Risk assessment, environmental/occupational

International Encyclopedia of Public Health

Volumn , Issue , 2008, Pages 590-600

  Hassenzahl, D M ^a   Finkel, A M ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MEDICINE AND DENTISTRY OF NEW JERSEY   (United States)

Author keywords

Acute risk; Carcinogen; Chronic risk; Default assumption; Dose response; Epidemiology; Exposure assessment; Hazard identification; LD 50; Reference dose; Relative risk; Risk; Risk analysis; Risk assessment; Risk characterization; Risk management; Safety factor; Threshold; Toxicology; Uncertainty; Variability

Indexed keywords

EID: 78049265453     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1016/B978-012373960-5.00286-0     Document Type: Chapter

References (33)

1. Baird S.J., Cohen J.T., Graham J.D., Shlyakhter A.I., Evans J.S. Non-cancer risk assessment: Probabilistic characterization of population threshold doses. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 1996, 2(1):79-102.
2. Bernstein P.L. Against the Gods: The Remarkable Story of Risk 1998, J Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, NJ.
3. Breyer S. Breaking the Vicious Circle: Toward Effective Risk Regulation 1993, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
4. Clewell H.J., Andersen M.E., Barton H.A. A consistent approach for the application of pharmacokinetic modeling in cancer and noncancer risk assessment. Environmental Health Perspectives 2002, 110(1):85-93.
5. Covello V.T., Merkhofer M.W. Risk Assessment Methods: Approaches for Assessing Health and Environmental Risk 1993, Plenum, New York.
6. Covello V.T., Mumpower J. Risk analysis and risk management: An historical perspective. Risk Analysis 1985, 5(2):103-120.
7. Dourson M.A., Felter S.P., Robinson D. Evolution of science-based uncertainty factors in noncancer risk assessment. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 1996, 24:108-120.
8. Glossary of Terms Environmental Protection Agency, (accessed November 2007). http://www.epa.gov/economics/children/basic_info/glossary.htm.
9. Finkel A.M. Is risk assessment really too conservative? Revising the revisionists. Columbia Journal of Environmental Law 1989, 14:427-467.
10. Finkel A.M. Confronting Uncertainty in Risk Management: A Guide for Decision-Makers 1990, Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.
11. Finkel A.M. Toward less misleading comparisons of uncertain risks: The Example of aflatoxin and alar. Environmental Health Perspectives 1995, 103(4):376-385.
12. Hassenzahl D.M. The effect of uncertainty on 'risk rationalizing' decisions. Journal of Risk Research 2005, 8(2):119-138.
13. Hassenzahl D.M. Implications of excessive precision for risk comparisons: Lessons from the past four decades. Risk Analysis 2006, 26(1):265-276.
14. Hattis D., Anderson E.L. What should be the implications of uncertainty variability, and inherent "biases"/"Conservatism" for risk management decision-making?. Risk Analysis 1999, 19(1):95-107.
15. Hattis D., Banati P., Goble R. Distributions of individual susceptibility among humans for toxic effects: How much protection does the traditional tenfold factor provide for what fraction of which kinds of chemicals and effects?. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1999, 895:286-316.
16. IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans: Preamble IARC, Lyon, France: Revised January 2006; accessed at. http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Preamble/CurrentPreamble.pdf.
17. Kammen D.M., Hassenzahl D.M. Should We Risk It? Exploring Environmental Health and Technological Problem Solving 1999, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
18. Montague P. The waning days of risk assessment. Rachel's Environment and Health News 1999, 652. May 29, 1999.
19. Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process 1983, National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
20. Science and Judgment in Risk Assessment 1994, National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
21. Understanding Risk 1996, National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
22. Nichols A.L., Zeckhauser R.J. The perils of prudence: "How conservative risk assessments distort regulation,". Regulation 1986, 13-24. Nov/Dec.
23. Peto R., Gray R., Brantom P., Grasso P. Effects on 4,080 rats of chronic ingestion of N-nitrosodiethylamine or N-nitrosodimethylamine: A detailed dose-response study. Cancer Research 1991, 51:6415-6419.
24. Rhomberg L.R. Mechanistic considerations in the harmonization of dose-response methodology: The role of redundancy at different levels of biological organization. Risk Analysis and Society: An Interdisciplinary Characterization of the Field 2004, 46-73. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. T. McDaniels, M. Small (Eds.).
25. Ruckelshaus W.D. Risk in a Free Society. Risk Analysis 1984, 4(3):157-162.
26. Stone R. Russian Cancer Study adds to the indictment of low-dose radiation. Science 2005, 310:959.
27. Byrd D.M., Cothern C.R. Introduction to Risk Analysis: A Systematic Approach to Science-Based Decision Making 2001, ABS Group, Rockville, MD.
28. Cox L.A. Risk Analysis: Foundations Models and Methods 2002, Kluwer, Norwell, MA.
29. Comparative Quantification of Health Risks 2005, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland. M. Ezzati, A.D. Lopez, A. Rodgers, C.J.L. Murray (Eds.).
30. Haimes Y.Y. Risk Modeling Assessment and Management 1998, Wiley and Sons, New York.
31. Morgan M.G., Henrion M. Uncertainty: A Guide to Dealing with Uncertainty in Quantitative Risk and Policy Analysis 1990, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
32. Issues in Risk Assessment 1993, National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
33. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: Theory and Practice 2002, Wiley Interscience, Hoboken, NJ. D.J. Paustenbach (Ed.).