Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
Alexander Shlyakh, Shlyakhte Ilya, Broido Claire, Richard Wilson (1993)
Estimating uncertainty in physical measurements, observational and environmental studies: lessons from trends in nuclear data1993 (2nd) International Symposium on Uncertainty Modeling and Analysis
(1986)
Assessing uncertainty in physical constants
A. Roseberry, D. Burmaster (1991)
A note: estimating exposure concentrations of lipophilic organic chemicals to humans via raw finfish fillets.Journal of exposure analysis and environmental epidemiology, 1 4
D. Hattis, K. Shapiro (1990)
Analysis of dose/time/response relationships for chronic toxic effects: the case of acrylamide.Neurotoxicology, 11 2
A. Roseberry, D. Burmaster (1992)
Lognormal distributions for water intake by children and adults.Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis, 12 1
D. Hattis (1986)
Pharmacogenetics: ethnic differences in reactions to drugs and xenobiotics.Science, 234 4773
B. Ketterer, D. Meyer, E. Lalor, P. Johnson, F. Guengerich, L. Distlerath, P. Reilly, F. Kadlubar, T. Flammang, Y. Yamazoe (1991)
A comparison of levels of glutathione transferases, cytochromes P450 and acetyltransferases in human livers.Biochemical pharmacology, 41 4
Murray Dm, Burmaster De (1992)
Estimated distributions for total body surface area of men and women in the United States.Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology, 2
Hattis Hattis, Shapiro Shapiro (1990)
documentNeuroToxicology, 11
K. Thompson, D. Burmaster (1991)
Parametric distributions for soil ingestion by children.Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis, 11 2
P. Kuznick (1986)
Hopes from technology: imagining tomorrow.Science, 234 4773
D. Hattis (1990)
Three Candidate “Laws” of Uncertainty Analysis1Risk Analysis, 10
Betsy Ruffle, D. Burmaster, P. Anderson, H. Gordon (1994)
Lognormal Distributions for Fish Consumption by the General U.S. PopulationRisk Analysis, 14
D. Hattis, K. Silver (1994)
Human interindividual variability--a major source of uncertainty in assessing risks for noncancer health effects.Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis, 14 4
Hattis Hattis (1986)
Book Review of Ethnic Differences in Reactions to Drugs and Xenobiotics, W. Kalow, W. Goedde, and D. P. AgarwalScience, 234
A. Shlyakhter, D. Kammen (1992)
Sea-level rise or fall?Nature, 357
Mp Wang, S. Hanson (1985)
The Acute Toxicity of Chlorine on Freshwater Organisms: Time-Concentration Relationships of Constant and Intermittent Exposures
A. Shlyakhter (1994)
An improved framework for uncertainty analysis: Accounting for unsuspected errorsRisk Analysis, 14
J. Sahl, T. Crocker, R. Gordon, E. Faeder (1985)
Polychlorinated biphenyl concentrations in the blood plasma of a selected sample of non-occupationally exposed southern California working adults.The Science of the total environment, 46
D. Layton (1993)
Metabolically consistent breathing rates for use in dose assessments.Health physics, 64 1
J. Brainard, D. Burmaster (1992)
Bivariate distributions for height and weight of men and women in the United States.Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis, 12 2
C. Travis, H. Hattemer-Frey (1990)
Health Effects of Municipal Waste Incineration
D. Hattis (1990)
Pharmacokinetic principles for dose-rate extrapolation of carcinogenic risk from genetically active agents.Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis, 10 2
G. Gale (1984)
Science and the philosophersNature, 312
C. Travis, M. Land (1990)
Estimating the mean of data sets with nondetectable valuesEnvironmental Science & Technology, 24
In recent years the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has been challenged both externally and internally to move beyond its traditional conservative single‐point treatment of various input parameters in risk assessments. In the first section, we assess when more involved distribution‐based analyses might be indicated for such common types of risk assessment applications as baseline assessments of Superfund sites. Then in two subsequent sections, we give an overview with some case studies of technical analyses of (A) variability/heterogeneity and (B) uncertainty. By “inter‐individual variability” is meant the real variation among individuals in exposure‐producing behavior, in exposures, or some other parameter (such as differences among individual municipal solid waste incinerators in emissions). In contrast, “uncertainty” is a description of the imperfection in knowledge of the true value of a particular parameter or its real variability in an individual or a group. In general uncertainty is reducible by additional information‐gathering or analysis activities (better data, better models), whereas real variability will not change (although it may be more accurately known) as a result of better or more extensive measurements. The purpose of the rather long‐winded exposition of these two final sections is to show the differences between analyses of these two different things, both of which are described using the language of probability distributions.
Risk Analysis – Wiley
Published: Oct 1, 1994
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.