PROPAGATION OF UNCERTAINTY IN RISK ASSESSMENTS - THE NEED TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN UNCERTAINTY DUE TO LACK OF KNOWLEDGE AND UNCERTAINTY DUE TO VARIABILITY

In quantitative uncertainty analysis, it is essential to define rigorously the endpoint or target of the assessment. Two distinctly different approaches using Monte Carlo methods are discussed: (1) the end point is a fixed but unknown value (e.g., the maximally exposed individual, the average individual, or a specific individual) or (2) the end point is an unknown distribution of values (e.g., the variability of exposures among unspecified individuals in the population). In the first case, values are sampled at random from distributions representing various ''degrees of belief'' about the unknown ''fixed'' values of the parameters to produce a distribution of model results. The distribution of model results represents a subjective confidence statement about the true but unknown assessment end point. The important input parameters are those that contribute most to the spread in the distribution of the model results. In the second case, Monte Carlo calculations are performed in two dimensions producing numerous alternative representations of the true but unknown distribution. These alternative distributions permit subject confidence statements to be made from two perspectives: (1) for the individual exposure occurring at a specified fractile of the distribution or (2) for the fractile of the distribution associated with a specified level of individual exposure. The relative importance of input parameters will depend on the fractile or exposure level of interest. The quantification of uncertainty for the simulation of a true but unknown distribution of values represents the state-of-the-art in assessment modeling.