Search

The predominant way of making steel in the United Sates is by using an electric arc furnace (EAF) to melt scrap steel, which results in the formation of a rock-like material called slag. Among its various applications, EAF slag is used in a loose or unencapsulated form as ground cover material for residential landscaping. However, the slag generated from the EAF process can contain toxic metals, which can be hazardous to human and environmental health. This report, conducted at the request of the U.S. EPA, discusses the relative hazard of key EAF slag constituents, the extent to which they may be released into the environment, and important aspects in assessing human exposures and risk. Due to uncertainties in the current evidence stream, the report was unable to make an overall characterization of risk related to unencapsulated EAF slag use in the United States and cautions against making generalizations from conclusions in published risk assessments. The report also identifies research needs to better understand factors considered to have the potential to contribute to the highest risks from the use of unencapsulated EAF slag, such as human exposure to dust particles that may be released over time from applied slag.

Individuals in the United States and Americans abroad are exposed to inhalation hazards from a variety of sources, and these hazards can have both short- and long-term adverse effects on health. For example, exposure to wildfire smoke, which contains particulate matter and toxic chemicals, can lead to respiratory problems, increased risk for heart attacks, and other adverse health outcomes. Individuals also may be exposed to airborne infectious agents through aerosol or droplet transmission, and as demonstrated by the COVID-19 pandemic, the individual and public health consequences of these exposures can be severe. Storms, floods, and hurricanes can increase exposure to moisture-driven hazards, such as mold, and to accidental releases from production facilities or transport vehicles that may result in chemical exposures. The current regulatory system is focused primarily on ensuring access to respiratory protection in occupational settings characterized by well-defined hazards and employer-employee relationships. With this narrow regulatory focus, the respiratory protection needs of the public and many workers are not being met. As climate change increases the incidence and severity of wildfires, hurricanes, floods, infectious disease outbreaks, and other phenomena that impact air quality and human health, it is imperative that the United States ensure that the respiratory protection needs of the public and all workers are met. Recognizing the urgent need to address the gaps in the nation's ability to meet the respiratory protection needs of the public and workers without workplace respiratory protection programs, this report makes recommendations for a framework of responsibilities and authorities that would provide a unified and authoritative source of information and effective oversight for the development, approval, and use of respiratory protection.

There are thousands of substances manufactured in the United States to which the public is routinely exposed and for which toxicity data are limited or absent. Some insist that uncertainty about the severity of potential harm justifies implementing precautionary regulations, while others claim that uncertainty justifies the absence of regulations until sufficient evidence confirms a strong probability of severe harm. In this book, Levente Szentkirályi overcomes this impasse in his defense of precautionary environmental risk regulation by shifting the focus from how to manage uncertainty to what it is we owe each other morally. He argues that actions that create uncertain threats wrongfully gamble with the welfare of those who are exposed and neglect the reciprocity that our equal moral standing demands. If we take the moral equality and rights of others seriously, we have a duty to exercise due care to strive to prevent putting them in possible harm's way. The Ethics of Precaution will be of great interest to researchers, educators, advanced students, and practitioners working in the fields of environmental political theory, ethics of risk, and environmental policy.

'This Report is an update 10 y after the publication of NCRP Report No. 160 (NCRP 2009) and is focused on 2016 doses to patients from medical exposures. Occupational doses and doses to caregivers are not included. Discussion of any potential risks and benefits of the use of medical exposures was beyond NCRP's scope of work. Several metrics are estimated as follows: number and type of procedures involving patient diagnostic and interventional medical radiation procedures; effective dose per procedure which is a calculated dose based upon the type of radiation and the radiation detriment (associated primarily with the induction of cancer) in tissues exposed (risk factors are based on average population characteristics and derive from linear nonthreshold assumptions); collective effective dose which is the number of procedures multiplied by the effective dose per procedure; and annual average individual effective dose which is the collective effective dose divided by the U.S. population, whether the persons were exposed or not, and allows comparison of the magnitude of medical radiation exposure to that from various nonmedical sources'--

