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.

Radon Test Kit In Your Home

U.S. EPA National Radon Proficiency Program Handbook July 1996 vii EPA 402-R-95-013 DISCLAIMER This Handbook was prepared by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency). The purpose of this document is to provide applicants to and participants in the Radon Proficiency Program (RPP) with  read more..

How To Clean Black Mold

How To Clean Black Mold In Your Home: Cleaning Options

Before you clean Before cleaning How To Clean Black Mold in your home, first understand why it's there and   read more..

Water Damage Toilet Leak

Repair Your Leaking Toilets: High water bills are often caused by leaking toilets that waste large amounts of water. The diagram below illustrates the parts of a toilet. Most water waste is caused by a leaking flapper or a faulty fill valve that stays open. An open fill valve can have water flowing   read more..

How To Make A Dry Basement Waterproofing

The results reported in Appendix B for the modeled energy savings show the same patterns as those for a foundation wall with no rim joist and no above-grade exposure. Specifically, the first R-5 of insulation produces a significant basement energy savings of 52% with only an additional 12 % of   read more..

How To Become Certified To Remove Lead Paint

If an environmental covenant is to be executed for the site related to other aspects of a cleanup(e.g., restricted use soil cleanup standards were used or soil contamination is left on-site under a cap), the Operation and Maintenance Plan can be included as an attachment to the covenant. If no coven  read more..

How To Pass A Radon Inspection

In announced tests, applicants must conduct all exposures and analyses in the same way that they are done for consumers. For example, device analyses must be done by the participating organization using equipment used in analyzing consumer measurements. Applicants must pass a test for each spec  read more..

Cleaning Mold On Foundation Walls In A Basement

Concern about indoor exposure to mold has increased along with public awareness that exposure to mold can cause a variety of health effects and symptoms, including allergic reactions. This safety and health information bulletin provides recommendations for the prevention of mold growth and describes  read more..

Lead based Paint Can Cause Lead Poisoning

The employer shall make available upon request all records required to be maintained by this subsection to the Chief and the Director for examination and copying. (B) Environmental monitoring, medical removal, and medical records required by this section shall be provided upon request to employees,   read more..

Asbestos Pipe

Water: Basic Information about Regulated Drinking Water Contaminants You are here: Water Drinking Water Drinking Water Contaminants Basic Information about Asbestos Abatement Asbestos Pipe Regulated Drinking Water Contaminants Basic Information about Asbestos in Drinking Water Basic Information about Asbestos in Drin  read more..

Waterproofing A Basement Wall

Remodeling Your Home? Have You Considered Indoor Air Quality?Controlling Moisture Too much moisture in a home can lead to mold, mildew, and other biological growth. This in turn can lead to a variety of health effects ranging from more common allergic reactions, to asthma attacks, and hypersensitivi  read more..