Reflections on chemical risk assessment or how (not) to serve society with science

Carcinogenic and human health risk assessment of children's and adults' exposure to toxic metal(oid)s from air PM10 in critical sites of the Republic of Serbia

With global urbanization and industrialization, air pollution has become an inevitable problem. Among air pollutants, toxic metals bound to particulate matter (PM) have a high hazardous potential, contributing to the development of several diseases, including various types of cancer. Due to PM pollution, Serbia is considered to be among the most polluted countries in Europe. Therefore, the objective of the study was to assess and characterize the non-carcinogenic and carcinogenic risks of children's and adults' exposure to metal(oid)s (Pb, Cd, Ni, and As) bound to PM₁₀ in five of the most polluted areas in the Republic of Serbia (Subotica, Smederevo, Bor, Valjevo, and Kraljevo). Non-carcinogenic (HQ and HI) and carcinogenic risk (CR) were calculated using USEPA methodology. Our results show that PM₁₀ concentrations exceeded the annual limit of 40 μg/m³ at four out of five monitoring sites (ranging from 44.33 to 63.25 μg/m³). Results obtained from Bor monitoring station show that safe limits were exceeded for both children and adults, indicating an unacceptable risk (> 1) obtained for inhalation exposure to the As (HQ = 6.14) and Cd (HQ = 1.17), while total HI was 7.43, which characterized the risk as unacceptable. For the same station, the CR value was 1.44E^-04 (> 1 × 10^-4). In other sites, the risks were acceptable. The characterized risk from exposure to the toxic elements via PM₁₀ in critical locations in Serbia contributes to improving air quality by requiring regulatory organs to take new actions and adopt new measures to reduce air pollution.

Building Blocks Towards a Proportionate Chemicals Policy With a Focus on the Netherlands

In this contribution, we propose that ‘sound’ government policy should be characterised by a proportionate, integral vision with due consideration to tradeoffs between social costs and benefits. This principle also applies to government policy regarding the protection of workers from exposure to chemicals. It should be taken into account that having a job is a huge health benefit. Less educated people are statistically likely to enjoy ten additional healthy years, if employed. Although there is no debate about the risks of exposure to high doses of chemicals, there is most certainly debate on the magnitude, nature and possible cumulative effects of low-dose exposure to chemicals. These are established by model-based assumptions. The current advisory structure in which the Health Council of the Netherlands restricts its focus to the immediate health benefits for workers on the basis of risk avoidance models, and the Social and Economic Council of the Netherlands which focuses primarily on policy costs for trade and industry, is hardly a sound basis for well-considered decision making. The challenge for the scientific experts is to provide political administrators with an insightful social cost-benefit analysis, including all the concomitant uncertainties.