Difference between revisions of "Comparative risk assessment of dioxin and fine particles"
m (→Dioxin part of the model) |
|||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
== Dioxin part of the model == | == Dioxin part of the model == | ||
| − | In the near future, there will be some key variables introduced to raise some discussion | + | In the near future, there will be some key variables of the model introduced to raise some discussion and to improve the model. Use the discussion tab located next to tab 'article' to add your contribution to discussions. The relevant outcomes of the discussions will be transferred to this page and the variables will be changed according the discussions when needed. |
E.g.: | E.g.: | ||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
** dioxin - cancer | ** dioxin - cancer | ||
** omega-3 - avoided coronary heart diseases | ** omega-3 - avoided coronary heart diseases | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
== Fine particle part of the model == | == Fine particle part of the model == | ||
Revision as of 13:06, 16 March 2007
Contents
Comparative risk assessment of dioxin and fine particles
The full model is available from http://heande.pyrkilo.fi/heande/images/1/1d/PMvsDX.ANA
Abstract
Dioxins and airborne fine particles both are environmental health problems that have been subject to active public debate. Knowledge on fine particles has increased substantially during the last ten years, and even the current, lowered levels in Europe and the United States appear to be a larger public health problem than previously thought. On the other hand, dioxins are ubiquitous persistent contaminants and animal carcinogens at high doses, and therefore of a great concern. Our aim was to quantitatively analyze these two health risks and compare whether there are differences in given risks scenarios. Scenarios were chosen to match current and forthcoming EU regulations and standards for these two pollutants. We performed a comparative risk assessment for both pollutants in the Helsinki metropolitan area (Finland), and estimated the health effects for several scenarios: For primary fine particles: a comparison between the present emission situation of heavy-duty vehicles (CURRENT PRACTISE) to particle emission standards set by the EU, For dioxins: an EU-directive that regulates for commercial fishing of Baltic salmon and herring that exceed the dioxin concentration limit, and a derogation from the directive for these two species. Both of these two decisions are very topical issues. We found the risk of fine particles emitted by heavy-duty vehicles clearly outweighing the risk of dioxin in Finnish fish. Substantial improvement to public health could be achieved by advancing in emission standards from present situation to stricter emission standards, about 30 avoided premature deaths annually in Helsinki. In addition, we found that benefits of fish consumption due to omega-3 exposure were hundreds of times larger than the potential dioxin cancer risk.
Dioxin part of the model
In the near future, there will be some key variables of the model introduced to raise some discussion and to improve the model. Use the discussion tab located next to tab 'article' to add your contribution to discussions. The relevant outcomes of the discussions will be transferred to this page and the variables will be changed according the discussions when needed.
E.g.:
- FISH
- Dioxin concentrations of domestic fish
- omega-3 content of fish
- consumption of domestic fish species
- consumption of exported fish
- DOSE-RESPONSES
- Dioxins
- Omega-3
- SELECTED END POINTS
- dioxin - cancer
- omega-3 - avoided coronary heart diseases