The world is awash in chemicals created by fellow citizens, but we know little to nothing about them. Understanding whether even the most prevalent ones are toxic would take decades. Many people have tragically suffered serious diseases and premature death, including children during development. Why has this occurred? Many factors contribute, but two important ones are the laws permitting this and the manner in which science has been used to identify and assess whether or not products are toxic. Both are the outcome of legislative, corporate, and judicial choices. Congress created laws that in fact keep public health officials and the wider population in the dark about the toxicity of virtually all substances other than prescription drugs and pesticides. Facing considerable ignorance about toxic substances, impartially motivated scientists seeking to protect the public health are constrained by the natural pace of studies to reveal toxic effects. Corporate pressures on public health officials and scientific obstruction substantially heighten the barriers to protecting the public. When people have suffered serious as well as life-threatening diseases likely traceable to toxic substances, judicial errors barring relevant science in the personal injury (tort) law can and have frustrated redress of injustices. Under both public health law and the tort law, there are possibilities for improved approaches, provided public leaders make different and better choices. This book describes these issues and suggests how we could be better protected from myriad toxic substances in our midst.

A gripping explanation of the biases that lead to the blaming of pregnant women and mothers.Are mothers truly a danger to their children's health? In 2004, a mentally disabled young woman in Utah was charged by prosecutors with murder after she declined to have a Caesarian section and subsequently delivered a stillborn child. In 2010, a pregnant woman who attempted suicide when the baby's father abandoned her was charged with murder and attempted feticide after the daughter she delivered prematurely died. These are just two of the many cases that portray mothers as the major source of health risk for their children. The American legal system is deeply shaped by unconscious risk perception that distorts core legal principles to punish mothers who “fail to protect” their children. In Blaming Mothers, Professor Fentiman explores how mothers became legal targets. She explains the psychological processes we use to confront tragic events and the unconscious race, class, and gender biases that affect our perceptions and influence the decisions of prosecutors, judges, and jurors. Fentiman examines legal actions taken against pregnant women in the name of “fetal protection” including court ordered C-sections and maintaining brain-dead pregnant women on life support to gestate a fetus, as well as charges brought against mothers who fail to protect their children from an abusive male partner. She considers the claims of physicians and policymakers that refusing to breastfeed is risky to children's health. And she explores the legal treatment of lead-poisoned children, in which landlords and lead paint manufacturers are not held responsible for exposing children to high levels of lead, while mothers are blamed for their children's injuries. Blaming Mothers is a powerful call to reexamine who - and what - we consider risky to children's health. Fentiman offers an important framework for evaluating childhood risk that, rather than scapegoating mothers, provides concrete solutions that promote the health of all of America's children. Read a piece by Linda Fentiman on shaming and blaming mothers under the law on The Gender Policy Report.

The fourth edition of Risk Adjustment for Measuring Health Care Outcomes presents the fundamental principles and concepts of risk adjustment for comparing outcomes of care and explains why risk adjustment is a critical tool for measuring quality and setting reimbursement rates. This book is a comprehensive guide to the issues raised by risk adjustment, including the pros and cons of different data sources, the validity and reliability of risk adjustment methods, the effects of various statistical modeling approaches, and concerns relating to special populations.

Risk Analysis: Foundations, Models, and Methods fully addresses the questions of'What is health risk analysis?'and'How can its potentialities be developed to be most valuable to public health decision-makers and other health risk managers?'Risk analysis provides methods and principles for answering these questions. It is divided into methods for assessing, communicating, and managing health risks. Risk assessment quantitatively estimates the health risks to individuals and to groups from hazardous exposures and from the decisions or activities that create them. It applies specialized models and methods to quantify likely exposures and their resulting health risks. Its goal is to produce information to improve decisions. It does this by relating alternative decisions to their probable consequences and by identifying those decisions that make preferred outcomes more likely. Health risk assessment draws on explicit engineering, biomathematical, and statistical consequence models to describe or simulate the causal relations between actions and their probable effects on health. Risk communication characterizes and presents information about health risks and uncertainties to decision-makers and stakeholders. Risk management applies principles for choosing among alternative decision alternatives or actions that affect exposure, health risks, or their consequences.

