Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorKostoff, Ronald N.
dc.date.accessioned2018-07-23T15:28:25Z
dc.date.available2018-07-23T15:28:25Z
dc.date.issued2018
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1853/60067
dc.description.abstractThe present monograph examines the differences (for selected toxic substances) between 1) the Federal legally enforceable occupational Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs) set by OSHA and 2) low-level exposures reported in the biomedical literature associated with serious adverse effects. In these selected cases, the PELs are orders of magnitude higher than what the premier biomedical literature would suggest is protective. Our previous monograph on combinations of stressors (https://smartech.gatech.edu/handle/1853/59719) concluded that testing of single stressors (the main determinant of myriad types of Exposure Limits), rather than combinations of stressors, greatly under-estimates the toxicity of the stressors in real-world environments. When these 1) stressor combination conclusions are added to the 2) results from the present monograph, one can 3) seriously question whether present-day Exposure Limit regulations offer credible levels of occupational protection from any potentially toxic stressors.en_US
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.rightsAttribution 3.0 United States*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/us/*
dc.titleOSHA Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs) are too Permissiveen_US
dc.typeBooken_US
dc.contributor.corporatenameGeorgia Institute of Technology. School of Public Policyen_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Attribution 3.0 United States
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Attribution 3.0 United States