Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 7 de 7
Filtrar
Más filtros











Base de datos
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Health Policy ; 126(11): 1090-1102, 2022 11.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36058776

RESUMEN

Although mobility restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic were intended to change behaviours by influencing risk awareness, they might have prompted a rise in risk anxiety ('worry for one's health') both among individuals exposed to such restrictions and those living in border countries. This paper studies this question by examining survey data from 22 European countries in the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic (March 20th and April 6th 2020). Drawing on an event study analysis we show that COVID-19 mobility restrictions raised individuals COVID-19 risk awareness both in the exposed and border countries for almost a week after the announcement. The spillover effect on border countries accounts for about 67% of the effect in the exposed country. However, mobility restrictions gave rise to an increase in  risk anxiety in low-risk countries (which is between 4 and 7 times higher than moderate and high-risk countries). These effects are heterogeneous across age, education and socioeconomic status.


Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Pandemias , Ansiedad , Europa (Continente) , Humanos , SARS-CoV-2
2.
J Occup Environ Hyg ; 12 Suppl 1: S127-44, 2015.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26099071

RESUMEN

Occupational exposure limits (OELs) serve as health-based benchmarks against which measured or estimated workplace exposures can be compared. In the years since the introduction of OELs to public health practice, both developed and developing countries have established processes for deriving, setting, and using OELs to protect workers exposed to hazardous chemicals. These processes vary widely, however, and have thus resulted in a confusing international landscape for identifying and applying such limits in workplaces. The occupational hygienist will encounter significant overlap in coverage among organizations for many chemicals, while other important chemicals have OELs developed by few, if any, organizations. Where multiple organizations have published an OEL, the derived value often varies considerably-reflecting differences in both risk policy and risk assessment methodology as well as access to available pertinent data. This article explores the underlying reasons for variability in OELs, and recommends the harmonization of risk-based methods used by OEL-deriving organizations. A framework is also proposed for the identification and systematic evaluation of OEL resources, which occupational hygienists can use to support risk characterization and risk management decisions in situations where multiple potentially relevant OELs exist.


Asunto(s)
Exposición Profesional/normas , Medición de Riesgo/métodos , Valores Limites del Umbral , Sustancias Peligrosas/toxicidad , Humanos , Cooperación Internacional , Exposición Profesional/prevención & control , Salud Laboral , Gestión de Riesgos
3.
Risk Anal ; 35(5): 849-58, 2015 May.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25515306

RESUMEN

The concept of "risk policy" is used with increasing frequency by decisionmakers, researchers, and the media. However, there is no precise, generally accepted definition of what is covered by policies in this area. Based on a scoping review of the literature published in key journals in the sector, we have identified the main characteristics of public risk policies drawn up and implemented in the United States. The sample comprised 21 articles published in six multidisciplinary journals between 2000 and 2010.

4.
Crit Rev Toxicol ; 44 Suppl 3: 1-5, 2014 Aug.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25070413

RESUMEN

The Health and Environmental Sciences Institute (HESI)-coordinated Risk Assessment in the 21st Century (RISK21) project was initiated to develop a scientific, transparent, and efficient approach to the evolving world of human health risk assessment, and involved over 120 participants from 12 countries, 15 government institutions, 20 universities, 2 non-governmental organizations, and 12 corporations. This paper provides a brief overview of the tiered RISK21 framework called the roadmap and risk visualization matrix, and articulates the core principles derived by RISK21 participants that guided its development. Subsequent papers describe the roadmap and matrix in greater detail. RISK21 principles include focusing on problem formulation, utilizing existing information, starting with exposure assessment (rather than toxicity), and using a tiered process for data development. Bringing estimates of exposure and toxicity together on a two-dimensional matrix provides a clear rendition of human safety and risk. The value of the roadmap is its capacity to chronicle the stepwise acquisition of scientific information and display it in a clear and concise fashion. Furthermore, the tiered approach and transparent display of information will contribute to greater efficiencies by calling for data only as needed (enough precision to make a decision), thus conserving animals and other resources.


