Radiobiological techniques applied to environmental problems.

There is growing recognition that carcinogenic risk extrapolation to low doses (and standard setting) should consider the mode of action of a given chemical. So far, there is agreement on distinguishing between genotoxic and nongenotoxic chemicals; yet, further differentiations seem appropriate. For genotoxic carcinogens, case studies of chemicals point to many possibilities for assessing carcinogenic risk. There are numerous, apparently genotoxic carcinogens where practical thresholds are a matter of discussion. For instance, positive data of chromosomal effects only, in the absence of mutagenicity, may support the characterization of a compound that produces carcinogenic effects only at high, toxic doses. There is a wide consensus that for non-DNA-reactive genotoxicants, such as aneugens, thresholds should be defined. Specific mechanisms of clastogenicity have been repeatedly addressed as also having thresholds, such as topoisomerase II poisons, or mechanisms based on reactive oxygen. These and other arguments together lead to the distinction of four groups of carcinogens, which have been introduced (C. Streffer et al., 2004, Springer-Verlag). There are nonthreshold genotoxic carcinogens (for low-dose risk assessment, the linear nonthreshold [LNT] model appears appropriate); genotoxic carcinogens, for which the existence of a threshold cannot be sufficiently supported (in these cases the LNT model is used as a default assumption, based on the scientific uncertainty and backed by the precautionary principle); genotoxic carcinogens for which a practical threshold is supported; and nongenotoxic carcinogens and non-DNA-reactive carcinogens (for these compounds a true [perfect] threshold is associated with a clearly founded no-observed-adverse-effect level).

Carcinogens↗

PubMed2004

Risk analysis of drinking water microbial contamination versus disinfection by-products (DBPs).

Managing the provision of safe drinking water has a renewed focus in light of the new World Health Organization (WHO) water safety plans. Risk analysis is a necessary component to assist in selecting priority hazards and identifying hazardous scenarios, be they qualitative to quantitative assessments. For any approach, acute diarrhoeal pathogens are often the higher risk issue for municipal water supplies, no matter how health burden is assessed. Furthermore, potential sequellae (myocarditis, diabetes, reactive arthritis and cancers) only further increase the potential health burden of pathogens; despite the enormous uncertainties in determining pathogen exposures and chemical dose-responses within respective microbial and chemical analyses. These interpretations are currently being improved by Bayesian and bootstrapping approaches to estimate parameters for stochastic assessments. A case example, covering the health benefits of ozonation for Cryptosporidium inactivation versus potential cancers from bromate exposures, illustrated the higher risks from a pathogen than one of the most likely disinfection by-products (DBPs). Such analyses help justify the industries long-held view of the benefits of multiple barriers to hazards and that microbial contamination of water supplies pose a clear public health risk when treatment is inadequate. Therefore, efforts to reduce potential health risks from DBP must not compromise pathogen control, despite socio-political issues.

Carcinogens↗