Carcinogen Risk Assessment: International Comparison

Moolenaar, R. J.

doi:10.1006/rtph.1994.1078

Cited by 16 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The traditional approach for dealing with uncertainty without a statistical basis is to use so-called defaults, as originally suggested in 1983 by the NRC (32). The EPA has consistently relied heavily on the use of defaults, although other organizations use them either not at all or sparingly, relying more on general principles of analysis and expert consensus (17,33,34). While the recent NRC Committee on Science and Judgment in Risk Assessment recognized the necessity of using defaults, they criticized earlier practices, suggesting that increased attention be given to more precisely identifying and providing scientific and policy justifications for each default and for criteria guiding departures from defaults (35,36).…”

Section: The Issue Of Uncertainty and The Selection Of Defaultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There is no definitive general method available for risk assessment. Though efforts to achieve scientific consensus on general principles for cancer risk assessment have been common [e.g., (14)] and risk assessment has been routinely used in conjunction with regulatory decision making for some years [see the historical review by Albert (15)], methods have never been consistently applied among the various regulatory agencies in the United States (16), nor have the same approaches been taken in different countries (17)(18)(19)(20).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Cancer risk assessment of extremely low frequency electric and magnetic fields: a critical review of methodology.

McCann

1998

Environ Health Perspect

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This review provides a discussion of cancer risk assessment methodology pertinent to developing a strategy for extremely low frequency electric and magnetic fields (EMF). Approaches taken for chemical agents or ionizing radiation in six key topic areas are briefly reviewed, and then those areas are examined from the perspective of EMF, identifying issues to be addressed in developing a risk assessment strategy. The following recommendations are offered: 1) risk assessment should be viewed as an iterative process that informs an overall judgment as to health risk and consists of a complex of related activities incorporating both positive and negative data, tumor and nontumor end points, and human and nonhuman sources of information; 2) a hazard identification resulting in a conclusion of weak or null effects, such as may be associated with EMF, will need to assign significant weight to animal cancer bioassays conducted under defined exposure conditions as well as to human epidemiologic studies; 3) a default factor to account for possible age differences in sensitivity to carcinogenesis should be included in an EMF risk assessment; 4) lack of evidence of dose response and the apparent lack of DNA reactivity of EMF suggest that a safety (or uncertainty) factor or margin of exposure type of risk characterization may be most appropriate; and 5) an EMF risk assessment should permit at least tentative conclusions to be reached as to the limits of carcinogenic risk from exposure to EMF, and should also define an efficient research agenda aimed at clarifying uncertainties appropriate to a more complete assessment.

show abstract

Section: The Issue Of Uncertainty and The Selection Of Defaultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Cancer risk assessment of extremely low frequency electric and magnetic fields: a critical review of methodology.

McCann

1998

Environ Health Perspect

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…argue against adopting lower exposure limits, while maintaining that policies based on precaution are feasible. Their considerations are at odds with widely accepted and applied standards of deriving exposure guidelines ( 1–3 ) and based on fundamentally flawed arguments on the role of epidemiologic data in setting standards.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Comment on “Developing Policy in the Face of Scientific Uncertainty: Interpreting 0.3 μT or 0.4 μT Cutpoints from EMF Epidemiologic Studies” by Kheifets et al. in Risk Analysis, 25(4), 927–935

Kundi¹

2006

Risk Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…So ist eine zunehmende Tendenz nicht nur der WHO zur internationalen Harmonisierung des "risk assessments" zu beobachten [7,28,29,41].…”

unclassified

Zum Stand der Risikoevaluation an Kliniken in Deutschland Ergebnisse einer Umfrage

Wolters

Bollschweiler

Hölscher

2002

Chirurg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Carcinogen Risk Assessment: International Comparison

Cited by 16 publications

References 0 publications

Cancer risk assessment of extremely low frequency electric and magnetic fields: a critical review of methodology.

Cancer risk assessment of extremely low frequency electric and magnetic fields: a critical review of methodology.

Comment on “Developing Policy in the Face of Scientific Uncertainty: Interpreting 0.3 μT or 0.4 μT Cutpoints from EMF Epidemiologic Studies” by Kheifets et al. in Risk Analysis, 25(4), 927–935

Zum Stand der Risikoevaluation an Kliniken in Deutschland Ergebnisse einer Umfrage

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About