Advertisement

De Minimis Risk and the Integration of Actual and Perceived Risks from Chemical Carcinogens

  • Paul Milvy
Part of the Contemporary Issues in Risk Analysis book series (CIRA, volume 2)

Abstract

We all face a nontrivial lifetime risk of death equal to 1. It is against this ultimate benchmark that all risks must be evaluated. But we all recognize that we also have a considerable diversity of opinions, of values, of analytical approaches, and of philosophy in terms of how best to handle all the component risks, including those for which society is responsible.

Keywords

Carcinogenic Risk Chemical Carcinogen Acceptable Risk Indoor Radon Subjective Dimension 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

References

  1. 1.
    Covello, V. T., Flamm, W. G., Rodricks, J. V., and Tardiff, R. G., eds., The Analysis of Actual Versus Perceived Risks, Plenum Press, New York, (1983).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fischhoff, B., Lichtenstein, S., Slovic, P., Derby, S., and Keeney, R., Acceptable Risk, Cambridge University Press, New York, (1981).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fischhoff, B., “Judgmental Aspects of Risk Assessment,” in Risk Assessment and Risk Assessment Methods: The State-of-the-Art, National Science Foundation (NSF/PRA-84016), Washington, D.C., ( December 1984 ).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Litai, D., Lanning D. D., and Rasmussen, N. C., “The Public Perception of Risk,” in Covello, V. T., et al., eds., The Analysis of Actual Versus Perceived Risks, 235— 249, Plenum Press, New York, (1983).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Adler, H. I., and Weinberg, A. M., “An Approach to Setting Radiation Standards,” Health Physics 34, 719–720, (1978).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Whipple, G. H.,“A Practical Threshold for Radiation,” June 10, 1980, cited by Joyce P. Davis in The Feasibility of Establishing a “De Minimis” Level of Radiation Dose and a Regulatory Cut-off Policy for Nuclear Regulation, General Physics Corp., Columbia, Md., ( December 31, 1981 ).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    U. S. Dept. Health, Vital Statistics of the U. S. II, Part A.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    National Center for Health Statistics, Monthly Vital Statistics Report 32 (13), p. 4.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Comar, C. I., “Risk: A Pragmatic De Minimis Approach,” Science 203, 319, (January 26, 1979), reprinted in this volume.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Doniger, D. D., Statement before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Committee on Energy and Commerce, Washington, D.C., (November 7, 1983 ).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Injuries and Illnesses in the United States by Industry, 1982. Bulletin No. 2196, Table 8, 1982 data.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, National Occupational Exposure Survey, 1981–1983, Cincinnati, 0., (1984).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Milvy, P., “A General Guideline for Management of Risk from Carcinogens,” Risk Analysis 6, No. I, 69–80, (1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

References for Table 2

  1. 1.
    Suta, B., Assessment of Human Exposures to Atmospheric Ethylene Dichloride SRI International, (May 1979).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    EPA, Office of Policy Analysis, Unit Risk Estimates For Toxic Air Pollution, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Maximum Exposure Levels and Population Totals, (1984).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    EPA, Lindane PD-4 (draft), (August 1983 ).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Anderson, E. L., “Quantitative Approaches in Use to Assess Cancer Risk,” Risk Analysis 3, No. 4, 277–295, (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cothern, R. C., et al., Development of Quantitative Estimates of Uncertainty in Environmental Risk Assessment When the Scientific Data Base is Inadequate (Draft), Office of Drinking Water, EPA, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bussard, D., Memorandum dated 3/15/84, EPA, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gorman, T., NESHAP briefing paper, OPPE, EPA, (1984).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Office of Air Quality and Standards, Need for Regulation of Coke Oven Emissions and Acrylonitrile Under CAA, briefing paper, EPA, Washington, D.C., (March 1984).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dobkowski, D., Memorandum to A. Jennings dated 4/3/84, Acting Director Statistical Policy Division, EPA, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chemical Coordination Staff for the Six Month Air Toxics Study “Acceptable Risk Levels and Federal Regulations..,” EPA, Washington, D.C., (May 1984).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Haemisegger, E., Jones, A., et al, The Air Toxics Problem in the United States: An Analysis of Cancer Risks for Selected Pollutants, EPA ( Final Agency Internal Review ); Washington, D.C., (May 1985).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kumazawa, S. et al., Occupational Exposure to Ionizing Radiation in the United States, EPA, Washington, D.C., (March 1983).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Britton, B., Risk Characteristics for Various Pollutants Regulated or Being Considered by EPA Program Offices, Chemical and Statistical Policy Division, EPA, Wash., D.C., 1985.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Milvy, P., Estimates of Cancers from Perchloroethylene (PCE) Exposure (4/3/84) and Health Assessment Document for Tetrachloraethylene, EPA, Washington, D.C. (December 1983).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    EPA-OHEA, Health Assessment Document for Chromium, 7/83 draft.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Office of Radiation Programs, Background Information; Final Rules for Radionuclides, 11, (October 23, 1982 ).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    EPA, Draft Alachlor PD-1 (12/4/84), 54.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    EPA, Draft Captan PD-2/3 (2/5/85), 11–68.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    EPA, Captofol PD-I, (December 1984 ).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    EPA, Office of Toxic Substances, Assessment of Cancer Risk to Workers, Exposure to 1,3-Butadiene in Plants Producing Synthetic Rubber, Plastics and Resins, (November 21, 1984 ).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Preliminary Economic Analysis of Proposed Regulations for the Use of Nitrites in Metalworking Fluids; PHD, Inc., (October 1984).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    EPA registration standard, 21, (June 84).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    EPA, Preliminary Folpet Risk Assessment Briefing Paper for S.I.S., OPP, (1985).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    EPA, Regulatory Impact Analysis, Regulatory Flexibility Analysis and Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis for Proposed Regulations to Control Volatile Synthetic Organic Chemicals (VOCs) in Drinking Water (EPA –570/9–85–004), (Calculated from pages I–5 and IV – 8 ) (May 1985).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    EPA, Office of Pesticide Programs Position Document 2/3 on Wood Preservatives, 364, 582, 589, (1984).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Cothem, R. C., Coniglio, W. A., and Marcus W. L., Techniques for the Assessment of the Carcinogenic Risk to the U.S. Population Due to Exposure from Selected Volatile Organic Compounds from Drinking Water Via the Ingestion, Inhalation, and Dermal Routes (EPA–570/9–85–001), (July 25, 1984). (Calculations based on the multistage model for extrapolation of risk to low dose).Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Nero, A. V. Jr., “Risk and Policy Implications of Indoor Exposure to222Rn Decay Products and Other Air Pollutants.” Paper presented at the 1985 Annual Meeting of the Society for Risk Analysis, Alexandria, Va.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul Milvy
    • 1
  1. 1.Environmental Protection Agency (WH550 D)USA

Personalised recommendations