{"text_format":"2","workbook":"xls","n_sheets":1,"sheets":["report2"],"not_rendered":{"charts":0,"images":0,"macros":0,"external_links":1,"defined_names":1,"comments":0,"pivot_tables":0},"unopened":[],"bounds":{"document_bytes":16777216,"sheet_cells":100000,"run_cost":"one","rows_first":2000,"rows_last":500,"rows_between":2000,"halvings":0,"cell_chars":16384,"cell_head_chars":4096},"cells_cut":0,"cells_raw":0,"read":"whole","date_system":"1900","formulas":"cached_only"}

{"sheet":"report2","index":0,"n_rows":37,"n_cols":5,"rows_kept":37,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[0,2,0,3],[0,4,0,5],[1,2,1,3],[1,4,1,5],[2,2,2,3],[2,4,2,5],[3,2,3,3],[4,2,4,3],[7,2,7,3],[8,2,8,3],[9,2,9,3],[30,2,30,3],[31,2,31,3],[34,2,34,3]],"flags":["formulas_cached_only"]}
[null,"1.","Record Nr.",null,"UNINA9910782724603321"]
[null,null,"Autore",null,"Harrison Kathryn <1958->"]
[null,null,"Titolo",null,"Risk, science, and politics : regulating toxic substances in Canada and the United States / / Kathryn Harrison and George Hoberg"]
[null,null,"Pubbl/distr/stampa",null,"Montreal [Que.], : McGill-Queen's University Press, ©1994"]
[null,null,"ISBN",null,"1-282-85718-5"]
[{"$nulls":4},"9786612857188"]
[{"$nulls":4},"0-7735-6505-1"]
[null,null,"Descrizione fisica",null,"1 online resource (xiii, 235 pages)"]
[null,null,"Disciplina",null,"363.7/00971"]
[null,null,"Soggetti",null,"Environmental policy - Canada"]
[{"$nulls":4},"Environmental policy - United States"]
[{"$nulls":4},"Hazardous substances - Law and legislation - Canada"]
[{"$nulls":4},"Hazardous substances - Law and legislation - United States"]
[{"$nulls":4},"UNSPECIFIED"]
[{"$nulls":4},"Health Policy"]
[{"$nulls":4},"Hazardous Substances"]
[{"$nulls":4},"Public Policy"]
[{"$nulls":4},"Environmental Pollutants"]
[{"$nulls":4},"Toxic Actions"]
[{"$nulls":4},"Social Control Policies"]
[{"$nulls":4},"Chemical Actions and Uses"]
[{"$nulls":4},"Social Control, Formal"]
[{"$nulls":4},"Policy"]
[{"$nulls":4},"Health Care Economics and Organizations"]
[{"$nulls":4},"Social Sciences"]
[{"$nulls":4},"Drug Therapy"]
[{"$nulls":4},"Sociology"]
[{"$nulls":4},"Health Care"]
[{"$nulls":4},"Law, General & Comparative"]
[{"$nulls":4},"Law, Politics & Government"]
[null,null,"Lingua di pubblicazione",null,"Inglese"]
[null,null,"Formato",null,"Materiale a stampa"]
[null,null,null,"Livello bibliografico","Monografia"]
[null,null,null,"Note generali","Bibliographic Level Mode of Issuance: Monograph"]
[null,null,"Nota di contenuto",null,"Front Matter -- Contents -- Preface -- Abbreviations -- Policy Making "]
[{"$nulls":4},"amid Scientific Uncertainty -- Cancer Risk Assessment: Concepts and Controversies -- Between Science and Politics: Assessing the Risks of Dioxins -- Forbidden Fruit: Regulating the Pesticides Alachlor and Alar -- Paternalism vs Consumer Choice:Regulation of Saccharin in Canada and the United States* -- Political Insulation: The Rise and Fall of Urea-Formaldehyde Foam* -- Acceptable Risks? Regulating Asbestos in Canada and the U.S.* -- The Perils of Paternalism: Controlling Radon Exposure in Canadian and U.S. Homes -- Conclusion: Risk, Science, and Public Policy -- Notes -- Index"]
[null,null,null,"Sommario/riassunto","Paying particular attention to how politicians and bureaucrats in the two countries deal with the scientific uncertainty that pervades environmental decision making, Harrison and Hoberg analyse case studies of seven controversial substances suspected of causing cancer in humans: the pesticides Alar and alachlor, urea-formaldehyde foam insulation, radon gas, dioxin, saccharin, and asbestos. They weigh the strengths and weaknesses of each country's approach according to five criteria: stringency and timeliness of the regulatory decision, balancing of risks and benefits by decision makers, opportunities for public participation, and the interpretation of science in regulatory decision making. The Canadian approach is exemplified by closed decision making, case-by-case review that relies heavily on expert judgement, and limited public debate about the scientific basis of regulatory decisions. In contrast, regulatory science in the United States is characterized by publication of lengthy rationales for regulatory decisions, reliance on standardized procedures for risk assessment, and controversy surrounding the interpretation of scientific evidence."]