The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program develops toxicologic assessments of environmental contaminants. IRIS assessments provide hazard identification and dose-response assessment information. The information is then used in conjunction with exposure information to characterize risks to public health and may be used in risk-based decisionmaking, in regulatory actions, and for other risk-management purposes. Since the middle 1990s, EPA has been in the process of updating the IRIS assessment of inorganic arsenic. In response to a congressional mandate for an independent review of the IRIS assessment of inorganic arsenic, EPA requested that the National Research Council convene a committee to conduct a two-phase study. Critical Aspects of EPA's IRIS Assessment of Inorganic Arsenic is the report of the first phase of that study. This report evaluates critical scientific issues in assessing cancer and noncancer effects of oral exposure to inorganic arsenic and offers recommendations on how the issues could be addressed in EPA's IRIS assessment.
The Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) is a program within the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that is responsible for developing toxicologic assessments of environmental contaminants. An IRIS assessment contains hazard identifications and dose-response assessments of various chemicals related to cancer and noncancer outcomes. Although the program was created to increase consistency among toxicologic assessments within the agency, federal, state, and international agencies and other organizations have come to rely on IRIS assessments for setting regulatory standards, establishing exposure guidelines, and estimating risks to exposed populations. The EPA has been working on its IRIS assessment of inorganic arsenic (iAs) for many years, and recently released its plans for completing it in the Updated Problem Formulation and Protocol for the Inorganic Arsenic IRIS Assessment. Much of the update was made in response to recommendations in a 2013 report made by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The National Academies recently convened another evaluation of whether the various elements of the IRIS iAs assessment plan are appropriate to synthesize the scientific evidence and quantitate estimates of iAs toxicity. Review of EPA’s IRIS Assessment Plan for Inorganic Arsenic explores the EPA’s approach to prioritizing health outcomes, EPA’s systematic review methods, EPA’s consideration of potential health effects from early life exposures, mode-of-action information to inform dose-response analyses, and various approaches to investigate dose-response relationships"--Publisher's description
Having safe drinking water is important to all Americans. The Environmental Protection Agency's decision in the summer of 2001 to delay implementing a new, more stringent standard for the maximum allowable level for arsenic in drinking water generated a great deal of criticism and controversy. Ultimately at issue were newer data on arsenic beyond those that had been examined in a 1999 National Research Council report. EPA asked the National Research Council for an evaluation of the new data available. The committee's analyses and conclusions are presented in Arsenic in Drinking Water: 2001 Update. New epidemiological studies are critically evaluated, as are new experimental data that provide information on how and at what level arsenic in drinking water can lead to cancer. The report's findings are consistent with those of the 1999 report that found high risks of cancer at the previous federal standard of 50 parts per billion. In fact, the new report concludes that men and women who consume water containing 3 parts per billion of arsenic daily have about a 1 in 1,000 increased risk of developing bladder or lung cancer during their lifetime.
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program develops toxicologic assessments of environmental contaminants. IRIS assessments provide hazard identification and dose-response assessment information. The information is then used in conjunction with exposure information to characterize risks to public health and may be used in risk-based decisionmaking, in regulatory actions, and for other risk-management purposes. Since the middle 1990s, EPA has been in the process of updating the IRIS assessment of inorganic arsenic. In response to a congressional mandate for an independent review of the IRIS assessment of inorganic arsenic, EPA requested that the National Research Council convene a committee to conduct a two-phase study. Critical Aspects of EPA's IRIS Assessment of Inorganic Arsenic is the report of the first phase of that study. This report evaluates critical scientific issues in assessing cancer and noncancer effects of oral exposure to inorganic arsenic and offers recommendations on how the issues could be addressed in EPA's IRIS assessment.
Having safe drinking water is important to all Americans. The Environmental Protection Agency's decision in the summer of 2001 to delay implementing a new, more stringent standard for the maximum allowable level for arsenic in drinking water generated a great deal of criticism and controversy. Ultimately at issue were newer data on arsenic beyond those that had been examined in a 1999 National Research Council report. EPA asked the National Research Council for an evaluation of the new data available. The committee's analyses and conclusions are presented in Arsenic in Drinking Water: 2001 Update. New epidemiological studies are critically evaluated, as are new experimental data that provide information on how and at what level arsenic in drinking water can lead to cancer. The report's findings are consistent with those of the 1999 report that found high risks of cancer at the previous federal standard of 50 parts per billion. In fact, the new report concludes that men and women who consume water containing 3 parts per billion of arsenic daily have about a 1 in 1,000 increased risk of developing bladder or lung cancer during their lifetime.
From 1962 to 1971, the U.S. military sprayed herbicides over Vietnam to strip the thick jungle canopy that could conceal opposition forces, to destroy crops that those forces might depend on, and to clear tall grasses and bushes from the perimeters of U.S. base camps and outlying fire-support bases. In response to concerns and continuing uncertainty about the long-term health effects of the sprayed herbicides on Vietnam veterans, Veterans and Agent Orange provides a comprehensive evaluation of scientific and medical information regarding the health effects of exposure to Agent Orange and other herbicides used in Vietnam. The 2008 report is the eighth volume in this series of biennial updates. It will be of interest to policy makers and physicians in the federal government, veterans and their families, veterans' organizations, researchers, and health professionals.
