POLICYFORUMWe propose a shift from primarily in vivo animal studies to in vitro assays, in vivo assays with lower organisms, and computational modeling for toxicity assessments.

No abstract

No abstract

Among the many lessons of the homeland terrorist attacks of 2001 was that fear has powerful public health implications. People chose to drive instead of flying, thereby raising their risk of injury or death. Thousands took broad-spectrum antibiotics to prevent possible anthrax infections, thereby accelerating antimicrobial resistance. Such potentially harmful actions were taken by people seeking a sense of safety because they were afraid. This essay argues for greater emphasis on risk communication to help people keep their fears in perspective. Effective communication, not only through what the government says but implicit in the actions it takes, empowers people to make wiser choices in their own lives, and to support wise choices by society in applying limited resources to maximize public and environmental health.I t h a s b e e n m an y m o n t h s n ow since that awful September day when Americans were attacked on our own soil. There has been time enough to recover from the horror, to heal from the loss, and to at least begin the effort to make ourselves physically safer. But as we reinforce security at airports, hunt down those who would attack again, and invest in public health preparedness, what are the government and public health institutions doing to battle the terror of terrorism? What are we doing for our sense of emotional well-being? Not enough. As important as it is to physically protect ourselves from the next attack, addressing our fear also has important implications for the public's physical health. We believe that the government could, and should, be doing more to recognize and combat the risks we face from being afraid. We need more-effective risk communication to fight the terror in the "War on Terrorism." The Health Risks Of FearNot long after September 11, a woman from the Boston area who had flown dozens of times announced to her family several states away that she was now afraid

Individuals spend about 25% of their time in non-residential indoor microenvironments. For some of these microenvironments, particularly stores and restaurants, exposures to volatile organic compounds (VOCs), have not been well characterized. In the Boston Exposure Assessment in Microenvironments (BEAM) study, sampling using scripted activities was conducted in stores, restaurants, and transportation in the summer of 2003 and winters of 2004 and 2005. A suite of VOCs including hydrocarbons, several chlorinated compounds, and aldehydes was analyzed. Nine store types were sampled using a composite design to enable a greater number of stores to be visited. Stores had higher concentrations of formaldehyde, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes, and styrene than other microenvironments, particularly in certain store types. Geometric mean formaldehyde levels were highest in the housewares stores, at 53 microg/m3 (95% CI = 43, 66). Geometric mean toluene levels were highest in multipurpose stores, at 76 microg/m3 (95% CI = 50, 118). The levels observed in stores were several times higherthan levels found in transportation microenvironments, and indicate strong indoor sources. In contrast, benzene did not have significantly higher levels in stores than typically found outdoors. Concentrations of formaldehyde and benzene, ethylbenzene, xylenes, and styrene were strongly influenced by the presence of smoking in the dining microenvironment. Chloroform levels were higher in restaurants than in other microenvironments, with a geometric mean of 1.1 microg/m3 (95% CI = 0.7, 1.8). The VOC concentrations found in stores and restaurants in this study are a potentially important source of exposure for sensitive individuals or people who work in these microenvironments.