IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v10y1990i4p609-613.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Fallacy of Ranking Possible Carcinogen Hazards Using the TD50

Author

Listed:
  • Daniel Wartenberg
  • Michael A. Gallo

Abstract

Ames et al. have proposed a new model for evaluating carcinogenic hazards in the environment. They advocate ranking possible carcinogens on the basis of the TD50, the estimated dose at which 50% of the test animals would get tumors, and extrapolating that ranking to all other doses. We argue that implicit in this methodology is a simplistic and inappropriate statistical model. All carcinogens are assumed to act similarly and to have dose‐response curves of the same shape that differ only in the value of one parameter. We show by counterexample that the rank order of cancer potencies for two chemicals can change over a reasonable range of doses. Ames et al.'s use of these TD50 ranks to compare the hazards from low level exposures to contaminants in our food and environment is wholly inappropriate and inaccurate. Their dismissal of public health concern for environmental exposures, in general, based on these comparisons, is not supported by the data.

Suggested Citation

  • Daniel Wartenberg & Michael A. Gallo, 1990. "The Fallacy of Ranking Possible Carcinogen Hazards Using the TD50," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(4), pages 609-613, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:10:y:1990:i:4:p:609-613
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1990.tb00546.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1990.tb00546.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1990.tb00546.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Todd W. Thorslund & Charles C. Brown & Gail Charnley, 1987. "Biologically Motivated Cancer Risk Models," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 7(1), pages 109-119, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. D. Krewski & D .W. Gaylor & A. P. Soms & M. Szyszkowicz, 1993. "An Overview of the Report: Correlation Between Carcinogenic Potency and the Maximum Tolerated Dose: Implications for Risk Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(4), pages 383-398, August.
    2. Gay Goodman, 1990. "The Importance of Being Quantitative When Crying “Fallacy”," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(4), pages 619-621, December.
    3. Peter M. VanDoren, 1996. "The Effects of Exposure to “Synthetic” Chemicals on Human Health: A Review," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(3), pages 367-376, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Daniel Krewski & Richard D. Thomas, 1992. "Carcinogenic Mixtures," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(1), pages 105-113, March.
    2. Duncan J. Murdoch & Daniel Krewski & John Wargo, 1992. "Cancer Risk Assessment with Intermittent Exposure," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(4), pages 569-577, December.
    3. Harvey J. Clewell III & Dennis W. Quinn & Melvin E. Andersen & Rory B. Conolly, 1995. "An Improved Approximation to the Exact Solution of the Two‐Stage Clonal Growth Model of Cancer," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(4), pages 467-473, August.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:10:y:1990:i:4:p:609-613. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.