Literature DB >> 9219024

Evaluating chemical risks: results of a survey of the British Toxicology Society.

P Slovic, T Malmfors, C K Mertz, N Neil, I F Purchase.   

Abstract

1. Members of the British Toxicology Society participated in a survey to determine their attitudes, beliefs, and perceptions regarding risks from chemicals. Similar surveys had previously been conducted with toxicologists and members of the general public in the United States and Canada. Data from 312 completed questionnaires were analyzed. 2. In general, the British toxicologists judged risks to be quite low for most hazards, with the exception of cigarette smoking and asbestos. They tended to have quite favorable attitudes toward the use of chemicals and were confident about the adequacy of chemical regulations. 3. As in previous studies of toxicologists, women expressed higher perceptions of risk than did men and had consistently stronger anti-chemical attitudes. 4. Toxicologists working in industry had more favorable attitudes towards chemicals and their use than did those working in academic settings. 5. When asked to evaluate chemical technical summaries of various animals studies there was considerable disagreement among the respondents about the toxicity of the chemicals involved. 6. In general, British toxicologists were equivocal about the reliability of animal studies in predicting human effects (particularly carcinogenicity) probably because of the belief that animal studies overestimate risk. However, they were rather confident that human health risks could be assessed reasonably accurately.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9219024     DOI: 10.1177/096032719701600601

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hum Exp Toxicol        ISSN: 0960-3271            Impact factor:   2.903


  8 in total

Review 1.  Regulatory decisions on endocrine disrupting chemicals should be based on the principles of endocrinology.

Authors:  Laura N Vandenberg; Theo Colborn; Tyrone B Hayes; Jerrold J Heindel; David R Jacobs; Duk-Hee Lee; John Peterson Myers; Toshi Shioda; Ana M Soto; Frederick S vom Saal; Wade V Welshons; R Thomas Zoeller
Journal:  Reprod Toxicol       Date:  2013-02-11       Impact factor: 3.143

2.  Exploring perceptions of cancer risk, neighborhood environmental risks, and health behaviors of blacks.

Authors:  LaShanta J Rice; Heather M Brandt; James W Hardin; Lucy Annang Ingram; Sacoby M Wilson
Journal:  J Community Health       Date:  2015-06

3.  Symptomatology attributable to psychological exposure to a chemical incident: a natural experiment.

Authors:  John Gallacher; Karin Bronstering; Stephen Palmer; David Fone; Ronan Lyons
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 3.710

Review 4.  Using systematic reviews for hazard and risk assessment of endocrine disrupting chemicals.

Authors:  Anna Beronius; Laura N Vandenberg
Journal:  Rev Endocr Metab Disord       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 6.514

Review 5.  A proposed framework for the systematic review and integrated assessment (SYRINA) of endocrine disrupting chemicals.

Authors:  Laura N Vandenberg; Marlene Ågerstrand; Anna Beronius; Claire Beausoleil; Åke Bergman; Lisa A Bero; Carl-Gustaf Bornehag; C Scott Boyer; Glinda S Cooper; Ian Cotgreave; David Gee; Philippe Grandjean; Kathryn Z Guyton; Ulla Hass; Jerrold J Heindel; Susan Jobling; Karen A Kidd; Andreas Kortenkamp; Malcolm R Macleod; Olwenn V Martin; Ulf Norinder; Martin Scheringer; Kristina A Thayer; Jorma Toppari; Paul Whaley; Tracey J Woodruff; Christina Rudén
Journal:  Environ Health       Date:  2016-07-14       Impact factor: 5.984

6.  Expert views on regulatory preparedness for managing the risks of nanotechnologies.

Authors:  Christian E H Beaudrie; Terre Satterfield; Milind Kandlikar; Barbara H Harthorn
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-11-11       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Science, policy, and the transparency of values.

Authors:  Kevin C Elliott; David B Resnik
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  2014-03-25       Impact factor: 9.031

8.  Scientists versus regulators: precaution, novelty & regulatory oversight as predictors of perceived risks of engineered nanomaterials.

Authors:  Christian E H Beaudrie; Terre Satterfield; Milind Kandlikar; Barbara H Harthorn
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-09-15       Impact factor: 3.240

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.