167 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10627174)
1. "Why not use it all?" Another view.
Landrigan PJ
Environ Health Perspect; 1999 Nov; 107(11):A546. PubMed ID: 10627174
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Toxicology. Panel backs EPA dioxin assessment.
Kaiser J
Science; 2000 Nov; 290(5494):1071. PubMed ID: 11184998
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Human Exposure: the key to better risk assessment.
Wakefield J
Environ Health Perspect; 2000 Dec; 108(12):A559-65. PubMed ID: 11133418
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Comments on "Why not use it all?".
Goodman JI; Acosta D
Environ Health Perspect; 1999 Nov; 107(11):A546. PubMed ID: 10627175
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Declaring chemicals "not carcinogenic to humans" requires validation, not speculation.
Melnick RL; Kamel F; Huff J
Environ Health Perspect; 2003 Apr; 111(4):A203-4. PubMed ID: 12676636
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Mechanistic and epidemiologic data: when is enough enough?
Roberts R; Ashby J
Environ Health Perspect; 2002 Sep; 110(9):A502-3. PubMed ID: 12269288
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. The hormesis challenge for environmental health regulators.
Baram PM
Hum Exp Toxicol; 2001 Aug; 20(8):435-8. PubMed ID: 11727796
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Expedited registration review in the USA: the EPA's reduced risk program.
Tinsworth R
J Environ Monit; 2000 Aug; 2(4):63N-68N. PubMed ID: 11249798
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. A perspective on carcinogen risk assessment. Toxicology Forum, Washington DC, February 19, 1996.
Moolenaar RJ
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 1996 Jun; 23(3):241-3. PubMed ID: 8812966
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Review of extant community-based epidemiologic studies on health effects of hazardous wastes.
Miller AB
Toxicol Ind Health; 1996; 12(2):225-33. PubMed ID: 8794535
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Risk assessment at the EPA: an agency self-exam.
Schmidt CW
Environ Health Perspect; 2004 Jun; 112(8):A482-5. PubMed ID: 15175195
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Data gaps limit success of national indicators.
Cooney CM
Environ Sci Technol; 2003 Nov; 37(21):382A-383A. PubMed ID: 14620798
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Toxicology. Just how bad is dioxin?
Kaiser J
Science; 2000 Jun; 288(5473):1941-4. PubMed ID: 10877704
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Hormesis: policy implications.
Lave LB
J Appl Toxicol; 2000; 20(2):141-5. PubMed ID: 10715612
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Endocrine disrupters as a public health issue.
Carpenter H
Minn Med; 2003 Jan; 86(1):27-30. PubMed ID: 12585556
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. [Management of health and environmental risk: the case of nitrates].
Solignac M
Presse Med; 2001 Feb; 30(4):172-4. PubMed ID: 11229309
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. EPA seeks public health views on new pesticide law.
Goldman LR
Public Health Rep; 1996; 111(6):512-4. PubMed ID: 8955696
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. US panel established to coordinate work on endocrine disrupters.
Macilwain C
Nature; 1996 Jul; 382(6587):100. PubMed ID: 8700191
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Early indicators of response in biologically based risk assessment for nongenotoxic carcinogens.
Gastel JA
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2001 Jun; 33(3):393-8. PubMed ID: 11407940
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Development of a framework for metals risk assessment.
Sappington K; Fairbrother A; Wentsel R; Wood W
J Environ Monit; 2003 Dec; 5(6):123N-132N. PubMed ID: 14710920
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
