Nature nanotechnology.

[2]  Elizabeth A. Casman,et al.  Elicitation of Expert Judgments of Uncertainty in the Risk Assessment of Herbicide‐Tolerant Oilseed Crops , 2004, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[3]  T. McGarity,et al.  Workers at Risk: The Failed Promise of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration , 1993 .

[4]  C. Sunstein.  Laws of Fear: Acknowledgments , 2005 .

[5]  Max Henrion,et al.  Uncertainty: A Guide to Dealing with Uncertainty in Quantitative Risk and Policy Analysis , 1990 .

[6]  Cass R. Sunstein.  Laws of Fear: SOLUTIONS , 2005 .

[7]  James E Hutchison,et al.  Greener nanoscience: a proactive approach to advancing applications and reducing implications of nanotechnology. , 2008, ACS nano.

[8]  Rosa García Couto.  Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS) , 2009 .

[9]  Gary E. Marchant,et al.  Transnational Models for Regulation of Nanotechnology , 2006, Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics.

[10]  Erik Tielemans,et al.  'Stoffenmanager', a web-based control banding tool using an exposure process model. , 2008, The Annals of occupational hygiene.

[11]  P. Swuste,et al.  Application of a pilot control banding tool for risk level assessment and control of nanoparticle exposures. , 2008, The Annals of occupational hygiene.

[12]  D. Kriebel,et al.  A compass for health: rethinking precaution and its role in science and public health. , 2003, International journal of epidemiology.

[13]  Badger Meter Europa.  CERTIFICA TE The Certification Body of TÜV SÜD Management Service GmbH , 2008 .

[14]  Cass R. Sunstein,et al.  Laws of Fear: Beyond the Precautionary Principle , 2005 .

[15]  B D Naumann,et al.  Performance-based exposure control limits for pharmaceutical active ingredients. , 1996, American Industrial Hygiene Association journal.

[16]  Vladimir Murashov,et al.  The US must help set international standards for nanotechnology. , 2008, Nature nanotechnology.

[17]  Robert L. Glicksman,et al.  Risk Regulation at Risk: Restoring a Pragmatic Approach , 2002 .

[18]  Matthias Ehrgott,et al.  Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the art surveys , 2005 .

[19]  Kara Morgan,et al.  Development of a Preliminary Framework for Informing the Risk Analysis and Risk Management of Nanoparticles , 2005, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[20]  B. Goldstein,et al.  Implications of the Precautionary Principle: Is it a Threat to Science? , 2005, International journal of occupational medicine and environmental health.

[21]  Laura Hodson,et al.  Approaches to safe nanotechnology; managing the health and safety concerns associated with engineered nanomaterials , 2009 .

[22]  S. Cohen.  ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND WORKER HEALTH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Review of the NIOSH Site Profile for the Santa Susana Field Laboratory , 2008 .

[23]  José Rui Figueira,et al.  Real-time and deliberative decision making , 2008 .

[24]  Charles L Geraci,et al.  National Prevention through Design (PtD) Initiative. , 2008, Journal of safety research.

[25]  M. Heinemann,et al.  Guidance for handling and use of nanomaterials at the workplace , 2009, Human & experimental toxicology.

[26]  John C. Monica,et al.  The perils of pre-emptive regulation. , 2007, Nature nanotechnology.

[27]  Kenneth W. Abbott,et al.  Risk Management Principles for Nanotechnology , 2007 .