{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.024922118380062305, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.140127388535032, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Red Book, Risk Assessment, and Policy Analysis: The Road Not Taken

The publication of the National Research Council's (NRC's) report Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process, called the “Red Book,” marked a crystallization of the Risk Analysis paradigm. We offer an outsider's perspective on not only what was gained in this process, but also what was lost (or at least temporarily lost sight of)—the alternative framing of risk issues under the rubrics of policy and decision analysis. More recently, with increasing demands for analyses that juxtapose expected positive and negative consequences of available policy choices, and a newer NRC report on assessing the benefits of air pollution controls, a policy and decision analysis framework may be making a comeback from its long exile from the center of risk and policy discussions. The framework can be usefully informed by progress made in the use and methods of risk assessment.