1. Kociba, R.J. (1987). Issues in biochemical applications to risk assessment: How should the Mtd be selected for chronic bioassays?Environ. Health Perspect.76, 169–174.
2.
2. Sontag, J.M., Page, N.P., and Saffiotti, U. (1976). Guidelines for Carcinogen Bioassay in Small Rodents. Dhhs Publication (Nih 76-801). Bethesda, Md: National Cancer Institute.
3.
3. International Agency For Research On Cancer (1980). Long-term and short-term screening assays for carcinogens: A critical appraisal. Iarc Monograph Evaluating Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Suppl. 2, pp. 21-83.
4.
4. Environmental Protection Agency (1982). Health Effects Test Guidelines. Washington, D.C.: Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances.
5.
5. National Toxicology Program (1984). Report of the Ntp Ad Hoc Panel on Chemical Carcinogenesis Testing and Evaluation. Research Triangle Park, Nc: National Toxicology Program.
6.
6. International Life Sciences Institute (1984). The selection of doses in chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity studies. In: Grice, H.C. (ed). Current Issues in Toxicology. New York: Springer Verlag, pp. 9–49.
7.
7. Office Of Science And Technology Policy (1985). Chemical carcinogens: A review of the science and its associated principles.Fed. Reg.,Ii, 10371–10442.
8.
8. Gehring, P.J., Wantanabe, P.G., and Blau, G. E. (1976). Pharmacokinetic studies in evaluation of the toxicological and environmental hazard of chemicals. In: Mehlman, M.A., Shapiro, R.E., and Blumenthal, H., eds. New Concepts in Safety Evaluation. New York: Wiley and Sons, pp. 195–270.
9.
9. Levy, G. (1968). Dose dependent effects in pharmacokinetics. In: Tedeschi, D.H., and Tedeschi, R.E., eds. Importance of Fundamental Principles in Drug Evaluation. New York: Raven Press, pp. 141–172.
10.
10. Littlefield, N.A., Farmer, J.H., and Gaylor, D. W. (1979). Effects of dose and time in a long-term, low-dose carcinogenic study.J. Environ. Pathol Toxicol.8, 17–34.
11.
11. Gold, L.S., Sawyer, C.B., Magaw, R., Backman, G.M., De Veciana, R., Pike, M.C., and Ames, B. N. (1984). A carcinogenic potency database of the standardized results of animal bioassays.Environ. Health Perspect.58, 9–319.
12.
12. Ames, B.N., Magaw, R., and Gold, L. S. (1987). Ranking possible carcinogenic hazards.Science236, 271–280.
13.
13. Huff, J.E., Mcconnell, E.E., Haseman, J.K., Boorman, G.A., Eustis, S.L., Schwetz, B.A., Rao, G.N., Jameson, W., Hart, L.G., and Rall, D. P. (1988). Carcinogenesis studies: Results of 398 experiments on 104 chemicals from the U.S. National Toxicology Program.Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci.534, 1–30.
14.
14. Wilbourn, J., Haroun, L., Heseltine, E., Kaldor, J., Partensky, C., and Vainio, H. (1986). Response of experimental animals to human carcinogens: An analysis based upon the Iarc Monographs programme.Carcinogenesis7, 1853–1863.
15.
15. Hoel, D.G., Haseman, J.K., Hogan, M.D., Huff, J., and Mcconnell, E. E. (1988). The impact of toxicity of carcinogenicity studies: Implications for risk assessment.Carcinogenesis9, 2045–2052.
