Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ajim.10302 | DOI Listing |
Ann N Y Acad Sci
September 2006
Department of Philosophy and the History of Technology, Royal Institute of Technology, Teknikringen 78B, SE-100 44 Stockholm, Sweden.
In this article the use of data obtained from standardized experimental methods, for example, as specified in OECD guidelines for the testing of chemicals, epidemiology data, and mechanism data obtained from nonstandardized experimental methods in carcinogen risk assessment is scrutinized using the most recent risk assessments made by International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the MAK(MAK)-Kommission, World Health Organization (WHO), European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals (ECETOC), and American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) for the four chlorinated ethenes as examples. The analysis shows that there was little controversy among these risk assessors about the interpretation of standardized animal data. On the other hand, they differ in their interpretation of epidemiology data, in particular in their assessment of statistical significance including the use of meta-analyses, and in quality evaluation of studies initiated on the basis of a priori concerns for carcinogenicity.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFAm J Ind Med
August 2003
Philosophy Unit, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden.
Background: The American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) threshold limit values (TLVs) for occupational exposure to chemicals and physical agents have been very influential in the setting of occupational exposure limits in many countries.
Methods: Three ACGIH risk assessments of the chlorinated solvent trichloroethylene (TCE) [ACGIH (1989): 5th edition; ACGIH (1992): 5th edition. Revised Vol II; ACGIH (1996): Suppl.
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!