Saved Bookmarks
| 1. |
projects on health hazard / technolgy I WILL DENEFINETLY GIVE BRAINLIEST ANSWER FOR CORRECT ANSWER no spam please |
|
Answer» Answer: I deal with human health risks, I find your question very interesting. If you have the distribution function (by agent), your median is what you refer as LC50 lethal concentration at which -- on the average -- 50% of those in the sample DIE). Why use a safety FACTOR of 100 when you can use +3 sigma, +4 sigma ...? This is the easy part. The hard part is whether the responses are actually unimodal, not skewed, and so on. I would prefer to use the full distribution, show its EMPIRICAL (data driven form) fit a curve to that distribution and judge what to do. The uncertainty in the right tail of the distribution is what matters. In other words, I would also be concerned with EXTREME outcomes (namely your 100 factor), which depends on the empirical distribution of the agent. Of course, if you are using a well-studied agent than LC50 and the 100 factor may well be justified in the literature. Eckel's point is very appropriate. Explanation: hope it helps |
|