Search

Background: The National Research Council (NRC) Committee on Improving Risk Analysis Approaches Used by the U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) recommended that low-dose risks be estimated in some situations using human variability distributions (HVDs). HVD modeling estimates log-normal distributions from data on pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic variables that affect individual sensitivities to the toxic response. These distributions are combined into an overall log-normal distribution for the threshold dose (dose below which there is no contribution to a toxic response) by assuming the variables act independently and multiplicatively. This distribution is centered at a point-of-departure dose that is usually estimated from animal data. The resulting log-normal distribution is used to quantify low-dose risk. Objective: We examined the implications of various assumptions in HVD modeling for estimating low-dose risk. Methods: The assumptions and data used in HVD modeling were subjected to rigorous scrutiny. Results: We found that the assumption that the variables affecting human sensitivity vary log normally is not scientifically defensible. Other distributions that are equally consistent with the data provide very different estimates of low-dose risk. HVD modeling can also involve an assumption that a threshold dose defined by dichotomizing a continuous apical response has a log-normal distribution. This assumption is shown to be incompatible (except under highly specialized conditions) with assuming that the continuous apical response itself is log normal. However, the two assumptions can lead to very different estimates of low-dose risk. The assumption in HVD modeling that the threshold dose can be expressed as a function of a product of independent variables lacks phenomenological support. We provide an example that shows that this assumption is generally invalid. Conclusion: In view of these problems, we recommend caution in the use of HVD modeling as a general approach to estimating low-dose risks from human exposures to toxic chemicals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Supreme Court's split decision in Rapanos v. United States left the lower courts with the question of whether to apply the plurality's restrictive test for determining which waters are protected under the Clean Water Act (CWA), or whether to use Justice Kennedy's more flexible, policy-based test. For those courts intending to follow Kennedy's concurrence, the parameters of his "significant nexus" test were far from explicit. In Baykeeper v. Cargill Salt Division the Ninth Circuit relinquished its first opportunity to apply the significant nexus test expansively in order to keep the CWA potent as a tool for environmental protection. The best remaining approach for litigants seeking to establish CWA coverage of non-navigable-in-fact waters that are not wetlands is to proceed under the theory that such waters are tributaries with a significant nexus to navigable waterways, pressing this language into service in the broadest array of hydrological scenarios possible. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

During the 1990s, American Indian Nations assumed regulatory primacy over certain portions of federal environmental laws in the United States. For tribes that have not developed their own standards, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued policy statements aimed at incorporating tribal health and natural resources. While many communities of color have to fight to get heard in state and federal permitting processes, the U.S. EPA has made it an explicit mission to always include Indian Nations. Thus, "getting to the decision-making table" - a key goal of environmental justice groups - is presumably serving the interests of tribes seeking environmental justice. However, being involved in regulatory processes, as tribes are, may not be enough for Indian Nations or other communities of color. It is to this end that I write this article - should "getting to the table" be the ultimate goal for environmental justice groups, and how should this table be structured? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article talks about the effort of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) to establish environmental protection policy and standards. On November 2005, the EPA published its final rule pertaining to the Standards and Practices for All Appropriate Inquiry. Shortly thereafter, the ASTM issued its updated E1527-05 Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process. This standard contains new requirements and latest landowner liability protections that evolved as a result of Congress' actions and the new rule of the Environmental Protection Agency.

The article focuses on the environmental health protection issues in New Zealand and compares the environemtal law in the country with that in the U.S. The Environmental Performance Index ranked New Zealand first out of 133 countries in the areas of health, biodiversity, energy, water, air, and natural resources, in an announcement at the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum in January 2006 in Davos, Switzerland. With 78.5/100 points, the U.S. ranked 28th. Demand for water for all purposes is increasing in New Zealand. The current pressures on freshwater ecosystems are less severe in New Zealand than those in many other industrialized countries. As the 1986 New Zealand Environment Act establishes the New Zealand Ministry for the Environment and its associated minister, it roughly corresponds to the 1969 U.S. National Environmental Policy Act.

The article discusses how a Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies survey of 1,000 adults nationwide found that Americans are seriously concerned about the country's environmental health and want more political action on the environment. A majority of voters--84 percent--say a candidate's stance on the environment will be a factor in how they decide to vote this November. Poll results indicate that three out of five Americans rate the quality of the country's overall environment as "only fair" or "poor," while just 3 percent say the environment is "excellent." American opinion of global environmental conditions is even more striking: Three-fourths rate global conditions as "only fair" or "poor", and 63 percent say conditions are worsening. According to the poll, 67 percent of Americans say the U.S. government does not do enough to protect the environment. Fifty-six percent of Americans, especially younger voters, say that the candidates should talk more about their environmental plans.

The article focuses on the report entitled "2008 Report on the Environment" (EPA 2008 ROE) released by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The report presents information that helps the public better understand trends in the condition of land, water, air and related changes in human health and the environment in the United States. Scientifically sound indicators were used, which are suggested for review before using to ensure the details would be useful and supported by technically sound data. According to the EPA, its purpose is to create a reliable set of information useful for year-to-year comparisons and for planning as well.

This article reports that activists are criticizing a proposal by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to speed up its regular review of air-quality standards. By law, EPA must revisit its National Ambient Air Quality Standards every 5 years. Staff scientists evaluate the latest research and propose ranges for new standards, which are then reviewed by the agency's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee. Because EPA regularly misses its deadline and gets sued, an internal EPA committee proposed several suggestions in for speeding up the process. EPA chief scientist George Gray said that the idea behind this proposal is not to have the policy drive the science.

The article informs that critics of revision to air pollution standards, proposed last month by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), say the new daily threshold will only marginally improve public health. In fact, an outside panel that made such a recommendation is not happy with EPA's decision. EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson did not answer that question during a 20 December teleconference announcing the standards but said he had thought long and hard about the data. Studies have shown that inhaling the small particles that make up soot, a widespread byproduct of combustion, harms health, although the mechanisms are not all clear. In 1997, the EPA first regulated fine particles measuring 2.5 micrometers or less. As part of a settlement in a suit brought by the American Lung Association, EPA was required to propose revised PM 2.5 rules by the end of 2005. Such a reduction could make a big difference in public health, scientists have found. The EPA models for nine major U.S. cities predict that the tightest daily and annual standards recommended by CASAC would cut the roughly 4700 deaths due each year to PM 2.5 in those cities by 48%.

Research budgets at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would face a 4.3% cut, to $589 million, in a spending plan approved last week by the U.S. House of Representatives' appropriations committee. The cuts are part of an increasingly gloomy budget picture for science. The panel restored funding to EPA's extramural grants program, called Science to Achieve Results, bringing the program back to its fiscal year 2004 level of about $76.1 million, with an additional $9.5 million spent on graduate fellowships.