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.

Remove The Smell Of Flood Damage From A Home

Don't sign off before the job is finished. Don't sign completion papers or Flood Damage Remove The Smell Of Flood Damage From A Home  ake the final payment until the work is completed to your satisfaction. a reputable contractor will not threaten you or pressure you to sign if the job is not finished properly. 

  read more..

Spot A Meth House In Your Neighborhood

 
Handling of Furnishings and Porous MaterialsAbsorbent materials can accumulate vapors that are created and dispersed during thecooking pr  read more..

Coyote Removal

Coyotes can be a big nuisance, they will prey on household pets if you let them and cause Animal Damage Coyote Removal and other personal property. The use of snares could be a good way to catch these pests and remove them from your property. But first you must check with local authorities on the legalities and   read more..

General Mold Cleanup Procedures

General Mold Cleanup Procedures Identify and correct the moisture source Clean, disinfect, and dry the moldy area Bag and dispose any material that has moldy residues, such as rags, paper, leaves, or debris What can I save? What should I toss? Substances that are porous and can trap molds, such as p  read more..

How To DIY How To Repair A House Damaged By Smoke

Effects on Smoke on Functional Circuits SNL also tested complete and functional circuit boards for their susceptibility to damage from smoke [18]. These boards contained five functional circuits that could be energized and Smoke Damage How To DIY How To Repair A House Damaged By Smoke monitored during smoke exposure. Each circuit was present twice on   read more..

How To Remove Radon From A Basement

Category I Course Work As stated above, participants in the Residential Mitigation Service Provider component of the RPP must earn a minimum of eight (8) of the required sixteen (16) hours of continuing education every two years through approved Category I course work. Those with dual listings are r  read more..

Mold Caused By Basement Flooding

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT FLOODING, MOLDS, AND HEALTH Q. What does "thoroughly washed" mean? A. Washed in hot, soapy water. Q. What should I do about the floors, walls, and ceilings? A. Vinyl floors, drywall, insulation, and in some cases ceilings should be removed Mold Remediation Mold Caused By Basement Flooding and replaced  read more..

Document Restoration

If an expert document restorer is hired, they will remove soot with highly sophisticated equipment and techniques. If you do not plan to hire a Smoke Damage Document Restoration, some of the soot might be removed by holding a vacuum cleaner nozzle slightly off the surface of a document item to be cleaned. It is always be  read more..

The Cost To Remove Lead Paint

How Are Workers Exposed to Lead?Workers can be exposed to lead by creating dust or fumes during everyday work activities. Fumes are easier to breathe in and therefore may be more dangerous than dust. These are some of the most common ways to be exposed. LEAD DUST is produced in Lead Paint Removal The Cost To Remove Lead Paint many ways i  read more..

Health Effects Caused By Lead Poisoning

Health effects caused by lead exposure can be subdivided into five developmental stages: Normal, physiological changes of uncertain significance, pathophysiological changes, overt symptoms (morbidity), and mortality. Within this process there are no sharp distinctions, butrather a continuum [ME  read more..