The Experts below are selected from a list of 285 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
D L Ashley - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Using biological monitoring to assess human exposure to priority toxicants.
Environmental health perspectives, 1995Co-Authors: James L. Pirkle, E J Sampson, L L Needham, D G Patterson, D L AshleyAbstract:Scientifically valid exposure assessment is crucial to risk assessment, risk management, and prevention of Environmental Disease. Scientists have used three tools to assess exposure: exposure history/questionnaire, Environmental monitoring (including personal monitoring), and biological monitoring. Combinations of these tools usually provide the exposure information needed to meet objectives of human studies evaluating the exposure-health effect relationship. Biological monitoring is a capable exposure assessment tool that has provided important information used in public health decisions. We briefly describe how risk assessment and risk management decisions for lead, dioxin, and volatile organic compounds have substantially benefited from exposure information obtained from biological monitoring.
-
Using Biological Monitoring to Assess Human Exposure to Priority Toxicants
Environmental Health Perspectives, 1995Co-Authors: James L. Pirkle, E J Sampson, L L Needham, D G Patterson, D L AshleyAbstract:Scientifically valid exposure assessment is crucial to risk assessment, risk management, and prevention of Environmental Disease. Scientists have used three tools to assess exposure: exposure histo...
James L. Pirkle - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Using biological monitoring to assess human exposure to priority toxicants.
Environmental health perspectives, 1995Co-Authors: James L. Pirkle, E J Sampson, L L Needham, D G Patterson, D L AshleyAbstract:Scientifically valid exposure assessment is crucial to risk assessment, risk management, and prevention of Environmental Disease. Scientists have used three tools to assess exposure: exposure history/questionnaire, Environmental monitoring (including personal monitoring), and biological monitoring. Combinations of these tools usually provide the exposure information needed to meet objectives of human studies evaluating the exposure-health effect relationship. Biological monitoring is a capable exposure assessment tool that has provided important information used in public health decisions. We briefly describe how risk assessment and risk management decisions for lead, dioxin, and volatile organic compounds have substantially benefited from exposure information obtained from biological monitoring.
-
Using Biological Monitoring to Assess Human Exposure to Priority Toxicants
Environmental Health Perspectives, 1995Co-Authors: James L. Pirkle, E J Sampson, L L Needham, D G Patterson, D L AshleyAbstract:Scientifically valid exposure assessment is crucial to risk assessment, risk management, and prevention of Environmental Disease. Scientists have used three tools to assess exposure: exposure histo...
Philip J. Landrigan - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Environmental pollutants and Disease in american children estimates of morbidity mortality and costs for lead poisoning asthma cancer and developmental disabilities
Environmental Health Perspectives, 2002Co-Authors: Philip J. Landrigan, Clyde B Schechter, Jeffrey M Lipton, Marianne C Fahs, Joel SchwartzAbstract:In this study, we aimed to estimate the contribution of Environmental pollutants to the incidence, prevalence, mortality, and costs of pediatric Disease in American children. We examined four categories of illness: lead poisoning, asthma, cancer, and neurobehavioral disorders. To estimate the proportion of each attributable to toxins in the environment, we used an Environmentally attributable fraction (EAF) model. EAFs for lead poisoning, asthma, and cancer were developed by panels of experts through a Delphi process, whereas that for neurobehavioral disorders was based on data from the National Academy of Sciences. We define Environmental pollutants as toxic chemicals of human origin in air, food, water, and communities. To develop estimates of costs, we relied on data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Health Care Financing Agency, and the Practice Management Information Corporation. EAFs were judged to be 100% for lead poisoning, 30% for asthma (range, 10-35%), 5% for cancer (range, 2-10%), and 10% for neurobehavioral disorders (range, 5-20%). Total annual costs are estimated to be $54.9 billion (range $48.8-64.8 billion): $43.4 billion for lead poisoning, $2.0 billion for asthma, $0.3 billion for childhood cancer, and $9.2 billion for neurobehavioral disorders. This sum amounts to 2.8 percent of total U.S. health care costs. This estimate is likely low because it considers only four categories of illness, incorporates conservative assumptions, ignores costs of pain and suffering, and does not include late complications for which etiologic associations are poorly quantified. The costs of pediatric Environmental Disease are high, in contrast with the limited resources directed to research, tracking, and prevention.
