These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
5. Drawing the battle lines: tracing the "Science War" in the construction of the chloroform and human health risks debate. Driedger SM; Eyles J Environ Manage; 2003 Apr; 31(4):476-88. PubMed ID: 12677294 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Implementation of EPA Revised Cancer Assessment Guidelines: Incorporation of Mechanistic and Pharmacokinetic Data. Page NP; Singh DV; Farland W; Goodman JI; Conolly RB; Andersen ME; Clewell HJ; Frederick CB; Yamasaki H; Lucier G Fundam Appl Toxicol; 1997 May; 37(1):16-36. PubMed ID: 9193920 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Lessons learned in applying the U.S. EPA proposed cancer guidelines to specific compounds. Andersen ME; Meek ME; Boorman GA; Brusick DJ; Cohen SM; Dragan YP; Frederick CB; Goodman JI; Hard GC; O'Flaherty EJ; Robinson DE Toxicol Sci; 2000 Feb; 53(2):159-72. PubMed ID: 10696764 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Topics in cancer risk assessment. Olin SS; Neumann DA; Foran JA; Scarano GJ Environ Health Perspect; 1997 Feb; 105 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):117-26. PubMed ID: 9114281 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. U.S. EPA's IRIS assessment of 2-butoxyethanol: the relationship of noncancer to cancer effects. Gift JS Toxicol Lett; 2005 Mar; 156(1):163-78. PubMed ID: 15705494 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. A molecular approach to cancer risk. Stone R Science; 1995 Apr; 268(5209):356-7. PubMed ID: 7716533 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's revised guidelines for carcinogen risk assessment: evaluating a postulated mode of carcinogenic action in guiding dose-response extrapolation. Wiltse JA; Dellarco VL Mutat Res; 2000 Jan; 464(1):105-15. PubMed ID: 10633182 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Chloroform. National Toxicology Program Rep Carcinog; 2011; 12():97-100. PubMed ID: 21850127 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Significant shortcomings of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's latest draft risk characterization for dioxin-like compounds. Starr TB Toxicol Sci; 2001 Nov; 64(1):7-13. PubMed ID: 11606796 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Trichloroethylene health risk assessment: a new and improved process. Maull EA; Cogliano VJ; Scott CS; Barton HA; Fisher JW; Greenberg M; Rhomberg L; Sorgen SP Drug Chem Toxicol; 1997 Nov; 20(4):427-42. PubMed ID: 9433671 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency guidelines for carcinogen risk assessment: past and future. Wiltse J; Dellarco VL Mutat Res; 1996 Sep; 365(1-3):3-15. PubMed ID: 8898986 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's risk assessment guidelines: current status and future directions. Farland WH Toxicol Ind Health; 1991; 7(5-6):313-7. PubMed ID: 1780873 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Rationale developed by the Environmental Protection Agency for the assessment of carcinogenic risks. Albert RE; Train RE; Anderson E J Natl Cancer Inst; 1977 May; 58(5):1537-41. PubMed ID: 853532 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. What to do at low doses: a bounding approach for economic analysis. Griffiths CW; Dockins C; Owens N; Simon NB; Axelrad DA Risk Anal; 2002 Aug; 22(4):679-88. PubMed ID: 12224742 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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] [Next] [New Search]