Directions: Use the case study to provide answers to the following questions. Ca
ID: 244744 • Letter: D
Question
Directions: Use the case study to provide answers to the following questions. Case Study: “Illness Associated with Drift of Chloropicrin Soil Fumigant into a Residential Area—Kern County, California, 2003,” ?
Exposure Assessment for the Relevant Population a. Determine the frequency, magnitude, extent, duration, and character of exposures to the hazard
Dose Response Assessment a. Evaluate both qualitative and quantitative toxicity information to estimate the incidence of adverse effects occurring in humans at different exposure levels.
Risk Characterization a. Detail the nature and potential incidence of effects for the exposure conditions described in the exposure assessment.
Illness Associated with Drift of Chloropicrin Soil Fumigant into a Residential Area-Kern County, California, 2003 Chloropicrin is the fourth most commonly used soil fumigant in California. Exposure to chloropicrin causes eye and respiratory tract irritation, vomiting, and diarrhea. . . . This report describes an investigation by the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) and the Kern County Agriculture Commissioner (KCAC) into illnesses associated with the offsite drift of chloropicrin in Kern County. A total of 165 persons experienced symptoms consistent with chloropicrin exposure. The find- nderscore health risks associated with fumigants and the usefulness of procedures adopted in California to ensure both prompt identification of exposure events and timely notification of the affected public. On October 3, 2003, an agricultural pest control service began applying 100% chloropicrin at a concentration of 80 pounds/acre to 34 acres of fallow land in Kern County. Chloropicrin was injected 17-18 inches into the soil; a weighted board was used to compact the soil, treating 18 acres. That evening, residents living one quarter mile west of the application site experienced irritant symptoms. The Kern County Fire Department (KCFD) was contacted to investigate; however, darkness, distance from the treated field, and absence of chloropicrin odor prevented firefighters from identifying the source of the irritation. Records from a weather station approximately 7 miles southeast of the application site indicated low wind speeds and stable atmospheric conditions but also that the wind direction had changed that evening, blowing from the field toward the residential dwellings The next day, chloropicrin was applied to the remaining 16 acres. A 60-foot, chloropicrin-free buffer was maintained around the perimeter of the field because workers noted a persistent odor when they arrived. Residents one quarter mile west and south of the field complained about irritant symptoms that evening. Residents notified KCFD; several responding firefighters experienced eye irritation. The wind had changed again that evening and begun blowing from the field toward the residential dwellings. Suspecting a pesticide release, KCFD notified KCAC. The field was recompacted, and the odor ceased On October 6, KCAC notified CDPR about the incident. KCAC and CDPR conducted in-person interviews at 35 households located approximately one quarter mile west and south of the field and at a day care center; additional interviews were con- ducted on October 15. The 35 households and day care center had a total of 172 persons present during the exposure period. Representatives from each household and the day care center were interviewed by using a standardized questionnaire. . .. In ewed to identif addit ve wo olved with the fumiga we estioned informa nd KCFD on determined that 165 persons reported symptoms compatible with il opi the rly all (99%) had i persistent respiratory symptoms whe nge: 3 months-63 ye symptoms (e.g., eye or uppe ry nine (5% ewe was limited be the ed health i Source: Ad reprinted from the Centers for Disease Co California, 2003 nd Pre VR. 2004;53:740 ropicrin soiExplanation / Answer
Exposure Assessment for the Relevant Population a. Determine the frequency, magnitude, extent, duration, and character of exposures to the hazard
Risk assessment is a commanding device that delivers a lucid outline for scheming and handling an OHSP at organizations that usage nonhuman primates. The procedure of risk assessment necessitates a truthful base to describe the probability of opposing health effects of workroom related grievances and experiences, and it efforts to equilibrium technical information with worries of staff, detectives, management, and the community at large. It includes a methodical method to the documentation and description of bodily, biochemical, and biologic dangers to entities and inhabitants in their atmosphere. The penalties of such threats can comprise simple disease or wound, a permanent health importance, an unacquainted illness, and an unwanted condition that might have been evaded by usage of a substitute method or knowledge. Risk assessments characteristically necessitate that consideration be assumed primary to the greatest significant threats, that is, the ones that can consequence in the nastiest health connected consequences.
Dose Response Assessment a. Evaluate both qualitative and quantitative toxicity information to estimate the incidence of adverse effects occurring in humans at different exposure levels.
Considerate the toxic properties of xenobiotics necessitates sound information of composition and biochemistry. The frequently labeled absence of considerate pharmacology or toxicology is consequently chiefly produced by the over-all nonappearance of the essential important information. Meanwhile toxic effects be contingent on contact measuring the risks ascending from toxic ingredients also necessitates measureable cognitive. Characteristically public deliberations closely continuously abandonment measureable features and amateurs incline to disrespect amount result relations. One of the chief details for such disrespect is the detail that contacts frequently happen at tremendously low attentions that can only be apparent intelligently but not by the human sanities. Though, verges in the low experience variety are frequently methodically doubtful. At the similar time, unawareness in the direction of recognized hazards is wide feast. Thus, ornamental the danger capability of amateurs will have to be originally controlled to cumulative the consciousness of current glitches.
Risk Characterization a. Detail the nature and potential incidence of effects for the exposure conditions described in the exposure assessment.
Successful risk valuation suggestions numerous compensations. For staff memberships, a distinct assessment of risks in the office can deliver a balanced foundation for safe practices and conduct. For recognized executives, a definite assessment of risks can deliver clear objectives for injury deterrence and experience deterrence agendas. For controllers and other mistake figures, a precise assessment of risks aids in setting office health and security values and in checking obedience deprived of the essential for instance by instance judgments. For worried citizens, an exact assessment of risks delivers a brief emphasis for assessing defense of the public welfare.
Related Questions
drjack9650@gmail.com
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.