Hayashi and Kashiwagi estimated parameters using MCMC simulations to compare risks from different chemicals. Their results showed the median and 90% range of estimated potential failure factors (EPAF) for ammonia, copper, nickel, and zinc, with larger EPAF indicating greater risk. They found sensitivity differences among taxonomic groups like algae, fish, and invertebrates using normal distributions of log toxicity values.

1. 10 WS 2018/4/8 13:40-15:40
W
b e
1

2. Disclaimer
2

3. Yij
θAlgae σjMeans SDθFish
Sensitivity differences among
taxonomic groups Normal distributions
Log(NOEC)
Parameters were estimated
by MCMC simulations
θInvertebrate
Hayashi & Kashiwagi (2009)
Hayashi & Kashiwagi (2010)
Monte Carlo Analysis
EPAF = F
µECD - µSSD
sECD
2
+ sSSD
2
æ
è
ç
ç
ö
ø
÷
÷
µECD µSSDsECD sSSD
Calculation of predictive
distribution of EPAF
Posterior distributions of ECD
parameters
Posterior distributions of SSD
parameters
Results: Quantitative Risk Comparison
Median and 90% range of EPAF
log10(EPAF)
Large Risk→←Small Risk
Chemicals
Ammonia
Copper
Nickel
Zinc
Hayashi and Kashiwagi (2011)
3

4. Pearl
2015
2015 8 6
(2) 10:30-11:30
4

5. STS
@taiwa_kankyo
twitter
5

6. ML WS
STS/
"geek"
6

7. (1)
---
(2)
---
7

8. Ian Hacking: An introduction to probability and inductive logic
:
M :
:
8

9. 9

10. " "
10

11. -3
H23
http://www.meti.go.jp/policy/chemical_management/kasinhou/files/information/ra/screening.pdf
11

12. IPCC, 2013: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science
Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 12

13. Yij
θAlgae σjMeans SDθFish
Sensitivity differences among
taxonomic groups Normal distributions
Log(NOEC)
Parameters were estimated
by MCMC simulations
θInvertebrate
Hayashi & Kashiwagi (2009)
Hayashi & Kashiwagi (2010)
Monte Carlo Analysis
EPAF = F
µECD - µSSD
sECD
2
+ sSSD
2
æ
è
ç
ç
ö
ø
÷
÷
µECD µSSDsECD sSSD
Calculation of predictive
distribution of EPAF
Posterior distributions of ECD
parameters
Posterior distributions of SSD
parameters
Results: Quantitative Risk Comparison
Median and 90% range of EPAF
log10(EPAF)
Large Risk→←Small Risk
Chemicals
Ammonia
Copper
Nickel
Zinc
Hayashi and Kashiwagi (2011)
13

14. n d
i
g g
g r
what-if o
w
d
14

15. (1)
---
(2)
---
15

16. " "
16

17. 10
10000
→ 10
→ 10
X 10
X → 100
17

18. 95 " "
" "
18

19. " "
19

20. " "
20

21. "
→
21

22. " "
→
" "
" " 22

23. ex." "
S
T
23

24. (1)
---
(2)
---
24

25. 2007 -
" " " "
25

26. : /
" " " "
26

27. /
: /
27

28. : /
28

29. : /
29

30. -3
H23
http://www.meti.go.jp/policy/chemical_management/kasinhou/files/information/ra/screening.pdf
30

31. " "
: /
31

32. me p
me u t
r
: me / u t
o d m t
s me u
e m
n me u t
me u t me
me n n n
me u t me t
cnei n cnei n o 32

33. " " " "
33

34. 10
-5
34

35. 8 b a T
n
e u H
S
S gr jc r a
n b v T
t a a b
S e u rirg
b y S
T
ork - -
p l
ork S
bs
35

36. " " " "
36

37. 37

38. 38

39. " "
" "
39

40. ex. d
ex. g g
i
ex. n
" "
o
" "
ex. 0.1/1/5/10 1
w
r
40

41. " " " "
41

42. ex." "
42

43. "late lessons"
43

44. "late lessons"
"late lessons"
"late lessons"
0
0
o o
1 l % %
" e
n a
. t s . t
. 44

45. "late lessons"
" s u"
s u
u s
primal cause
ac l
k
n
i
45

46. " "
(1) "
" " "
(2)
46

47. " "
(5) "late lessons" 0
0
(4) 1 l
" " s
1 o
(3) . n
t
a % %
"
e
47

48. 48

49. 49

50. " "
(2) " "" "
C.f.,
50