Using Carcinogenic Potency Ranking to Assign Air Contaminants to Emission Classes

Schuhmacher-Wolz, Ulrike; Konietzka, R.; Schneider, Klaus

doi:10.1006/rtph.2002.1579

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, failure to account for metadoxastic uncertainty can result in risk‐prone analyses. For example, Schuhmacher‐Wolz et al . compare two equally sound studies on the risks associated to carcinogenic air pollutants and show that the risks estimated by the two studies are different up to two orders of magnitude.…”

Section: Definition Of Riskmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…(45) Furthermore, failure to account for metadoxastic uncertainty can result in risk-prone analyses. For example, Schuhmacher-Wolz et al (49) compare two equally sound studies on the risks associated to carcinogenic air pollutants and show that the risks estimated by the two studies are different up to two orders of magnitude. By increasing the awareness of risk analysts of alternative scenarios, we are likely to draw attention to and stimulate critical evaluation of the multiple assumptions underlying diverse analyses.…”

Section: The Associated Probabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Scale of Risk

Gardoni

Murphy

2013

Risk Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article proposes a conceptual framework for ranking the relative gravity of diverse risks. This framework identifies the moral considerations that should inform the evaluation and comparison of diverse risks. A common definition of risk includes two dimensions: the probability of occurrence and the associated consequences of a set of hazardous scenarios. This article first expands this definition to include a third dimension: the source of a risk. The source of a risk refers to the agents involved in the creation or maintenance of a risk and captures a central moral concern about risks. Then, a scale of risk is proposed to categorize risks along a multidimensional ranking, based on a comparative evaluation of the consequences, probability, and source of a given risk. A risk is ranked higher on the scale the larger the consequences, the greater the probability, and the more morally culpable the source. The information from the proposed comparative evaluation of risks can inform the selection of priorities for risk mitigation.

show abstract

Section: Definition Of Riskmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Associated Probabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

A Scale of Risk

Gardoni

Murphy

2013

Risk Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the literature, carcinogenicity is expressed in different metrics, such as unit risk estimate (g/m 3 ) [29], equivalent based units (based on benzene equivalence) [30], weight-of-evidence (WOE) developed by the Environmental Protection Agency of the United States (EPA) [31], strength-of-evidence (SOE) developed by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) [32], as well as a slope factor (q 1 *) (a ranking methodology for cancer through combination of EPA and IARC classifications), among others (http://www.epa.gov/oppt/rsei/pubs/tech app a v212.pdf). Since both the EPA and IARC classifications are based on predetermined lists by the respective bodies, they will not be given further attention in this paper.…”

Section: Chronic Toxicitymentioning

confidence: 99%