National Research Council; Division on Earth and Life Studies; Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology; Committee on EPA's National Academies Press (2006) Pehmeäkantinen kirja
Committee to Review EPA's Research Grants Program; Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology; Division on Earth and Life Stu National Academies Press (2003) Pehmeäkantinen kirja
National Research Council; Division on Earth and Life Studies; Commission on Life Sciences; Committee to Review the EPA's Enviro National Academies Press (1995) Pehmeäkantinen kirja
National Research Council; Division on Earth and Life Studies; Water Science and Technology Board; Committee to Review EPA's Eco National Academies Press (2012) Pehmeäkantinen kirja
Although the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency presented a comprehensive review of the scientific literature in its 2003 draft reassessment of the risks of dioxin, the agency did not sufficiently quantify the uncertainties and variabilities associated with the risks, nor did it adequately justify the assumptions used to estimate them, according to this new report from the National Academies' National Research Council. The committee that wrote the report recommended that EPA re-estimate the risks using several different assumptions and better communicate the uncertainties in those estimates. The agency also should explain more clearly how it selects both the data upon which the reassessment is based and the methods used to analyze them.Table of Contents
Front Matter Public Summary Summary 1 Introduction 2 General Considerations of Uncertaintyand Variability, Selection of DoseMetric, and Dose-Response Modeling 3 Toxic Equivalency Factors 4 Exposure Assessment 5 Cancer 6 Noncancer End Points 7 Review of Risk Characterization 8 Conclusions and Recommendations References A Biographical Information onCommittee Members B EPA's 2005 Guidelines forCarcinogen Risk Assessment
