3. Human Health Risk Assessment3.1 Quantitative Risk Assessment and Statistical Analysis3.2 Importance of Dose and Dose-Response Relationships3.3 Misuse of Regulatory Upper-Bound Risk Characterizations3.4 Risk Characterization Choices and Risk Exaggeration3.5 A Better Approach to Cancer Risk Characterization3.6 Overview of Background, Motivation, and Statistical Methods for Margin-of-Exposure Characterizations of Cancer Risks 3.6.1 Importance of Dose 3.6.2 Dose-Response Modeling 3.6.3 Dose-Response Models 3.6.4 Maximum Likelihood Estimation 3.6.5 Multistage Model 3.6.6 Example of Fitted Multistage Model 3.6.7 Potency 3.6.8 Linearized Multistage Model 3.6.9 Overstatement of Risks by the Linearized Multistage Model 3.6.10 Adverse Impacts of the Variability in the Magnitude of the Bias in the Linearized Multistage Model's Overstatement of Risks 3.6.11 Non-Responsiveness of the Linearized Multistage Model to Data 3.6.12 Ranking Relative Risks 3.6.13 Added Risk versus Extra Risk 3.6.14 Need for a Better Dose-Response Characterization 3.6.15 Better Dose-Response Characterization 3.6.16 Benchmark Doses 3.6.17 Responsiveness of Benchmark Doses Data Versus the Relative Non-Responsiveness of the Regulatory Upper-Bound Potency Q1* based on the Linearized Multistage Model 3.6.18 Recommended Dose-Response Characterization 3.6.19 Margin-of-Exposure Characterizations 3.6.20 Conclusion 3.6.21 Figures 1 to 163.7 Innovative Risk Assessment3.8 Components of High-to-Low-Dose Extrapolation and Dose-Response Modeling3.9 Probabilistic Exposure Assessment3.10 Aggregate Risk Assessment3.11 Cumulative Risk Assessment3.12 Example Activities