Asbestos Abatement >> Asbestos Cancer

Abstract The most recent update of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) health assessment document for asbestos (Nicholson, 1986, referred to as Asbestos Cancer "the EPA 1986 update") is now 20 years old. 

That document contains estimates of "potency factors" for asbestos in causing lung cancer (K(L)'s) and Asbestos Cancer mesothelioma (K(M)'s) derived by fitting mathematical models to data from studies of occupational cohorts. The present paper provides a parallel analysis that incorporates data from studies published since the EPA 1986 update. 

The EPA lung cancer model assumes that the relative risk varies linearly with cumulative exposure lagged 10 years. This implies that the relative Asbestos Cancer risk remains constant after 10 years from last exposure. 

The EPA mesothelioma model predicts that the mortality rate from mesothelioma increases linearly with the intensity of exposure and, for a given intensity, increases indefinitely after exposure ceases, Asbestos Cancer approximately as the square of time since first exposure lagged 10 years. 

These assumptions were evaluated using raw data from cohorts where exposures were principally to chrysotile; mesothelioma only data from Quebec miners and millers, and crocidolite (Wittenoom Gorge, Australia miners and millers, and Asbestos Cancer using published data from a cohort exposed to amosite (Paterson, NJ, insulation manufacturers, Seidman et al., 1986). 

Although the linear EPA model generally provided a good description of exposure response for lung cancer, Asbestos Cancer in some cases it did so only by estimating a large background risk relative to the comparison population. Some of these relative risks seem too large to be due to differences in smoking rates and are probably due at least in part to errors in exposure estimates. 

There was some equivocal evidence that the relative risk decreased with increasing time since last exposure in the Wittenoom cohort, Asbestos Cancer but none either in the South Carolina cohort up to 50 years from last exposure or in the New Jersey cohort up to 35 years from last exposure. 

The mesothelioma model provided good descriptions of the observed patterns of mortality after exposure ends, Asbestos Cancer with no evidence that risk increases with long times since last exposure at rates that vary from that predicted by the model (i.e., with the square of time). 

In particular, the model adequately described the mortality rate in Quebec chrysotile miners and Asbestos Cancer millers up through >50 years from last exposure. There was statistically significant evidence in both the Wittenoom and Quebec cohorts that the exposure intensity-response is supralinear(1) rather than linear. 

The best-fitting models predicted that the mortality rate varies as [intensity](0.47) for Wittenoom and Asbestos Cancer as [intensity](0.19) for Quebec and, in both cases, the exponent was significantly less than 1 (p< .0001). 

Using the EPA models, K(L)'s and K(M)'s were estimated from the three sets of raw data and also from published data covering a broader range of environments than those originally addressed in the EPA 1986 update. Uncertainty in these estimates was quantified using "uncertainty bounds" that reflect both statistical and Asbestos Cancer nonstatistical uncertainties. 

Lung cancer potency factors (K(L)'s) were developed from 20 studies from 18 locations, Asbestos Cancer compared to 13 locations covered in the EPA 1986 update. Mesothelioma potency factors (K(M)'s) were developed for 12 locations compared to four locations in the EPA 1986 update. 

Although the 4 locations used to calculate K(M) in the EPA 1986 update include one location with exposures to amosite and three with exposures to mixed fiber types, the 14 K(M)'s derived in the present analysis also include 6 locations in which exposures were predominantly to chrysotile and Asbestos Cancer 1 where exposures were only to crocidolite. 

The K(M)'s showed evidence of a trend, with lowest K(M)'s obtained from cohorts exposed predominantly to chrysotile and highest K(M)'s from cohorts exposed only to amphibole asbestos , Asbestos Cancer with K(M)'s from cohorts exposed to mixed fiber types being intermediate between the K(M)'s obtained from chrysotile and amphibole environments. 

Despite the considerable uncertainty in the K(M) estimates, the K(M) from the Quebec mines and mills was clearly smaller than those from several cohorts exposed to amphibole asbestos or a mixture of amphibole asbestos and Asbestos Cancer chrysotile. 

For lung cancer, although there is some evidence of larger K(L)'s from amphibole asbestos exposure, there is a good deal of dispersion in the data, and Asbestos Cancer one of the largest K(L)'s is from the South Carolina textile mill where exposures were almost exclusively to chrysotile. 

