Too much of the "Red Book" is still (!) ahead of its time

Human and Ecological Risk Assessment

Volumn 9, Issue 5, 2003, Pages 1253-1271

  Finkel, Adam M ^a  

^a Occupational Safety and Health Administration   (United States)

Author keywords

Assessment management separation; Departures from defaults; Inference guidelines; Model uncertainty; Options analyses; Red Book

Indexed keywords

EID: 2342480610     PISSN: 10807039     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10807030390248483     Document Type: Review

References (31)

1. ACSH (American Council on Science and Health). 2003. Comments on the Environmental Protection Agency's Draft Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment. See http://www. acsh.org/press/releases/comments040803.html
2. Allen BC, Crump KS, and Shipp AM. 1988. Correlation between carcinogenic potency of chemicals in animals and humans. Risk Anal 8(4):531-44
3. Bergeson LL, Campbell LM, and Bozof RP. 2002. Toxicogenomics. The Environmental Forum (Nov/Dec):28-39
4. Center for Occupational and Environmental Health, University of California. 2003. Symposium held April 8 on Integrating Policy, Not Transferring Risk: Case Studies and New Approaches in Occupational & Environmental Health, agenda available at http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~coehce/courses/ spring-symposium.html
5. Cohen JT and Graham JD. 2003. A revised economic analysis of restrictions on the use of cell phones while driving. Risk Anal 23:5-17
6. Crawford M and Wilson R. 1996. Low Dose linearity: The rule or the exception. Human Ecol Risk Assess 2:305-30
7. Dakins ME, Toll JE, Small MJ, et al. 1996. Risk-based environmental remediation: Bayesian Monte Carlo analysis and the expected value of sample information Risk Anal 16:67-79
8. EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). 1996. Proposed guidelines for carcinogen risk assessment. Fed Reg 61:17960. April 23
9. EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). 2003. Draft Final Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment. EPA/630/P-03/001A. Available at http://www.epa.gov/ncea/raf/ cancer2003.htm
10. Evans JS, Gray GM, Sielken RL, et al. 1994. Use of probabilistic expertjudgment in uncertainty analysis of carcinogenic potency. Regulatory Toxicol Pharmacol 20:15-36
11. Finkel AM. 1995. A second opinion on an environmental misdiagnosis: The risky prescriptions of Breaking the Vicious Circle. NYU Environmental Law J 3:295-381
12. Finkel AM. 2002. The joy before cooking: Preparing ourselves to write a risk research recipe. Human Ecol Risk Assess 8(6):1203-21
13. Finkel AM and Evans JS 1987. Evaluating the benefits of uncertainty reduction in environmental health risk management. J Air Pollution Control Assoc 37:1164-71
14. Finkel AM and Golding D (eds). 1994. Worst Things First? The Debate Over Risk-Based National Environmental Priorities. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD, USA
15. Giamatti AB. 1990. A Free and Ordered Space: The Real World of the University. W.W. Norton and Co, NY, NY, USA
16. Goodman G and Wilson R. 1991. Quantitative prediction of human cancer risk from rodent carcinogenic potencies: a closer look at the epidemiological evidence for some chemicals not definitively carcinogenic in humans. Regulatory Toxicol Pharmacol 14:118-46
17. Gray GM and Graham JD. 1991. Risk assessment and clean air policy. J Policy Analysis Manage 10:286-95
18. Hoel DG and Portier CJ. 1994. Nonlinearity of dose-response functions for carcinogenicity. Environ Health Perspect 102(suppl 1):109-13
19. Montague Peter. 1996. Ethical hazards of risk assessment. Rachel's Environment and Health News. (Environmental Research Foundation, Brunswick, NJ) 519:Nov 6, 1996
20. Morgan MG and Henrion M. 1990. Uncertainty: A Guide to Dealing with Uncertainty in Quantitative Risk and Policy Analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
21. NIOSH (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health). 1998. Control of Exposure to Perchloroethylene in Commercial Drycleaning (Substitution). Publication No 97-155. Available at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ hc17.html
22. NRC (National Research Council). 1983. Risk Assessment in the Federal Government. Managing the Process. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, USA
23. NRC (National Research Council). 1994. Science and Judgment in Risk Assessment. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, USA
24. O'Brien M. 2000. Making Better Environmental Decisions: An Alternative to Risk Assessment. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA
25. OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration). 1997. Occupational exposure to methylene chloride; Final rule. 62 Fed Reg 1494-619. January 10
26. OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration). 1999. Nomination of 1-Bromopropane and 2-Bromopropane for Testing by the National Toxicology Program. Available at http://ntp-server.niehs.nih.gov/htdocs/Chem_Background/ ExSumPdf/Bromopropanes. pdf
27. Sielken RL, Reitz RH, and Hays SM. 1996. Using PBPK modeling and 'comprehensive realism' methodology for the quantitative cancer risk assessment of butadiene. Toxicology 113: 231-7
28. Tal A. 1997. A failure to engage: public interest activism and environmental health risk assessment. The Environmental Forum 14:13-21
29. United Auto Workers. 2000. Toxic Substitute Proposed for Methylene Chloride. Available at http://www.uaw.org/hs/00/01/hs02.html
30. Watanabe K, Bois FY, and Zeise L. 1992. Interspecies extrapolation: A reexamination of acute toxicity data. Risk Analysis 12:301-10
31. Weiner JB. 2003. Whose precaution after all? A comment on the comparison and evolution of regulatory systems. Duke J Comp Int'l Law 13:202-57.