One of the seventeen critical infrastructures vital to the security of the United States, the water supply system remains largely unprotected from the threat of terrorism, including possible revenge by Al Qaeda over the killing of Osama Bin Laden. Recognizing and identifying prospective events of terrorism against the water infrastructure is critic

When you purchase a product, you expect it to work. Construction workers on high-rise buildings need to be confident that their safety harnesses will arrest a fall. Firefighters need to know that their gloves and other protective equipment can withstand high temperatures. Healthcare workers administering highly toxic chemotherapy agents need to know that their gloves will withstand penetration. For personal protective technologies (PPT)—where the major purpose of the product is to protect the wearer against a hazard—a deficit in product effectiveness can mean injury, illness, or death. Examining the extent to which products meet specific performance or design criteria is the focus of conformity assessment efforts. For PPT conformity assessment, the ultimate goal is preventing worker illness, injury, or death from hazardous working conditions. Certifying Personal Protective Technologies focuses on conformity assessment for occupational PPT—ensuring that PPT are effective in preventing or reducing hazardous exposures or situations that workers face in their jobs. Because respirators already have an extensive testing and conformity assessment process in place, this book specifically addresses conformity assessment processes for other types of PPT, including eye and face protection, gloves, hearing protectors, and protective clothing.

Description based on print version record.

Risk assessment has become a dominant public policy tool for making choices, based on limited resources, to protect public health and the environment. It has been instrumental to the mission of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as well as other federal agencies in evaluating public health concerns, informing regulatory and technological decisions, prioritizing research needs and funding, and in developing approaches for cost-benefit analysis. However, risk assessment is at a crossroads. Despite advances in the field, risk assessment faces a number of significant challenges including lengthy delays in making complex decisions; lack of data leading to significant uncertainty in risk assessments; and many chemicals in the marketplace that have not been evaluated and emerging agents requiring assessment. Science and Decisions makes practical scientific and technical recommendations to address these challenges. This book is a complement to the widely used 1983 National Academies book, Risk Assessment in the Federal Government (also known as the Red Book). The earlier book established a framework for the concepts and conduct of risk assessment that has been adopted by numerous expert committees, regulatory agencies, and public health institutions. The new book embeds these concepts within a broader framework for risk-based decision-making. Together, these are essential references for those working in the regulatory and public health fields.

'Doubt is our product,'a cigarette executive once observed,'since it is the best means of competing with the'body of fact'that exists in the minds of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy.'In this eye-opening expose, David Michaels reveals how the tobacco industry's duplicitous tactics spawned a multimillion dollar industry that is dismantling public health safeguards. Product defense consultants, he argues, have increasingly skewed the scientific literature, manufactured and magnified scientific uncertainty, and influenced policy decisions to the advantage of polluters and the manufacturers of dangerous products. To keep the public confused about the hazards posed by global warming, second-hand smoke, asbestos, lead, plastics, and many other toxic materials, industry executives have hired unscrupulous scientists and lobbyists to dispute scientific evidence about health risks. In doing so, they have not only delayed action on specific hazards, but they have constructed barriers to make it harder for lawmakers, government agencies, and courts to respond to future threats. The Orwellian strategy of dismissing research conducted by the scientific community as'junk science'and elevating science conducted by product defense specialists to'sound science'status also creates confusion about the very nature of scientific inquiry and undermines the public's confidence in science's ability to address public health and environmental concerns Such reckless practices have long existed, but Michaels argues that the Bush administration deepened the dysfunction by virtually handing over regulatory agencies to the very corporate powers whose products and behavior they are charged with overseeing. In Doubt Is Their Product Michaels proves, beyond a doubt, that our regulatory system has been broken. He offers concrete, workable suggestions for how it can be restored by taking the politics out of science and that concern for public safety, rather than private profits, guides our regulatory policy.

