The Linear Non-threshold Extrapolation of Dose-Response Curves Is a Challenge for Managing the Risk Associated with Occupational Exposure to Carcinogenic Agents
Main Article Content
Keywords
-
Abstract
-
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
References
1. National Research Council (US) Committee on the Institutional Means for Assessment of Risks to Public Health. Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 1983.
2. IARC. Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans, No. Supplement 7. IARC Working Group on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. Lyon (FR): International Agency for Research on Cancer; 1987.
3. Samet JM, Chiu WA, Cogliano V, et al. The IARC Monographs: Updated Procedures for Modern and Transparent Evidence Synthesis in Cancer Hazard Identification. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2020;112(1):30-37. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djz169
4. Nielsen GD, Øvrebø S, Background, approaches and recent trends for setting health-based occupational expo-sure limits: A mini review. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2008;51:253-269.
5. McConnell EE, Solleveld HA, Swenberg JA, Boorman GA. Guidelines for Combining Neoplasms for Evaluation of Rodent Carcinogenesis Studies. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1986;76(2):283-289.
6. Calabrese EJ. The Gofman-Tamplin Cancer Risk Controversy and Its Impact on the Creation of BEIR I and the Acceptance of LNT. Med Lav. 2023;114(1):xxx.
7. Calabrese EJ. Linear Non-Threshold (LNT) historical discovery milestones. Med Lav. 2022(Aug 25);113(4):e2022033.
8. EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2005: Opinion of the Scientific Committee on a request from EFSA re-lated to a harmonized approach for risk assessment of substances which are both genotoxic and carcinogenic. EFSA Journal, 282,1-31. http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/282 (accessed Jan 5, 2023).
9. Aleksunes LM, Eaton DL. Principles of Toxicology in Casarett & Doull's Toxicology: The Basic Science of Poisons. Ninth Edition., New York: McGraw-Hill Education, 2019, pp. 25-64.
10. Calabrese EJ, Baldwin LA. Chemical hormesis: its historical foundations as a biological hypothesis.D. 1999 Mar-Apr;27(2):195-216. Doi: 10.1177/019262339902700207.
11. Calabrese EJ, Baldwin LA. Radiation hormesis: its historical foundations as a biological hypothesis. Hum Exp Toxicol. 2000 Jan;19(1):41-75. Doi: 10.1191/096032700678815602.
12. EFSA Scientific Committee, More S, Benford D, et al. Opinion on the impact of non-monotonic dose responses on EFSA′s human health risk assessments. EFSA J. 2021;19(10):6877. Doi:https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6877).
13. Saracci R. The hazards of hazard identification in environmental epidemiology. Environ Health. 2017;16(1):85. Doi: 10.1186/s12940-017-0296-3
2. IARC. Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans, No. Supplement 7. IARC Working Group on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. Lyon (FR): International Agency for Research on Cancer; 1987.
3. Samet JM, Chiu WA, Cogliano V, et al. The IARC Monographs: Updated Procedures for Modern and Transparent Evidence Synthesis in Cancer Hazard Identification. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2020;112(1):30-37. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djz169
4. Nielsen GD, Øvrebø S, Background, approaches and recent trends for setting health-based occupational expo-sure limits: A mini review. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2008;51:253-269.
5. McConnell EE, Solleveld HA, Swenberg JA, Boorman GA. Guidelines for Combining Neoplasms for Evaluation of Rodent Carcinogenesis Studies. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1986;76(2):283-289.
6. Calabrese EJ. The Gofman-Tamplin Cancer Risk Controversy and Its Impact on the Creation of BEIR I and the Acceptance of LNT. Med Lav. 2023;114(1):xxx.
7. Calabrese EJ. Linear Non-Threshold (LNT) historical discovery milestones. Med Lav. 2022(Aug 25);113(4):e2022033.
8. EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2005: Opinion of the Scientific Committee on a request from EFSA re-lated to a harmonized approach for risk assessment of substances which are both genotoxic and carcinogenic. EFSA Journal, 282,1-31. http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/282 (accessed Jan 5, 2023).
9. Aleksunes LM, Eaton DL. Principles of Toxicology in Casarett & Doull's Toxicology: The Basic Science of Poisons. Ninth Edition., New York: McGraw-Hill Education, 2019, pp. 25-64.
10. Calabrese EJ, Baldwin LA. Chemical hormesis: its historical foundations as a biological hypothesis.D. 1999 Mar-Apr;27(2):195-216. Doi: 10.1177/019262339902700207.
11. Calabrese EJ, Baldwin LA. Radiation hormesis: its historical foundations as a biological hypothesis. Hum Exp Toxicol. 2000 Jan;19(1):41-75. Doi: 10.1191/096032700678815602.
12. EFSA Scientific Committee, More S, Benford D, et al. Opinion on the impact of non-monotonic dose responses on EFSA′s human health risk assessments. EFSA J. 2021;19(10):6877. Doi:https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6877).
13. Saracci R. The hazards of hazard identification in environmental epidemiology. Environ Health. 2017;16(1):85. Doi: 10.1186/s12940-017-0296-3