FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2022350552> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2022350552 endingPage "860" @default.
• W2022350552 startingPage "853" @default.
• W2022350552 abstract "Modern technology, together with an advanced economy, can provide a good or service in myriad ways, giving us choices on what to produce and how to produce it. To make those choices more intelligently, society needs to know not only the market price of each alternative, but the associated health and environmental consequences. A fair comparison requires evaluating the consequences across the whole “life cycle”—from the extraction of raw materials and processing to manufacture/construction, use, and end-of-life—of each alternative. Focusing on only one stage (e.g., manufacture) of the life cycle is often misleading. Unfortunately, analysts and researchers still have only rudimentary tools to quantify the materials and energy inputs and the resulting damage to health and the environment. Life cycle assessment (LCA) provides an overall framework for identifying and evaluating these implications. Since the 1960s, considerable progress has been made in developing methods for LCA, especially in characterizing, qualitatively and quantitatively, environmental discharges. However, few of these analyses have attempted to assess the quantitative impact on the environment and health of material inputs and environmental discharges. Risk analysis and LCA are connected closely. While risk analysis has characterized and quantified the health risks of exposure to a toxicant, the policy implications have not been clear. Inferring that an occupational or public health exposure carries a nontrivial risk is only the first step in formulating a policy response. A broader framework, including LCA, is needed to see which response is likely to lower the risk without creating high risks elsewhere. Even more important, LCA has floundered at the stage of translating an inventory of environmental discharges into estimates of impact on health and the environment. Without the impact analysis, policymakers must revert to some simple rule, such as that all discharges, regardless of which chemical, which medium, and where they are discharged, are equally toxic. Thus, risk analysts should seek LCA guidance in translating a risk analysis into policy conclusions or even advice to those at risk. LCA needs the help of RA to go beyond simplistic assumptions about the implications of a discharge inventory. We demonstrate the need and rationale for LCA, present a brief history of LCA, present examples of the application of this tool, note the limitations of LCA models, and present several methods for incorporating risk assessment into LCA. However, we warn the reader not to expect too much. A comprehensive comparison of the health and environmental implications of alternatives is beyond the state of the art. LCA is currently not able to provide risk analysts with detailed information on the chemical form and location of the environmental discharges that would allow detailed estimation of the risks to individuals due to toxicants. For example, a challenge for risk analysts is to estimate health and other risks where the location and chemical speciation are not characterized precisely. Providing valuable information to decisionmakers requires advances in both LCA and risk analysis. These two disciplines should be closely linked, since each has much to contribute to the other." @default.
• W2022350552 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2022350552 creator A5002824190 @default.
• W2022350552 creator A5016372820 @default.
• W2022350552 creator A5056525407 @default.
• W2022350552 date "2002-10-01" @default.
• W2022350552 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W2022350552 title "Life Cycle Impact Assessment: A Challenge for Risk Analysts" @default.
• W2022350552 cites W1963821117 @default.
• W2022350552 cites W1974187734 @default.
• W2022350552 cites W1977856930 @default.
• W2022350552 cites W1995680836 @default.
• W2022350552 cites W2002124173 @default.
• W2022350552 cites W2010254895 @default.
• W2022350552 cites W2017197828 @default.
• W2022350552 cites W2027378471 @default.
• W2022350552 cites W2032296100 @default.
• W2022350552 cites W2040515582 @default.
• W2022350552 cites W2102692916 @default.
• W2022350552 cites W2110139978 @default.
• W2022350552 cites W2125246589 @default.
• W2022350552 cites W2153259032 @default.
• W2022350552 cites W88898997 @default.
• W2022350552 doi "https://doi.org/10.1111/1539-6924.00256" @default.
• W2022350552 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12442984" @default.
• W2022350552 hasPublicationYear "2002" @default.
• W2022350552 type Work @default.
• W2022350552 sameAs 2022350552 @default.
• W2022350552 citedByCount "47" @default.
• W2022350552 countsByYear W20223505522012 @default.
• W2022350552 countsByYear W20223505522014 @default.
• W2022350552 countsByYear W20223505522015 @default.
• W2022350552 countsByYear W20223505522016 @default.
• W2022350552 countsByYear W20223505522017 @default.
• W2022350552 countsByYear W20223505522018 @default.
• W2022350552 countsByYear W20223505522019 @default.
• W2022350552 countsByYear W20223505522020 @default.
• W2022350552 countsByYear W20223505522021 @default.
• W2022350552 countsByYear W20223505522022 @default.
• W2022350552 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2022350552 hasAuthorship W2022350552A5002824190 @default.
• W2022350552 hasAuthorship W2022350552A5016372820 @default.
• W2022350552 hasAuthorship W2022350552A5056525407 @default.
• W2022350552 hasConcept C112930515 @default.
• W2022350552 hasConcept C12174686 @default.
• W2022350552 hasConcept C134560507 @default.
• W2022350552 hasConcept C139719470 @default.
• W2022350552 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W2022350552 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W2022350552 hasConcept C2778348673 @default.
• W2022350552 hasConcept C2778706760 @default.
• W2022350552 hasConcept C38652104 @default.
• W2022350552 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2022350552 hasConceptScore W2022350552C112930515 @default.
• W2022350552 hasConceptScore W2022350552C12174686 @default.
• W2022350552 hasConceptScore W2022350552C134560507 @default.
• W2022350552 hasConceptScore W2022350552C139719470 @default.
• W2022350552 hasConceptScore W2022350552C144133560 @default.
• W2022350552 hasConceptScore W2022350552C162324750 @default.
• W2022350552 hasConceptScore W2022350552C2778348673 @default.
• W2022350552 hasConceptScore W2022350552C2778706760 @default.
• W2022350552 hasConceptScore W2022350552C38652104 @default.
• W2022350552 hasConceptScore W2022350552C41008148 @default.
• W2022350552 hasIssue "5" @default.
• W2022350552 hasLocation W20223505521 @default.
• W2022350552 hasLocation W20223505522 @default.
• W2022350552 hasOpenAccess W2022350552 @default.
• W2022350552 hasPrimaryLocation W20223505521 @default.
• W2022350552 hasRelatedWork W1987594851 @default.
• W2022350552 hasRelatedWork W2085558045 @default.
• W2022350552 hasRelatedWork W2162350346 @default.
• W2022350552 hasRelatedWork W2417158417 @default.
• W2022350552 hasRelatedWork W2502853840 @default.
• W2022350552 hasRelatedWork W3021226827 @default.
• W2022350552 hasRelatedWork W3138050359 @default.
• W2022350552 hasRelatedWork W4210784828 @default.
• W2022350552 hasRelatedWork W6801340 @default.
• W2022350552 hasRelatedWork W842649062 @default.
• W2022350552 hasVolume "22" @default.
• W2022350552 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2022350552 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2022350552 magId "2022350552" @default.
• W2022350552 workType "article" @default.