The National Research Council's Disasters Roundtable and the Institute of Medicine's Roundtable on Environmental Health Sciences, Research, and Medicine were established as mechanisms for bringing various stakeholders together to discuss timely issues in a neutral setting. The goal was not to resolve these issues, but to create an environment conducive to scientific debate. The members of the respective Roundtables comprise representatives from academia, industry, nongovernmental agencies, and government, whose perspectives range widely and represent the diverse viewpoints of researchers, federal officials, and public interest. This report is the summary of a workshop was convened by the two Roundtables as a contribution to the debate on the health risks of disasters and the related need to build capacity to deal with them. The meeting was strengthened by integrating perspectives from these two fields, so that the agenda represented information from both communities and provided an opportunity to look at some of the most pressing research and preparedness needs for health risks of disasters.

The 1993 regulation (Part 503 Rule) governing the land application of biosolids was established to protect public health and the environment from reasonably anticipated adverse effects. Included in the regulation are chemical pollutant limits, operational standards designed to reduce pathogens and the attraction of disease vectors, and management practices. This report from the Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology evaluates the technical methods and approaches used by EPA to establish those standards and practices, focusing specifically on human health protection. The report examines improvements in risk-assessment practices and advances in the scientific database since promulgation of the regulation, and makes recommendations for addressing public health concerns, uncertainties, and data gaps about the technical basis of the biosolids standards.

Manufactured vitreous fibers (MVF), also known as synthetic vitreous fibers, are considered to be less hazardous than asbestos to human health. They are used in many thermal- and acoustical-insulation applications as an asbestos substitute or as a filtration medium. The Navy uses MVF in shipboard and onshore applications. To protect Navy personnel from harmful exposures to MVF, the U.S. Navy Environmental Health Center (NEHC) developed occupational exposure standards. The documentation assists industrial hygienists, occupational medicine physicians, and other Navy health professionals in assessing and controlling the health hazards linked with exposure to MVF. In 1997, the National Research Council (NRC) was asked to conduct an independent review of the Navy's toxicological assessment of MVF and to evaluate the scientific validity of its exposure standard of 2 fibers per cubic centimeter of air (f/cm3). The NRC assigned the task to the Committee on Toxicology, which established the Subcommittee on Manufactured Vitreous Fibers, a multidisciplinary group of experts, to determine whether all relevant toxicological and epidemiological data were correctly considered in developing the exposure standard; and to examine the uncertainty, variability, and quality of data and the appropriateness of assumptions used in the derivation of the exposure standard. The subcommittee was also asked to identify deficiencies in the MVF database and, where appropriate, to make recommendations for future research and data development. Review of the U.S. Navy's exposure Standard for Manufactured Vitreous Fibers represents the subcommittee's final report. The committee had expanded its review when in January 1999, the Navy revised its Occupational Safety and Health Program Manual (CNO 1999), changing the occupational exposure limit for MVF to the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) threshold limit value (TLV) of 1 f/cm3. The report features recommendations by the subcommittee as well as information gaps found throughout investigation. Overall, the subcommittee found that the Navy made a good start in assessing the health effects of MVF, but needed further research.

A large number of chemicals are used on land at shore facilities, in the air in combat and reconnaissance aircraft, on seas around the world in surface vessels, and in submarine vessels by the navy and marine corps. Although the chemicals used are for the large part harmless, there is a significant amount of chemicals in use that can be health hazards during specific exposure circumstances. The Navy Environmental Health Center (NEHC) is primarily tasked with assessing these hazards. The NEHC completes its tasks by reviewing toxicological and related data and preparing health-hazard assessments (HHAs) for the different chemicals. Since the NEHC is continually asked to develop these HHAs, the National Research Council (NRC) was asked to assess independently the validity and effectiveness of NEHC's HHA process, in order to determine whether the process as implemented provides the Navy with the best, comprehensive, and defensible evaluations of health hazards and to identify any elements that might require improvement. The task was assigned to the Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology's Committee on Toxicology's (COT's) Subcommittee on Toxicological hazard and Risk Assessment. Review of the U.S. Navy Environmental Health Center's Health-Hazard Assessment Process presents the subcommittee's report. The report is the work of expertise in general toxicology, inhalation toxicology, epidemiology, neurotoxicology, immunotoxicology, reproductive and developmental toxicology, pharmacology, medicine, risk assessment, and biostatistics. It is based on its review of documents provided by NEHC, presentations by NEHC personnel, and site visits to NEHC in Norfolk, Virginia and an aircraft carrier in San Diego, California.

