SAGE Journals Online
Advertisement
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Advertisement

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Human & Experimental Toxicology
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Doull, J
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Doull, J
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

Comments on the Environmental Protection Agency's definition of risk assessment

J Doull

University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, USA

Common sense requires that regulation to prevent the adverse effects of exposure to chemicals should when possible preserve the desirable or beneficial effects of exposure to the chemical. Excluding such effects by definition is contrary to good science and common sense.

Key Words: hormesis • risk assessment • adverse • exposure

Human & Experimental Toxicology, Vol. 25, No. 1, 44-45 (2006)
DOI: 10.1191/0960327106ht583oa
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?




Advertisement