首页> 外文期刊>Risk analysis >Letter to the Editor
【24h】

Letter to the Editor

机译:给编辑的一封信

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

On May 22, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released its "Reanalysis of Key Issues Related to Dioxin Toxicity in Response to National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Comments" external review draft. In part, the NAS called on EPA to better justify the approaches and data sets it used to estimate dioxin risk. NAS also recommended that EPA more comprehensively characterize uncertainty. The EPA response should be of interest to readers of Risk Analysis-comments on the draft are being accepted until September 20, 2010.rnEPA's response improves on its 2003 reassessment of dioxin by more completely explaining a number of its assumptions. For example, as part of its cancer risk assessment, EPA explained that it relied on human data rather than animal data because the agency believes the human data were of high quality and consistent with the animal bioassay data.
机译:5月22日,美国环境保护署(EPA)发布了“对二恶英毒性反应的关键问题的重新分析,以回应美国国家科学院(NAS)的评论”外部审查草案。 NAS在某种程度上呼吁EPA更好地证明其用于估算二恶英风险的方法和数据集的合理性。 NAS还建议EPA更全面地描述不确定性。 EPA的回应应引起风险分析的读者的注意,有关草案的评论将在2010年9月20日之前被接受。rnEPA的回应在2003年对二恶英的重新评估中得到了改进,它更加完整地解释了其一些假设。例如,作为癌症风险评估的一部分,EPA解释说它依赖人类数据而不是动物数据,因为该机构认为人类数据是高质量的,并且与动物生物测定数据一致。

著录项

  • 来源
    《Risk analysis》 |2010年第10期|p.1457-1458|共2页
  • 作者单位

    Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk, Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, 800 Washington Street, Box #063, Boston, MA 02111, USA;

    rnCenter for Risk Science and Public Health, School of Public Health and Health Services, The George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA.;

  • 收录信息
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号