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.

Foundation Repair

When As Well As Why you Should Turn to Crack in Foundation Repair Services Sooner or later, just about all homes will move and also settle. This could result in chips, which frequently need repairing Basement Drying Foundation Repair piers. Several cracks, however, are simply in the cosmetic finish of the foundation repair. The  read more..

Empowered Water Carpet Cleaning

Flood Water After a Disaster or Emergency When returning to your home after a hurricane or flood, be aware that flood water may contain sewage. Protect yourself and your family by following these steps:Inside the Home Keep children and Water Extraction Empowered Water Carpet Cleaning pets out of the affected area until cleanup has b  read more..

Can A Private Homeowner Dispose Of Asbestos Floor

Material Properties Materials are either amorphous or crystalline. The difference between these two descriptions depends on the positions of the atoms in them. The atoms in amorphous materials are randomly arranged with no long range order Asbestos Abatement Can A Private Homeowner Dispose Of Asbestos Floor. An example of an amorphous material is glass.  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..

Things You Should Know About Floods

FLOOD OR DISASTER SANITATION INFORMATION The attached information will be of assistance to homeowners and citizens both during and after a flood or other disaster which effects private residences, water supplies, Flood Damage Things You Should Know About Floods and other facilities. 

The following information   read more..

Structural Drying Courses

Hurricanes Ivan (2004) and Katrina (2005) have demonstrated that constructing a building to the minimum National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) requirements or constructing a building outside the SFHA shown on the FIRMs is no guarantee that the building will not be Structural Drying Structural Drying Courses damaged by floodi  read more..

How To Remove The Smell Of Smoke Damage

Smoke is a complex mixture of carbon dioxide, water vapor, carbon monoxide, particulate matter, hydrocarbons and other organic chemicals, nitrogen oxides, and trace minerals. The individual compounds present in smoke number in the thousands. Smoke composition depends on multiple factors, including t  read more..

Meth Lab Cleanup

Scientists show how Odor Control Meth Lab Cleanup varied during 47 arrangements of density, aeration rate and ecological situations. The data points signify medians of the levels of butanol matched to residency odor. The data points arose from opinions made by an average of 26 individuals within a given 15-mi  read more..

Home Remedies For Fire Damage

Only fire-safe cigarettes will be manufactured and sold in California starting January 1, 2007.Fire-safe cigarettes, which are less likely to burn and cause fires when left unattended, were mandated by AB178, Fire Damage Home Remedies For Fire Damage the California Cigarette Safety and Firefighter Protection Act, included in a child pr  read more..

Flood Damage

When a flood passes through an area the damage that they can leave could be tremendous, if Electronic Restoration Flood Damage have entered a building containing state-of-the-art electronic equipment. These pieces of equipment will need to be thoroughly dried, gone through having all of the circuit boards and other electri  read more..