Indicators of uncertainty in chemical risk assessments

Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology

Volumn 39, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 33-43

  Levin, Rikard ^a   Hansson, Sven Ove ^a   Rudén, Christina ^a  

^a ROYAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Regulatory toxicology; Risk assessment; Risk management; Scientific uncertainty; Uncertainty; Uncertainty indicator

Indexed keywords

TRICHLOROETHYLENE;

ANALYTIC METHOD; ARTICLE; CHEMICAL INDUSTRY; DECISION MAKING; HEALTH CARE POLICY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK MANAGEMENT; STANDARDIZATION;

EID: 1642473141     PISSN: 02732300     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2003.11.001     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Beyth-Marom R. How probable is probable? A numerical translation of verbal probability expressions. Journal of Forecasting. 1:1982;257-269.
2. Birner G., Vamvakas S., Dekant W., Henschler D. The nephrotoxic and genotoxic N-acetyl-S-dichlorovinyl-L-cystein is a urinary metabolite after occupational 1,1,2-trichloroethene exposure in humans. Environmental Health Perspectives. 99:1993;281-284.
3. Blair A., Decoufle P., Grauman D. Causes of death among laundry and dry cleaning workers. American Journal of Public Health. 69:1979;508-511.
4. Brauch H., Wairich G., Hornauer M.A., Störkel S., Wöhl T., Brüning T. Trichloroethylene exposure and specific somatic mutations in patients with renal cell carcinoma. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 91(10):1999;854-861.
5. Budescu D., Wallsten T. Processing linguistic probabilities: general principles and empirical evidence. Busemeyer J., Hastie R., Medin D.L. Decision Making from a Cognitive Perspective. 1995;275-318 Academic Press, London.
6. Bull R.J. Mode of action of liver tumor induction by trichloroethylene and its metabolites, trichloroacetate and dichloroacetate. Environmental Health Perspectives. 108(Suppl. 2):2000;241-259.
7. Fukuda K., Takemoto K., Tsuruta H. Inhalation carcinogenicity of trichloroethylene in mice and rats. Industrial Health. 21:1983;243-254.
8. Grasso P., Hardy J. Strain difference in natural incidence and response to carcinogens. Butler W.H., Newberne P.M. Mouse Hepatic Neoplasia. 1975;111-132 Elsevier, Amsterdam.
9. Hamm R.M. Selection of verbal probabilities: a solution for some problems of verbal probability expression. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 48:1991;193-223.
10. Henschler D., Vamvakas S., Lammert M., Dekant W., Kraus B., Thomas B., Ulm K. Increased incidence of renal cell tumors in a cohort of cardboard workers exposed to trichloroethylene. Archives of Toxicology. 69:1995;291-299.
11. Hospers J. An Introduction to Philosophical Analysis. second ed. 1976:1967;Routledge, London.
12. Hyland K. Hedging in Scientific Research Articles. 1998;John Benjamin, Amsterdam.
13. IARC (International Agency For Research on Cancer), 1995. Peroxisome proliferation and its role in carcinogenesis, views and expert opinions of an IARC working group, Lyon, December 7-9, 1994, IARC Technical Report No. 24. IARC Press, Lyon.
14. IARC, 1995. Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans. In: Dry cleaning, Some Chlorinated Solvents and Other Industrial Chemicals, vol. 63. IARC Press, Lyon.
15. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), 2001. In: Houghton, J.T., Ding Y., Griggs, D.J., Noguer, M., van der Linden, P.J., Dai, X., Maskell, K., Johnson C.A. (Eds.), Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
16. Lamarque P.V. Concise Encyclopedia of Philosophy of Language. 1997;Elsevier (Pergamon), Oxford.
17. Laschowicz D. On the use of the passive voice for objectivity, author responsibility and hedging in EST. Science of Science. 2:1981;105-115.
18. Luukka M.-R., Markkanen R. Impersonalization as a form of Hedging. Markkanen R., Schröder H. Hedging and Discourse. Approaches to the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic Texts. 1997;168-187 Walter de Gruyter, Berlin.
19. Maltoni C., Lefemine G., Cotti G. Experimental research on trichloroethylene carcinogenesis. Maltoni C., Mehlman M.A. Archives of Research in industrial carcinogenesis. vol. V:1986;Princeton Scientific Publishing, Princeton, NJ.
20. Markkanen R., Schröder H. Hedging and Discourse. Approaches to the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic Texts. 1997;Walter de Gruyter, Berlin.
21. Moore M.M., Harrington-Brock K. Mutagenicity of trichloroethylene and its metabolites: implications for the risk assessment of trichloroethylene. Environmental Health Perspectives. 108(Suppl. 2):2000;215-223.
22. Mosteller F., Youtz C. Quantifying probabilistic expressions. Statistical Science. 5:1990;2-16. (see also replies to this article in the same issue).
23. NCI (National Cancer Institute), 1976. Carcinogenesis bioassay of trichloroethylene. DHEW Publication No. (NIH) 76-802.
24. NTP (National Toxicology Program), 1988. Toxicology and carcinogenesis studies of trichloroethylene (CAS No. 79-01-6) in four strains of rats (ACI, August, Marshall, Osborne-Mendel) (gavage studies). Technical Report 273, PB88-218896, Research Triangle Park.
25. NTP (National Toxicology Program), 1990. Carcinogenesis studies of trichloroethylene (without epichlorohydrin) (CAS No. 79-01-6) in F344/N rats and B6C3F1 mice (gavage studies). Technical Report 243, PB 91-111815 Research Triangle Park.
26. Olson M.J., Budescu D. Patterns of preference for numerical and verbal probabilities. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making. 10:1997;117-131.
27. Renooij S. Talking probabilities: communicating probabilistic information with words and numbers. Journal of Approximate Reasoning. 22:1999;169-194.
28. Rudén C. The use and evaluation of primary data in 29 trichloroethylene carcinogen risk assessments. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology. 34(1):2001;3-16.
29. Rudén C. Interpretations of primary data in 29 trichloroethylene carcinogen risk assessment. Toxicology. 169(3):2001;209-225.
30. Rudén C. Mechanistic data and scientific uncertainty in carcinogen risk assessment - the trichloroethylene example. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology. 35(1):2002;80-94.
31. Rudén C. Scrutinizing three trichloroethylene carcinogenicity classifications in the European Union - implications for the risk assessment process. International Journal of Toxicology. 21(6):2002;441-450.
32. Rudén C. Science and transscience in carcinogen risk assessment - the European regulatory process for trichloroethylene. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health B. 6:2003;257-277.
33. Teigen K.H., Brun W. Ambiguous probabilities: when does. p=0.3 reflect a possibility, and when does it express a doubt? Journal of Behavioral Decision Making. 13:2000;345-362.
34. Vamvakas S., Brüning T., Thomasson B., Lammert H., Baumüller A., Bolt H.M., Dekant W., Birner G., Henschler D., Ulm K. Renal cell cancer correlated with occupational exposure to trichloroethylene. Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology. 124(7):1998;374-382.
35. Varttala, T., 2001. Hedging in scientifically oriented discourse. Exploring variation according to discipline and intended audience, Tampere University Dissertations. Electronic Dissertation < http://acta.uta.fi/pdf/ 951-44-5195-3.pdf (10.10.2003).
36. Wartenberg D., Reyner D., Siegel Scott C. Trichloroethylene and cancer: epidemiologic evidence. Environmental Health Perspectives. 108(suppl. 2):2000;161-176.