US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY RADIOGENIC RISK PROJECTIONS: UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS

被引:6
|
作者
Pawel, David J. [1 ]
机构
[1] US EPA, Washington, DC 20460 USA
来源
HEALTH PHYSICS | 2013年 / 104卷 / 01期
关键词
cancer; health effects; risk assessment; US Environmental Protection Agency; ATOMIC-BOMB SURVIVORS; CANCER-RISK; EPIDEMIOLOGIC RESEARCH; BAYESIAN PERSPECTIVES; RADIATION; EXPOSURE; MODELS;
D O I
10.1097/HP.0b013e31826119ed
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has updated its estimates of cancer risks due to low doses of ionizing radiation for the U. S. population, as well as their scientific basis. For the most part, these estimates were calculated using models recommended in the recent National Academy of Sciences' (BEIR VII) report on health effects from low levels of ionizing radiation. The new risk assessment includes uncertainty bounds associated with the projections for gender and cancer site-specific lifetime attributable risks. For most cancer sites, these uncertainty bounds were calculated using probability distributions for BEIR VII model parameter values, derived from a novel Bayesian analysis of cancer incidence data from the atomic bomb survivor lifespan study (LSS) cohort and subjective distributions for other relevant sources of uncertainty. This approach allowed for quantification of uncertainties associated with: 1) the effect of sampling variability on inferences drawn from the LSS cohort about the linear dose response and its dependence on temporal factors such as age-at-exposure, 2) differences in the radiogenic risks in the Japanese LSS cohort versus the U. S. population, 3) dosimetry errors, and 4) several other non-sampling sources. Some of the uncertainty associated with how risk depends on dose and dose rate was also quantified. For uniform whole-body exposures of low-dose gamma radiation to the entire population, EPA's cancer incidence risk coefficients and corresponding 90% uncertainty intervals (Gy(-1)) are 9.55 x 10(-2) (4.3 x 10(-2) to 1.8 x 10(-1)) for males and 1.35 x 10(-1) (6.5 x 10(-2) to 2.5 x 10(-1)) for females, where the numbers in parentheses represent an estimated 90% uncertainty interval. For many individual cancer sites, risk coefficients differ from corresponding uncertainty bounds by factors of about three to five, although uncertainties are larger for cancers of the stomach, prostate, liver, and uterus. Uncertainty intervals for many, but not all, cancer sites are similar to those given in BEIR VII, which were derived using a non-Bayesian approach. Health Phys. 104(1):26-40; 2013
引用
收藏
页码:26 / 40
页数:15
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] RISK ASSESSMENT IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL-PROTECTION-AGENCY
    ABERNATHY, CO
    ROBERTS, WC
    [J]. JOURNAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, 1994, 39 (02) : 135 - 142
  • [32] Two Decades of Enhancing Children's Environmental Health Protection at the US Environmental Protection Agency
    Firestone, Michael
    Berger, Martha
    Foos, Brenda
    Etzel, Ruth
    [J]. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVES, 2016, 124 (12) : A214 - A218
  • [33] Risk assessment: An overview of how the US Environmental Protection Agency looks at coal combustion residuals
    Bradley, Lisa J. N.
    Gerath, Mark
    [J]. ABSTRACTS OF PAPERS OF THE AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY, 2011, 242
  • [34] In Vitro and Modelling Approaches to Risk Assessment from the US Environmental Protection Agency ToxCast Programme
    Judson, Richard
    Houck, Keith
    Martin, Matt
    Knudsen, Thomas
    Thomas, Russell S.
    Sipes, Nisha
    Shah, Imran
    Wambaugh, John
    Crofton, Kevin
    [J]. BASIC & CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY & TOXICOLOGY, 2014, 115 (01) : 69 - 76
  • [35] US Environmental Protection Agency: Nanotechnology research directions and initiatives
    McKittrick, Michael
    [J]. ABSTRACTS OF PAPERS OF THE AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY, 2011, 241
  • [36] Genomics: Applications, challenges, and opportunities for the US Environmental Protection Agency
    Gallagher, Kathryn
    Benson, William H.
    Brody, Michael
    Fairbrother, Anne
    Hasan, Jafrul
    Klaper, Rebecca
    Lattier, David
    Lundquist, Susan
    McCarroll, Nancy
    Miller, Gregory
    Preston, Julian
    Sayre, Philip
    Seed, Jennifer
    Smith, Bobbye
    Street, Anita
    Troast, Richard
    Vu, Vanessa
    Reiter, Lawrence
    Farland, William
    Dearfield, Kerry
    [J]. HUMAN AND ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT, 2006, 12 (03): : 572 - 590
  • [37] US Environmental Protection Agency: Maintaining healthy ocean ecosystems
    Fox, JC
    [J]. SEA TECHNOLOGY, 1999, 40 (02) : 53 - 56
  • [38] US Environmental Protection Agency Policy: From the beginning to the millennium
    Bohannon, P
    [J]. ENVIRONMENTAL TOXICOLOGY AND CHEMISTRY, 2000, 19 (04) : 781 - 783
  • [39] US Environmental Protection Agency research on drinking water disinfection
    Huggett, RJ
    [J]. BIOTECHNOLOGY FOR WATER USE AND CONSERVATION, 1997, : 83 - 88
  • [40] ECAFLO® GAINS APPROVAL FROM THE US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
    不详
    [J]. WOUNDS-A COMPENDIUM OF CLINICAL RESEARCH AND PRACTICE, 2009, 21 (06): : A18 - +