Asunto(s)
Exposición a Riesgos Ambientales , Estado de Salud , Salud Pública , Medición de Riesgo/métodos , Toma de Decisiones , Exposición a Riesgos Ambientales/efectos adversos , Exposición a Riesgos Ambientales/prevención & control , Humanos , National Academy of Sciences, U.S. , Salud Pública/métodos , Salud Pública/tendencias , Seguridad , Reino Unido , Estados Unidos
5.
Crit Rev Toxicol ; 44 Suppl 3: 6-16, 2014 Aug.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25070414

RESUMEN

Abstract The RISK21 integrated evaluation strategy is a problem formulation-based exposure-driven risk assessment roadmap that takes advantage of existing information to graphically represent the intersection of exposure and toxicity data on a highly visual matrix. This paper describes in detail the process for using the roadmap and matrix. The purpose of this methodology is to optimize the use of prior information and testing resources (animals, time, facilities, and personnel) to efficiently and transparently reach a risk and/or safety determination. Based on the particular problem, exposure and toxicity data should have sufficient precision to make such a decision. Estimates of exposure and toxicity, bounded by variability and/or uncertainty, are plotted on the X- and Y-axes of the RISK21 matrix, respectively. The resulting intersection is a highly visual representation of estimated risk. Decisions can then be made to increase precision in the exposure or toxicity estimates or declare that the available information is sufficient. RISK21 represents a step forward in the goal to introduce new methodologies into 21st century risk assessment. Indeed, because of its transparent and visual process, RISK21 has the potential to widen the scope of risk communication beyond those with technical expertise.


Asunto(s)
Exposición a Riesgos Ambientales , Sustancias Peligrosas/toxicidad , Medición de Riesgo/métodos , Toma de Decisiones , Exposición a Riesgos Ambientales/efectos adversos , Exposición a Riesgos Ambientales/prevención & control , Sustancias Peligrosas/química , Humanos , Modelos Teóricos , Probabilidad , Relación Estructura-Actividad Cuantitativa , Seguridad , Reino Unido , Estados Unidos , United States Environmental Protection Agency
6.
J Health Econ ; 35: 82-93, 2014 May.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-24699210

RESUMEN

We examine how different welfarist frameworks evaluate the social value of mortality risk reduction. These frameworks include classical, distributively unweighted cost-benefit analysis--i.e., the "value per statistical life" (VSL) approach-and various social welfare functions (SWFs). The SWFs are either utilitarian or prioritarian, applied to policy choice under risk in either an "ex post" or "ex ante" manner. We examine the conditions on individual utility and on the SWF under which these frameworks display sensitivity to wealth and to baseline risk. Moreover, we discuss whether these frameworks satisfy related properties that have received some attention in the literature, namely equal value of risk reduction, preference for risk equity, and catastrophe aversion. We show that the particular manner in which VSL ranks risk-reduction measures is not necessarily shared by other welfarist frameworks.


Asunto(s)
Actitud Frente a la Muerte , Conducta de Reducción del Riesgo , Valores Sociales , Bienestar Social/economía , Valor de la Vida/economía , Análisis Costo-Beneficio , Humanos , Factores Socioeconómicos
7.
Integr Environ Assess Manag ; 9(3): e15-26, 2013 Jul.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-23633247

RESUMEN

Engineered nanomaterials (ENMs) possess novel properties making them attractive for application in a wide spectrum of fields. These novel properties are not accounted for in the environmental risk assessment methods that the Registration, Evaluation, Authorization, and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) proposes in their guidance on environmental exposure estimation, although ENMs are already applied in a variety of consumer and industrial products. It is thus necessary to evaluate the guidance document REACH provides on environmental exposure estimation on its applicability to ENMs. This is most urgently the case for engineered nanoparticles (ENPs), as the novel properties are most often only applicable to them. The environmental fate of ENPs was reviewed and compared to the environmental fate of chemicals according to the REACH guidance. Major deviations between the fate of ENPs and predicted fate by REACH were found. They were related to at least 1 of 3 major assumptions made in REACH guidance: 1) in REACH, environmental alteration processes are all thought of as removal processes, whereas alterations of ENPs in the environment may greatly affect their properties, environmental effects, and behavior, 2) in REACH, chemicals are supposed to dissolve instantaneously and completely on release into the environment, whereas ENPs should be treated as nondissolved nanosized solids, and 3) in REACH, partitioning of dissolved chemicals to solid particles in air, water, and soil is estimated with thermodynamic equilibrium coefficients, but in the case of ENPs thermodynamic equilibrium between "dispersed" and "attached" states is generally not expected. The environmental exposure assessment of REACH therefore needs adjustment to cover the specific environmental fate of ENPs. Incorporation of the specific environmental fate processes of ENPs into the environmental risk assessment framework of REACH requires a pragmatic approach.


Asunto(s)
Exposición a Riesgos Ambientales , Monitoreo del Ambiente/métodos , Contaminantes Ambientales/toxicidad , Nanoestructuras/toxicidad , Animales , Contaminantes Ambientales/análisis , Contaminantes Ambientales/química , Humanos , Nanoestructuras/análisis , Nanoestructuras/química , Medición de Riesgo/métodos
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA