Risk evaluation: Criteria arising from legal traditions and experience with quantitative risk assessment in the United States

Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology

Volumn 2, Issue 2-3, 1996, Pages 103-109

  Hattis, Dale ^a   Minkowitz, William S ^a  

^a CLARK UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Priority setting; Quantitative criterion; Risk management; Uncertainty; Variability

Indexed keywords

CARCINOGEN;

CANCER RISK; CONFERENCE PAPER; HUMAN; INDIVIDUALITY; LAW; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK MANAGEMENT; UNITED STATES;

EID: 0030588253     PISSN: 13826689     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S1382-6689(96)00038-5     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (22)

1. Crouch, E., 1996, Uncertainty distributions for cancer potency factors: laboratory animal carcinogenicity bioassays and interspecies extrapolation, Hum. Ecol. Risk Assessm. 2, 100.
2. Derr, P., R. Goble, R. Kasperson and R. Kates, 1983, Responding to the double standard of worker/public protection, Environment 25, 6.
3. Dole, R. 1995, Comprehensive Regulatory Reform Act of 1995, United States Senate Bill No. S343, available for downloading from 'Thomas' on the internet, http://thomas.loc.gov.
4. Hattis, D., 1990, Pharmacokinetic principles for dose rate extrapolation of carcinogenic risk from genetically active agents, Risk Analysis 10, 303.
5. Hattis, D. and K. Barlow, 1996, Human interindividual variability in cancer risks - technical and management challenges, Hum. Ecol. Risk Assessm. 2, 194.
6. Hattis, D. and D.E. Burmaster, 1994, Assessment of variability and uncertainty distributions for practical risk analyses, Risk Analysis 14, 713.
7. Hattis, D. and R. Goble, 1991, Expected values for projected cancer risks from putative genetically-acting agents, Risk Analysis 11, 359.
8. Hattis, D. and R.L. Goble, 1994, Current priority-setting methodology: Too little rationality or too much?, in: Worst Things First? The Debate over Risk-Based National Environmental Priorities, eds. A.M. Finkel and D. Golding (Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD) ch. 7, p. 107.
9. Hattis, D. and B. Minkowitz, 1996, Risk evaluation: Legal requirements, conceptual foundations, and practical experiences in the United States, in; What Does 'Acceptable Risk' Mean? Theory and Practice of Risk Management in Six Countries, eds. O. Renn and G. Pfister (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht).
10. Hattis, D., L. Erdreich and T. DiMauro, 1986, Human Variability in Parameters that are Potentially Related to Susceptibility to Carcinogenesis - I. Preliminary Observations, Report to the Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; M.I.T. Center for Technology, Policy and Industrial Development, Report No. CTPID 86-4, May 1986.
11. Hoel, D.G., R.A. Merrill and F.P. Perera (eds.), 1985, Risk Quantitation and Regulatory Policy, Banbury Report No. 19 (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, NY) p. 15.
12. Johnson, A., 1977, Do no harm; Axiom of medical ethics, in: Philosophical Medical Ethics: Its Nature and Significance, eds. S.F. Spicker and H.T. Englehart, Jr. (D. Reidel Publishing Co., Dordrecht) p. 27.
13. Kasperson, R.E., 1992, The social amplification of risk, in: Social Theories of Risk, eds. S. Krimsky and D. Golding (Praeger Publishers, Westport, CT) p. 153.
14. Lichtenstein S. and B. Fischoff, 1977, Do those who know more also know more about how much they know? Organ. Behav. Hum. Perform. 20, 159.
15. Priest, W.C., 1982, Risks, Concerns and Social Legislation - Forces That Led to Laws on Health, Safety, and the Environment (Westview Press, Boulder, CO).
16. Rosenthal, A., G.M. Gray and J.D. Graham, 1992, Legislating acceptable cancer risk from exposure to toxic chemicals, Ecol. Law Q. 19, 269.
17. Ruckelshaus, W.D., 1983, Science, risk, and public policy, Science 221, 1026.
18. Sandman, P.M., 1987, Risk communication: Facing public outrage, EPA J. 13, 21.
19. Shlyakhter, A.I. and Kammen, D.M., 1992, Sea-level rise or fall? Nature 253, 25.
20. Smith, R.J. 1982, Scientists implicated in atom test deception, Science 218, 545.
21. Travis, C.C., S.A. Richter, A.C. Crouch, R. Wilson and E.D. Klema, 1987, Cancer risk management: a review of 132 federal regulatory decisions, Environ. Sci. Technol. 21, 415.
22. Whipple, C., 1985, Redistributing risk, Regulation, May/June, p. 37.