This K(L) is clearly inconsistent with the K(L) obtained from the cohort of Quebec chrysotile miners and millers. The K(L)'s and K(M)'s derived herein are defined in terms of concentrations of airborne fibers measured by phase-contrast microscopy (PCM), which only counts all structures longer than 5 microm, Asbestos Cancer thicker than about 0.25 microm, and with an aspect ratio > or =3:1. 

Moreover, PCM does not distinguish between asbestos and nonasbestos particles. One possible reason for the discrepancies between the K(L)'s and Asbestos Cancer K(M)'s from different studies is that the category of structures included in PCM counts does not correspond closely to biological activity. 

In the accompanying article (Berman and Crump, 2008) the K(L)'s and Asbestos Cancer K(M)'s and related uncertainty bounds obtained in this article are paired with fiber size distributions from the literature obtained using transmission electron microscopy (TEM). 

The resulting database is used to define K(L)'s and K(M)'s that depend on both the size (e.g., length and width) and Asbestos Cancer mineralogical type (e.g., chrysotile or crocidolite) of an asbestos structure. 

An analysis is conducted to determine how well different K(L) and Asbestos Cancer K(M) definitions are able to reconcile the discrepancies observed herein among values obtained from different environments.

Detoxify From Radon Exposure

An applicant who wishes to enroll in the RPP with a device that is not included in the Application Device Check lists must follow EPA's procedure for entering new devices into the Program. This procedure has three stages: (1) the applicant submits an Application to enter the new Radon Mitigation Detoxify From Radon Exposure devic  read more..

Radon Transform

RADON TRANSFORM MITIGATION STANDARDS 1.0 BACKGROUND The 1988 Indoor Radon transform Abatement Act (IRAA) required the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop a voluntary program to evaluate and provide information on contractors who offer radon transform Radon Mitigation Radon Transform control services to h  read more..

Sewer Backup Caused Black Mold

The Community Folk Art Center, 805 E. Genesee St., will remain closed this week as officials continue to clean up. Water leaked through the ceiling and the sewer backed up, said Kevin Leonardi, its marketing specialist. Staff members quickly moved art and equipment to safety, but repairs were n  read more..

How To Get Rid Of Asbestos Material In California

This information will help you understand asbestos: what it is, its health effects, where it is in your home, and what to do about it. Even if asbestos is in your home, this is usually NOT a serious problem. The mere presence of asbestos in a home or a building is not hazardous. The danger is that a  read more..

Get Rid Of A Dead Animal Smell In The Wall

Simply banging on the ceiling, wall, or floor in the vicinity of the animal may cause it to vacate; also, your initial search for young may have already made the animal uncomfortable enough to leave.Alternatively, with a powerful flashlight or headlamp containing fresh batteries, and Odor Control Get Rid Of A Dead Animal Smell In The Wall weari  read more..

Know If A Radon Mitigation System Is Working

Administrative Procedures for Mail-In Tests After EPA accepts an Application for a mail-in device, the applicant will be scheduled for his or her device performance test. The RQAC will send a notice to the applicant requesting the appropriate device(s) prior to the performance test date. Applicant f  read more..

How To Keep Ground Squirrels From Burrowing Under

Open season for hunting crows shall be from October 15 through November 30 and January 14 through March 31 of each year. No bag or possession limit. Entire state open.  Pigeons. 100.2(1) Pigeon season. There is a continuous open season for the taking of pigeons except the season for taking pige  read more..

How To Dry Out After A Flood

Development in flood prone areas is development in harm's way. New construction in thefloodplain increases the amount of development exposed to damage and Flood Damage How To Dry Out After A Flood  an aggravate floodingon neighboring properties.Development outside a floodplain can also contribute to flooding problems.&nb  read more..

How To Stop Squirrels From Gnawing On A Log Home

The common raven is widely distributed throughout the Holarctic Regions of the world including Europe, Asia, North America and Animal Damage How To Stop Squirrels From Gnawing On A Log Home extends well into Central America. The Chihuahuan raven occurs in portions of Arizona, New Mexico, Texas and throughout Mexico (H  read more..

Dealing With The Ceanup After A Windstorm

A wind storm that blew through California on November 30 caused widespread damage to several areas of the Inyo National Forest and adjacent public lands. From Mount Whitney to Tioga Pass, Wind Damage Dealing With The Ceanup After A Windstorm thousands of trees were affected by the storm. The full extent of the damage is still unknown and  read more..