Zero exposure standards

Zero exposure standards Relating to carcinogens, which have essentially zero allowable exposure levels. 

This approach was, in theory, more satisfactory than the absolutist approach, because it defined safety not in terms of the scientifically meaningless and indefinable zero risk standard (requiring banning, to ensure zero exposure, unacceptable as a general approach, as discussed earlier), but in terms that are scientifically meaningful because they do not require the impossible proof that something (risk) is absent. Safety, under this view, is a condition of very low risk. 

However, even against this background of uncertainty and apparent imprecision, in some cases it is possible to measure airborne asbestos with acceptable precision through replication for a reasonable price. Since there is no exposure standard, "clean" must be defined by comparing indoor and outdoor levels. A statistical comparison of indoor versus outdoor measurements that is significantly different from zero indicates that the indoor space is not clean. Tests may be designed chat either compare the average of... 

Acceptable Risk. Once information is assembled concerning the characteristics of exposure and biologic effects, that information must be interpreted in terms of human safety standards. That interpretation requires that one establish a set of criteria representing acceptably safe conditions for human existence, bearing in mind that zero concentrations of environmental chemicals are unrealistic. 

For those substances for which appropriate human smdies are available, the so-called average relative risk model has been used. Quantitative assessments using this model comprises four steps (1) selection of studies (2) standardized description of study results in terms of relative risk, exposure level, and duration of exposure (3) extrapolation towards zero dose and (4) application to a general (hypothetical) population. 

Endothelial defects of ex vivo corneas at different time points after exposure to various concentrations of are shown in Fig. 5.15. The ordinate shows the score of epithelial defects. The bars over the abscissa give the mean values and standard deviations, from left to right with exposure to 1.5, 3, 6, and 12% H O, respectively, for each concentration of H O. The time points zero mark the state inunediately after application of H Oj, then the healing progress or failure on day 2 and 7 is presented. Each bar represents the mean value of n = 3 individual ex vivo corneas no dose responses, but increasing damage with time. 

Fig. 18. Mossbauer spectra of Cr-Fc304 catalyst after room temperature exposure to air and COz/CO treatment at 703 K. (a) Spectrum in air at 296 K after sample has been stored in air. (b) Sample from (a) reduced in a C02/CO = 4 mixture at 703 K for 10 hr. Spectrum obtained in reaction mixture at 703 K. (c) After cooling (b) to 483 K. (d) After cooling (c) to 296 K. (e) Spectrum of a 0.001-in. Fe NBS standard foil at 296 K. Zero velocity is with respect to a 7Co in copper source. Reproduced from Tops0e and Boudart (96) with permission.

Use of pre-existing standards and criteria to set mandatory levels of clean-up would preclude any site-by-site consideration of exposure and risk, and could result in huge clean-up costs where the risks were inconsequential. In addition, as a formal matter, the Federal water quality criteria for many substances have been left at zero pending full scientific and risk assessment, and use of these criteria would require a zero-release clean-up in a situation which imposed no significant risk in the first place (2). 

A unified safety standard for raw and processed foods This amends the Delaney clause in the FFDCA. Under the Delaney clause, a chemical that causes cancer in experimental animals (regardless of dose) shall not be allowed in processed food. Under the FQPA, pesticide residues shown to cause cancer in humans or animals are allowed on food if the EPA determines that the tolerance is safe, meaning that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from exposure to the pesticide. This amendment is necessary mainly because of improved analytical capabilities. Under the Delaney clause, a carcinogen pesticide would be given a zero tolerance in processed food. However, zero tolerance caused many problems. As the analytical sensitivity increased, concentrations that were zero by old methods became measurable. A unified safety standard eliminates longstanding problems posed by multiple standards for pesticides in raw and processed foods. 

In the industrial worker cohort studies, the range of standardized mortality ratios (SMR see Table 2-2 for definitions of selected epidemiological terms) relevant to exposure to airborne formaldehyde were (a zero reflects a finding of no deaths from the subject cancer) ... 

This is the same as the standard MV model except the portfolio return takes a more complex form (21) and an additional constraint (23) is added that forces net exposure to traditional assets to zero. Also, constraint (26) forces sufficient diversification in the number of hedge funds. 

---