Neutral Source recently posted a pair of blogs about how inflation forecasting was like risk assessment, and how it isn’t. David Wessel started the discussion in his Capital column in the March 16 edition of the Wall Street Journal. On March 21 he posted a selection of interesting reader responses. (A subscription to wsj.com is required to view them.)
Neutral Source has been covering a recent report of EPA’s Children’s Health Protection Advisory Committee concerning the level of perchlorate exposure the Agency should consider acceptable.
Yesterday Neutral Source explained why inflation forecasting is like risk assessment. In a very important way, of course, they are very different.
Experience with the Consumer Price Index offers lessons for regulatory science.
Why is EPA’s Children’s Health Advisory Committee Asking EPA to Restrict Perchlorate Exposure to a Level Below the Reference Dose? Part 1
There seems to be an inconsistency between what US EPA is doing and what its Children’s Health Protection Advisory Committee is recommending.
EPA adopted this reference dose from a report published by the National Academy of Sciences. This value is 0.007 mg/kg-day. For a person weighing 70 kg (154 lbs) and consuming 2 liters (67.6 oz) of tap water per day, this dose is equivalent to 24.5 ppb in drinking water.
About the reference dose, Phibbs writes:
A reference dose is the level of daily exposure at which people would not be harmed.
If exposures at or below the reference dose do not harm people, then it’s safe. But if it’s safe, then why is CHPAC asking the Agency to set the maximum allowable level of exposure below the reference dose?