-
Commentary: Environmental Disease--a preventable epidemic.
American journal of public health, 1992Co-Authors: Philip J. LandriganAbstract:Toxic Environmental Diseases are highly preventable causes of morbidity and mortality. Toxic Diseases in the work environment cause an estimated 50,000 to 70,000 deaths and 350,000 new cases of illness each year in the United States; the asbestos pandemic will ultimately claim at least 300,000 lives; pediatric lead poisoning is epidemic, and an estimated 3 to 4 million US preschool children have blood lead levels above 10 micrograms/dl and could suffer long-term neuropsychological impairment. Prevention of Environmental Diseases can be achieved through legislation and regulation that control common-source exposures to chemical toxins. Modification of personal behaviors, such as tobacco and alcohol consumption, complements but does not replace control of toxic Environmental exposures.
Giancarlo Cesana - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Lead Poisoning: Historical Aspects of a Paradigmatic “Occupational and Environmental Disease”
Safety and health at work, 2012Co-Authors: Michele Augusto Riva, Alessandra Lafranconi, M D'orso, Giancarlo CesanaAbstract:Lead poisoning is one of the earliest identified and most known occupational Disease. Its acute effects have been recognized from antiquity when this condition principally afflicted manual workers and slaves, actually scarcely considered by the medicine of that time. The Industrial Revolution caused an epidemic of metal intoxication, urging scientists and physician of that period to study and identify specific symptoms and organ alterations related to chronic lead poisoning. During the 20th century, the acknowledgment of occupational and Environmental toxicity of lead fostered public awareness and legislation to protect health. More recently, the identification of sub-clinical effects have greatly modified the concept of lead poisoning and the approaches of medicine towards this condition. Nowadays, lead poisoning is rarely seen in developed countries, but it still represents a major Environmental problem in certain areas. Consequently, it may appear as a paradigm of “occupational and Environmental Disease,” and the history of this condition seems to parallel the historical development of modern “Occupational and Environmental Health” as a more complete medical discipline.
Elaine Cohen A Hubal - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
biologically relevant exposure science for 21st century toxicity testing
Toxicological Sciences, 2009Co-Authors: Elaine Cohen A HubalAbstract:High visibility efforts in toxicity testing and computational toxicology including the recent National Research Council of the National Academies (NRC) report, Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: A Vision and Strategy (NRC, 2007a), raise important research questions and opportunities for the field of exposure science. The authors of the National Academies report (NRC, 2007a) emphasize that population-based data and human exposure information are required at each step of their vision for toxicity testing and that these data will continue to play a critical role in both guiding development and use of the toxicity information. In fact, state-of-the-art exposure science is essential for translation of toxicity data to assess potential for risk to individuals and populations and to inform public health decisions. As we move forward to implement the NRC vision, a transformational change in exposure science is required. Application of a fresh perspective and novel techniques to capture critical determinants at biologically motivated resolution for translation from controlled in vitro systems to the open multifactorial system of real-world human-environment interaction will be critical. Development of an exposure ontology and knowledge base will facilitate extension of network analysis to the individual and population for translating toxicity information and assessing health risk. Such a sea change in exposure science is required to incorporate consideration of lifestage, genetic susceptibility, and interaction of nonchemical stressors for holistic assessment of risk factors associated with complex Environmental Disease. A new generation of scientific tools has emerged to rapidly measure signals from cells, tissues, and organisms following exposure to chemicals. Investment in 21st century exposure science is now required to fully realize the potential of the NRC vision for toxicity testing.