Skip header and navigation

3 records – page 1 of 1.

[Alternative methodologies for standardization of deleterious environmental factors].

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature183949
Source
Gig Sanit. 2003 Jul-Aug;(4):45-7
Publication Type
Article
Author
P G Tkachev
A A Liapkalo
I P L'gova
V N Riabchikov
Source
Gig Sanit. 2003 Jul-Aug;(4):45-7
Language
Russian
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Air Pollutants - adverse effects - standards
Conservation of Natural Resources - legislation & jurisprudence
Environmental Illness - etiology - prevention & control
Hazardous Substances - adverse effects
Humans
Russia
Abstract
Some ecologists propose in recent papers to replace the ideology of the maximum allowable concentrations (MAC) by a new biotic concept of regional environmental monitoring by the method of ecologically allowable levels (EAL). By comparing the basic provisions of MAC and EAL methodologies, by taking into account their advantages and disadvantages, the authors conclude that there is no alternative to the hygienic MAC concept. The principles of EAL substantiation have no well-grounded scientific-and-practical methodology. New concepts of the common control of environmental quality, the health status of man, animals, plants, and the microworld should be sought by using the existing regulations.
PubMed ID
12934287 View in PubMed
Less detail

Canada Wide Standard for particulate matter and ozone: cost-benefit analysis using a Life Quality Index.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature186273
Source
Risk Anal. 2003 Feb;23(1):55-67
Publication Type
Article
Date
Feb-2003
Author
Mahesh D Pandey
Jatin S Nathwani
Author Affiliation
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario N2L 361, Canada. mdpandey@uwaterloo.ca
Source
Risk Anal. 2003 Feb;23(1):55-67
Date
Feb-2003
Language
English
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Air Pollutants - adverse effects - standards
Air Pollution - adverse effects - prevention & control
Canada
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Humans
Ozone - adverse effects - standards
Public Health
Quality of Life
Risk Management
Abstract
The adverse impacts of particulate air pollution and ground-level ozone on public health and the environment have motivated the development of Canada Wide Standards (CWS) on air quality. In cost-benefit analysis of air-quality options, valuation of reduction in mortality is a critical step as it accounts for almost 80% of the total benefits and any bias in its evaluation can significantly skew the outcome of the analysis. The overestimation of benefits is a source of concern since it has the potential of diverting valuable resources from other needs to support broader health care objectives, education, and social services that contribute to enhanced quality of life. We have developed a framework of reasoning for the assessment of risk-reduction initiatives that would support the public interest and enhance safety and quality of life. This article presents the Life Quality Index (LQI) as a tool to quantify the level of expenditure beyond which it is no longer justifiable to spend resources in the name of safety. It is shown that the LQI is a compound social indicator comprising societal wealth and longevity, and it is also equivalent to a utility function consistent with the basic principles of welfare economics and decision analysis. The LQI approach overcomes several shortcomings of the method used by the CWS Development Committee and provides guidance on the compliance costs that can be justified to meet the Standards.
Notes
Comment In: Risk Anal. 2004 Apr;24(2):305-6; author reply 307-915078300
PubMed ID
12635722 View in PubMed
Less detail

[Padney, M D and Nathwani J S (2003). Canada wide standard for particulate matter and ozone: cost benefit analysis using a life quality index. Risk Analysis, 23(1), 55-67].

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature180615
Source
Risk Anal. 2004 Apr;24(2):305-6; author reply 307-9
Publication Type
Article
Date
Apr-2004