The Food and Nutrition Board of the Institute of Medicine (IOM), part of the National Academies, was asked to evaluate the use of various dietary assessment tools and to make recommendations for the assessment of inadequate or inappropriate dietary patterns. These assessments should accurately identify dietary risk of individuals and thus eligibility for participation in the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC). The Committee on Dietary Risk Assessment in the WIC Program was appointed for the 2-year study and directed to develop an interim report which was to include (1) a framework for assessing inadequate diet or inappropriate dietary patterns, (2) a summary of a workshop on methods to assess dietary risk, and (3) the results of literature searches conducted to date. This interim report includes these three components. Building on the approach used in the 1996 IOM report, WIC Nutrition Risk Criteria, the framework proposed by the committee identifies characteristics of dietary assessment tools that can identify dietary patterns or behaviors for which there is scientific evidence of increased nutrition or health risk in either the short or long-term. The proposed framework consists of eight characteristics that a food intake and/or behavior-based tool should have when used to determine eligibility to participate in WIC programs. This interim report also includes authored summaries of the presentations at the workshop, along with the results of literature searches conducted in the initial phase of the study.

The Safe Drinking Water Act directs the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate the quality of drinking water, including its concentration of radon, an acknowledged carcinogen. This book presents a valuable synthesis of information about the total inhalation and ingestion risks posed by radon in public drinking water, including comprehensive reviews of data on the transfer of radon from water to indoor air and on outdoor levels of radon in the United States. It also presents a new analysis of a biokinetic model developed to determine the risks posed by ingestion of radon and reviews inhalation risks and the carcinogenesis process. The volume includes scenarios for quantifying the reduction in health risk that might be achieved by a program to reduce public exposure to radon. Risk Assessment of Radon in Drinking Water, reflecting research and analysis mandated by 1996 amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act, provides comment on a variety of methods to reduce radon entry into homes and to reduce the concentrations of radon in indoor air and in water. The models, analysis, and reviews of literature contained in this book are intended to provide information that EPA will need to set a new maximum contaminant level, as it is required to do in 2000.

'Issued September 1, 1987.'

Are judges competent to decide complex scientific disputes over toxic chemicals and hazardous wastes? Have courts gone too far in awarding damages to victims? Does the judiciary unreasonably constrain free market forces and usurp power from democratically elected branches of government? What constitutes judicial'due process'in the regulation of health-safety and environmental risks? David O'Brien addresses these and other key questions in a comprehensive survey of the role of courts in resolving science-policy disputes. He theorizes that such disputes, with their burden of scientific uncertainty and intense value conflict, become judicialized in the United States because they pose an uncomfortable trilemma for policy makers: how to accommodate competing demands for scientific certainty, political compromise, and procedural fairness in the regulation of risks. When policy negotiations break down, courts are called on not to settle scientific controversies per se, but in their traditional role as independent tribunals for settling value conflicts and imposing norms in a pluralistic society. This interpretation is enhanced by a unique set of case studies, including DES and asbestos litigation and the ban on Tris (a carcinogenic flame-retardent). O'Brien's analytical framework and his detailed examples illuminate the extent, the implications, and the underlying causes of the judicialization of risk regulation.

This book reviews the scientific basis for nutrition risk criteria used to establish eligibility for participation in the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC). The volume also examines the specific segments of the WIC population at risk for each criterion, identifies gaps in the scientific knowledge base, formulates recommendations regarding appropriate criteria, and where applicable, recommends values for determining who is at risk for each criterion. Recommendations for program action and research are made to strengthen the validity of nutrition risk criteria used in the WIC program.