The phrase "acceptable levels of exposure" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used in contexts discussing safety, health regulations, or environmental standards regarding permissible amounts of exposure to a substance or risk.
Example: "The study concluded that the acceptable levels of exposure to the chemical should be revised to ensure public safety."
Alternatives: "tolerable levels of exposure" or "permissible levels of exposure".
Still, acceptable levels of exposure have not been established.
Setting acceptable levels of exposure must include testing for health consequences at prevalent levels of human exposure, not extrapolations from the effects observed in high-dose experiments.
The determination of acceptable levels of exposure to potential human carcinogens remains a formidable task, one for which no scientific framework yet exists.
Instead of using risk assessment to identify acceptable levels of exposure to occupational chemicals, policy makers should be looking at safer alternatives that can be used hand-in-hand with sustainable methods.
Adopting this view for noncancer endpoints could amount to abandoning thresholds as a tenet of biology, pharmacology, and toxicology, and abandoning the no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL /uncertainty factor (UF) approach to characterizing acceptable levels of exposure to agents causing high-dose toxicity.
According to Finkel, classic risk assessment can be too analytical, focused solely on finding acceptable levels of exposures to potential harmful substances one at a time, while many sustainability programs can depend too heavily on intuition about what might improve public health and the environment.
This simulation model can be used by management to obtain insights into a new product portfolio, which will provide high rates of return at an acceptable level of exposure to risk for the corporation.
A decision regarding an acceptable level of exposure to a toxic agent can be informed by quantitative estimates of risk to humans from low exposures (e.g., exposures corresponding to increased risks of ≤ 10−3).
The estimation of risk (i.e., the probability of a deleterious effect resulting from exposure) involves both the qualitative evaluation of whether a hazard exists and the quantitative evaluation for determining an acceptable level of exposure in humans.
She added: "We need very clear standards for what are acceptable levels of radiation exposure associated with CT, and there should be regulatory oversight for setting of these standards".
Government flip-flopping on acceptable levels of radiation exposure confused the public, and health professionals provided little guidance.