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.
People are increasingly concerned about potential environmental health hazards and often ask their physicians questions such as: "Is the tap water safe to drink?" "Is it safe to live near power lines?" Unfortunately, physicians often lack the information and training related to environmental health risks needed to answer such questions. This book discusses six competency based learning objectives for all medical school students, discusses the relevance of environmental health to specific courses and clerkships, and demonstrates how to integrate environmental health into the curriculum through published case studies, some of which are included in one of the book's three appendices. Also included is a guide on where to obtain additional information for treatment, referral, and follow-up for diseases with possible environmental and/or occupational origins.
Can Americans continue to add more seafood to their diets without fear of illness or even death? Seafood-caused health problems are not widespread, but consumers are at risk from seafood-borne microbes and toxinsâ€"with consequences that can range from mild enteritis to fatal illness. At a time when legislators and consumer groups are seeking a sound regulatory approach, Seafood Safety presents a comprehensive set of practical recommendations for ensuring the safety of the seafood supply. This volume presents the first-ever overview of the field, covering seafood consumption patterns, where and how seafood contamination occurs, and the effectiveness of regulation. A wealth of technical information is presented on the sources of contaminationâ€"microbes, natural toxins, and chemical pollutantsâ€"and their effects on human health. The volume evaluates methods used for risk assessment and inspection sampling.
Excess minerals in the diet and water of animals can have an adverse effect on animal health, consumers, and the environment. Preventing unsafe mineral exposure is a fundamental part of animal nutrition and management. At the request of the Food and Drug Administration, the National Academies convened a committee to make recommendations on animal tolerances and toxic dietary levels, updating a 1980 report on mineral tolerance in domestic animals. Based on a review of current scientific data and information, the report sets a "maximum tolerable level" (MTL) for each mineral as it applies to the diets of farm animals, poultry, and fish. The report includes an analysis of the effects of toxic levels in animal diets, and it identifies elements that pose potential human health concerns. The report recommends research that includes a better characterization of animal exposure to minerals through feedstuffs; a better understanding of the relationship between mineral concentrations in feed and water and the levels in consumer products such as meat, milk, and eggs; and more research on the maximum tolerable level of minerals for aquatic and companion animals.
From 1962 to 1971, the US military sprayed herbicides over Vietnam to strip the thick jungle canopy that could conceal opposition forces, to destroy crops that those forces might depend on, and to clear tall grasses and bushes from the perimeters of US base camps and outlying fire-support bases. Mixtures of 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D), 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4,5-T), picloram, and cacodylic acid made up the bulk of the herbicides sprayed. The main chemical mixture sprayed was Agent Orange, a 50:50 mixture of 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T. At the time of the spraying, 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD), the most toxic form of dioxin, was an unintended contaminant generated during the production of 2,4,5-T and so was present in Agent Orange and some other formulations sprayed in Vietnam. Because of complaints from returning Vietnam veterans about their own health and that of their children combined with emerging toxicologic evidence of adverse effects of phenoxy herbicides and TCDD, the National Academy of Sciences was asked to perform a comprehensive evaluation of scientific and medical information regarding the health effects of exposure to Agent Orange, other herbicides used in Vietnam, and the various components of those herbicides, including TCDD. Updated evaluations were conducted every two years to review newly available literature and draw conclusions from the overall evidence. Veterans and Agent Orange: Update 2014 is a cumulative report of the series thus far.
Across the United States, thousands of hazardous waste sites are contaminated with chemicals that prevent the underlying groundwater from meeting drinking water standards. These include Superfund sites and other facilities that handle and dispose of hazardous waste, active and inactive dry cleaners, and leaking underground storage tanks; many are at federal facilities such as military installations. While many sites have been closed over the past 30 years through cleanup programs run by the U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. EPA, and other state and federal agencies, the remaining caseload is much more difficult to address because the nature of the contamination and subsurface conditions make it difficult to achieve drinking water standards in the affected groundwater. Alternatives for Managing the Nation's Complex Contaminated Groundwater Sites estimates that at least 126,000 sites across the U.S. still have contaminated groundwater, and their closure is expected to cost at least $110 billion to $127 billion. About 10 percent of these sites are considered "complex," meaning restoration is unlikely to be achieved in the next 50 to 100 years due to technological limitations. At sites where contaminant concentrations have plateaued at levels above cleanup goals despite active efforts, the report recommends evaluating whether the sites should transition to long-term management, where risks would be monitored and harmful exposures prevented, but at reduced costs.
Thank you for visiting our website. Would you like to provide feedback on how we could improve your experience?
This site does not use any third party cookies with one exception — it uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and to analyze traffic.Learn More.