Legal implications of hormesis

1 Applegate JS. The perils of unreasonable risk: information, regulatory policy, and toxic substances control . Columbia Law Rev 1991; 91: 261-261 .

2 Poirier KA , Dourson ML. Is the current risk assessment paradigm used by U.S. EPA and others compatible with the concept of hormesis? BELLE Newsl 1999; 8: 22-22 .

3 Cross FB. Beyond Benzene: establishing principles for a signicance threshold on regulatable risks of cancer . Emoiy Law J 1986; 35: 1-57 .

4 Cross FB. The consequences of consensus: dangerous compromises of the Food Quality Protection Act . Washington Univ Law Q 1997; 75: 1155-1206 .

5 Abelson PH. Commentary: Exaggerated risks of chemcal . J Clin Epidemiol 1995; 48: 173-173 .

6 Environmental Protection Agency . Proposed guidelines for carcinogen risk assessment . Fed Regist 1996; 61: 17960-17960 .

7 Wagner WE. The science charade in toxic risk regultion . Columbia Law Rev 1995; 95: 1613-1613 .

8 Chlorine Chemistry Council v. Environmental Protetion Agency. 2000; 206 F.3d 1286.

9 Lead Industries Association v. Environmental Protection Agency. 1980; 647 F. 2d 1130.

10 Natural Resources Defense Council v. Environmental Protection Agency. 1986; 804 F.2d 710.

11 Natural Resources Defense Council v. Environmental Protection Agency. 1987; 824 F.2d 1146.

12 American Trucking Associations v. Environmental Protection Agency. 1999; 175 F.3d 1027.

13 Industrial Union Department, AFL-CIO v. American Petroleum Institute. 1980; 448 U.S. 607.

14 Goldsmith R. Nuclear power meets the 101st Congress, a “one-act” comedy: regulation of Nuclear Regulatory Commission Licensees under the Clean Air Act . Virginia Environ Law j 1992; 12: 103-103 .