The precautionary principle and statistical approaches to uncertainty

International Journal of Occupational Medicine and Environmental Health

Volumn 17, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 147-151

  Keiding, Niels ^a   Budtz Jørgensen, Esben ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN   (Denmark)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN DENMARK   (Denmark)

Author keywords

Bayesian model averaging; Benchmark approach to safety standards in toxicology; Dose response relationships; Environmental standards; Exposure measurement uncertainty; Popper falsification

Indexed keywords

CONFERENCE PAPER; DATA ANALYSIS; EXPOSURE; HYPOTHESIS; RISK ASSESSMENT; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL MODEL; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE;

EID: 1842633562     PISSN: 12321087     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (18)

1. Barnett V, O'Hagan A. Setting Environmental Standards: the Statistical Approach to Handling Uncertainty and Variation. London: Chapman & Hall; 1997.
2. Fisher RA. Statistical Methods and Scientific Inference. London: Oliver and Boyd; 1959.
3. Endrenyi L. Bioequivalence. In: Armitage P, Colton T, editors. Encyclopedia of Biostatistics. Vol. 1. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; 1998. p. 368-72.
4. Crump K. A new method for determining allowable daily intakes. Fundam Appl Toxicol 1984; 4: 854-71.
5. Crump K. Benchmark analysis. In: El-Shaarawi AH, Piegorsch WW. Encyclopedia of Environmetrics. Chichester: Wiley; 2002. p. 163-70.
6. Budtz-Jørgensen E, Keiding N, Grandjean P. Benchmark dose calculation from epidemiological data. Biometrics 2001; 57: 698-706.
7. Slob W. Deriving safe exposure levels for chemicals from animal studies using statistical methods. Recent developments. In: Barnett V, Stein A, Turkman KF, editors. International Forum, Statistical Aspects of Health and the Environment. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1999. p. 153-74.
8. Budtz-Jørgensen E, Keiding N, Grandjean P, et al. Benchmark dose calculations adjusted for measurement error in the exposure variable. Paper presented at the International Biometric Conference in Freiburg, 2002 July 21-26.
9. Grandjean P, Weihe P, White RF, Debes F, Araki S, Yokoyama K, et al. Cognitive deficit in 7-year-old children with prenatal exposure to methylmercury. Neurotoxicol Teratol 1997; 19: 417-428.
10. Budtz-Jørgensen E, Keiding N, Grandjean P, Weihe P, White RF. Statistical methods for the evaluation of health effects of prenatal mercury exposure. Environmetrics 2003; 14: 105-20.
11. Budtz-Jørgensen E, Keiding N, Grandjean P, Weihe P. Estimation of health effects of prenatal mercury exposure using structural equation models. Environ Health 2002; 1: 2.
12. National Academy of Sciences (NAS). Toxicological effects of methylmercury. Washington, D.C: National Academy Press; 2000.
13. Crump K. Critical issues in benchmark calculations from continuous data. Crit Rev Toxicol 2002; 32: 133-53.
14. Budtz-Jørgensen E. Statistical methods for the evaluation of health effects of prenatal mercury exposure [Ph.D. Dissertation]. University of Copenhagen; 2001.
15. Crump K. Calculations of benchmark doses from continuous data. Risk Anal 1995; 15: 79-89.
16. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Mercury Report to Congress. Washington: Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards; 1997.
17. Hoeting JA, Madigan D, Rafterry AE, et al. Bayesian model averaging: A tutorial. Statistical Science 1999; 14: 382-417.
18. Morales KH, Ibrahim JG, Chen CJ, Ryan LM. Bayesian model averaging with applications to benchmark dose estimation for arsenic in drinking water [under revision for publication].