Extract
The editors state that, “This book is intended to capture the progress and developments made in this field since 1989.” Hence, it neglects conventional laboratory toxicology which is largely a product of the 1970s and 1980s. Instead, it begins with 2 long and authoritative chapters treating toxicity testing for contaminated sediments and for aqueous effluents and contaminated waters. It then follows with the always upcoming field of biomarkers and continues with gene expression, bioassays and biosensors, and satellite remote sensing. These chapters are good reviews, but they digress from the topic of ecotoxicological testing to techniques more related to environmental monitoring.
Chapter 7 digresses even further by addressing risk perception and public communication. This is an important topic that has been relatively neglected in ecological risk assessment. The authors rely on the literature from health risks, and they do a good job of summarizing the findings that are potentially relevant to ecological risks. However, it seems clear to me that we need to know more specifically how to communicate ecological risks. The bit of relevant research by Tim McDaniels and others (Risk Anal 17:633–638) indicated that the public considers human benefits when judging ecological risks. That is, if an action or product benefits me, it is not so bad for fish and birds. This result suggests that we need to know more about how people react to ecorisk information.
