| 1. |
- Pearce, Neil E, et al.
(författare)
-
IARC Monographs : 40 Years of Evaluating Carcinogenic Hazards to Humans
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Journal of Environmental Health Perspectives. - : Environmental Health Perspectives. - 0091-6765 .- 1552-9924. ; 123:6, s. 507-514
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Recently the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Programme for the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans has been criticized for several of its evaluations, and also the approach used to perform these evaluations. Some critics have claimed that IARC Working Groups' failures to recognize study weaknesses and biases of Working Group members have led to inappropriate classification of a number of agents as carcinogenic to humans.OBJECTIVES: The authors of this paper are scientists from various disciplines relevant to the identification and hazard evaluation of human carcinogens. We have examined here criticisms of the IARC classification process to determine the validity of these concerns. We review the history of IARC evaluations and describe how the IARC evaluations are performed.DISCUSSION: We conclude that these recent criticisms are unconvincing. The procedures employed by IARC to assemble Working Groups of scientists from the various discipline and the techniques followed to review the literature and perform hazard assessment of various agents provide a balanced evaluation and an appropriate indication of the weight of the evidence. Some disagreement by individual scientists to some evaluations is not evidence of process failure. The review process has been modified over time and will undoubtedly be altered in the future to improve the process. Any process can in theory be improved, and we would support continued review and improvement of the IARC processes. This does not mean, however, that the current procedures are flawed.CONCLUSIONS: The IARC Monographs have made, and continue to make, major contributions to the scientific underpinning for societal actions to improve the public's health.
|
|
| 2. |
- Marsh, Gary M., et al.
(författare)
-
Mortality Among Hardmetal Production Workers : Pooled Analysis of Cohort Data From an International Investigation
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. - Philadelphia, PA, USA : Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. - 1076-2752 .- 1536-5948. ; 59:12, s. e342-e364
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVES: Based on a pooled analysis of data from an international study, evaluate total and cause-specific mortality among hardmetal production workers with emphasis on lung cancer.METHODS: Study members were 32,354 workers from three companies and 17 manufacturing sites in five countries. We computed standardized mortality ratios and evaluated exposure-response via relative risk regression analysis.RESULTS: Among long-term workers, we observed overall deficits or slight excesses in deaths for total mortality, all cancers, and lung cancer and found no evidence of any exposure-response relationships for lung cancer.CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence that duration, average intensity, or cumulative exposure to tungsten, cobalt, or nickel, at levels experienced by the workers examined, increases lung cancer mortality risks. We also found no evidence that work in these facilities increased mortality risks from any other causes of death.
|
|
| 3. |
- Stone, Vicki, et al.
(författare)
-
The Essential Elements of a Risk Governance Framework for Current and Future Nanotechnologies
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Risk Analysis. - : Wiley. - 0272-4332 .- 1539-6924. ; 38:7, s. 1321-1331
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Societies worldwide are investing considerable resources into the safe development and use of nanomaterials. Although each of these protective efforts is crucial for governing the risks of nanomaterials, they are insufficient in isolation. What is missing is a more integrative governance approach that goes beyond legislation. Development of this approach must be evidence based and involve key stakeholders to ensure acceptance by end users. The challenge is to develop a framework that coordinates the variety of actors involved in nanotechnology and civil society to facilitate consideration of the complex issues that occur in this rapidly evolving research and development area. Here, we propose three sets of essential elements required to generate an effective risk governance framework for nanomaterials. (1) Advanced tools to facilitate risk-based decision making, including an assessment of the needs of users regarding risk assessment, mitigation, and transfer. (2) An integrated model of predicted human behavior and decision making concerning nanomaterial risks. (3) Legal and other (nano-specific and general) regulatory requirements to ensure compliance and to stimulate proactive approaches to safety. The implementation of such an approach should facilitate and motivate good practice for the various stakeholders to allow the safe and sustainable future development of nanotechnology.
|
|
