|
|
|
|
| LEADER |
04885nmm a2200361 u 4500 |
| 001 |
EB000711787 |
| 003 |
EBX01000000000000000564869 |
| 005 |
00000000000000.0 |
| 007 |
cr||||||||||||||||||||| |
| 008 |
140122 ||| eng |
| 020 |
|
|
|a 9789400927117
|
| 100 |
1 |
|
|a Salter, L.
|
| 245 |
0 |
0 |
|a Mandated Science: Science and Scientists in the Making of Standards
|h Elektronische Ressource
|b Science and Scientists in the Making of Standards
|c by L. Salter, W. Leiss, Edwin Levy
|
| 250 |
|
|
|a 1st ed. 1988
|
| 260 |
|
|
|a Dordrecht
|b Springer Netherlands
|c 1988, 1988
|
| 300 |
|
|
|a XII, 220 p
|b online resource
|
| 505 |
0 |
|
|a One: Introduction to Mandated Science -- Identifying Mandated Science -- The Character of Mandated Science -- The Approach to be Taken in the Study of Mandated Science -- Standard Setting: A Case Study of Mandated Science -- The Design of the Study -- Specific Methodological Decisions -- The Organization of the Book -- Two: An Introduction to Standards -- The Features of Standards -- Confusions in Terminology -- The Data Problem in Standard Setting -- The Debates about Standards -- Standard Setting as an Example of Mandated Science -- Three: In the Eye of the StormCase Study One: The American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists -- The Early History -- The Active Phase -- The Transition Period -- ACGIH Today -- Membership of the TLV Committee -- Standard Setting in ACGIH -- ACGIH Standards -- Controversies about Standards -- The Status of ACGIH Standards -- The Use of ACGIH Standards -- Discussion --
|
| 505 |
0 |
|
|a The Character of Standard Setting: The Two Organizations -- The Character of Standard Setting: The Two Controversies -- Standards and the Debate about Regulation -- The Debate about Standards: Prescriptive versus Performance Standards -- Standards and Mandated Science -- Eight: Mandated Science -- The Character of Mandated Science -- Questions Arising from the Study of Mandated Science -- The Debates in Mandated Science -- Conclusions from the Study of Mandated Science -- Notes
|
| 505 |
0 |
|
|a Four: Alphabet SoupCase Study Two: The Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues -- The Codex Alimentarius -- The Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues (CCPR) -- The Joint Management Committee on Pesticide Residues -- The Three Organizations -- The Standards -- The Status of Codex Standards -- Discussion -- Five: Political ChemicalsCase Study Three: The Toronto Lead Controversy -- Background Information -- Standards in the Toronto Lead Controversy -- The Toronto Lead Controversy (1) — Early History -- The Toronto Lead Controversy (2) — the Case Goes to Court -- The Toronto Lead Controversy (3) — Words Become Dangerous -- The Toronto Lead Controversy (4) — Studying the Problem -- The Toronto Lead Controversy (5) — The Hearing Acts as a Court -- Discussion -- Six: An Economic PoisonCase Study Four: Pentachlorophenol -- Sorne Background Information -- The Standards -- History of the Controversy.-Discussion -- Seven: Standards Revisited -- The Characteristics of Standards --
|
| 653 |
|
|
|a Ethics
|
| 653 |
|
|
|a Environmental management
|
| 653 |
|
|
|a Sociology
|
| 653 |
|
|
|a Environmental Management
|
| 653 |
|
|
|a Moral Philosophy and Applied Ethics
|
| 700 |
1 |
|
|a Leiss, W.
|e [author]
|
| 700 |
1 |
|
|a Levy, Edwin
|e [author]
|
| 041 |
0 |
7 |
|a eng
|2 ISO 639-2
|
| 989 |
|
|
|b SBA
|a Springer Book Archives -2004
|
| 490 |
0 |
|
|a Environmental Ethics and Science Policy
|
| 028 |
5 |
0 |
|a 10.1007/978-94-009-2711-7
|
| 856 |
4 |
0 |
|u https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-2711-7?nosfx=y
|x Verlag
|3 Volltext
|
| 082 |
0 |
|
|a 170
|
| 520 |
|
|
|a For a long time I would not eat strawberries. In 1977, a scandal broke about a testing laboratory having falsified the data that was used to register a large number of pesticides. The Canadian government, along with several others, began the process of re-evaluating both the procedures for testing and these specific chemicals. One chemical proved particularly controversial, the commonly-used pesticide named captan. In light of the controversy, which was manifest in a conflict between two government departments, in 1981, the Canadian government chose to appoint a special panel of experts to advise them. I was a member of this expert committee. The experience on the captan committee did little to reassure me, either about captan or about the way that decisions had been made about many pesticides in widespread use. Although it could not be demonstrated that captan was dangerous to people in the amounts to which they would likely be exposed, the animal studies provided the basis for concern. Prudence required at the very least that consumers take the precaution of washing their fruit, for captan is widely used on apples, cherries and berry fruits. Captan residues wash off apples relatively easily; they are less easily removed from berry fruits, such as straw berries
|