Record Display for the EPA National Library Catalog

RECORD NUMBER: 31 OF 34

OLS Field Name OLS Field Data
Main Title State-of-the-Science Workshop Report: Issues and Approaches in Low Dose-Response Extrapolationfor Environmental Health Risk Assessment.
Author R. H. WHITE ; I. Cote ; L. Zeise ; M. FOX ; F. Dominici
Other Authors
Author Title of a Work
T. A. Burke
P. D. White
D. B. Hattis
J. M. Samet
CORP Author Johns Hopkins Univ., Baltimore, MD. School of Public Health.; Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.; California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment.; Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.; Clark Univ., Worcester, MA.
Year Published 2007
Stock Number PB2009-101838
Additional Subjects Dose-response relationships ; Low dose irradiation ; Environmental exposure ; Health effects ; Meetings ; Risk assessments ; Extrapolation ; Neoplasms ; Radiation doses ; Cancer ; Environmental pollutants ; Uncertainty ; Variability ; Evaluation ; Statistical data
Holdings
Library Call Number Additional Info Location Last
Modified
Checkout
Status
NTIS  PB2009-101838 Most EPA libraries have a fiche copy filed under the call number shown. Check with individual libraries about paper copy. 04/28/2010
Collation 31p
Abstract
Low-dose extrapolation model selection for evaluating the health effects of environmental pollutants is a key component of the risk assessment process. At a workshop held in Baltimore, MD, on April 23-24, 2007, and sponsored by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Johns Hopkins Risk Sciences and Public Policy Institute, a multidisciplinary group of experts reviewed the state of the science regarding low-dose extrapolation modeling and its application in environmental health risk assessments. Discussion topics were identified based on a literature review, which included examples for which human responses to ambient exposures have been extensively characterized for cancer and/or noncancer outcomes. Topics included: the need for formalized approaches and criteria to assess the evidence for mode of action; the use of human vs. animal data; the use of mode of action information in biologically-based models; and the implications of interindividual variability, background disease processes and background exposures in threshold vs. nonthreshold model choice.