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.

Water Damage

A dampness in your home is usually the result from a water incursion either from an internal source, like leaking water pipes or an external sources, such as rainwater due to some kind of storm damage. The intrusion of the dampness becomes a real problem when the various materials in your bui  read more..

After Fire Damage

After you have a fire, you ask, why does my house have broken windows and doors, and there are holes in the roof? Fire Damage After Fire Damage can produce temperatures greater than 1200 degrees, along with smoke damage and hot gases. At times, the firefighters must eliminate all of the heat, smoke and hot gases befo  read more..

How To Clean Sewer Discharge In Basements

CLEANING UP THE MESS.....After the Flood or Sewage Backup If you have a sewer backup in your house, Sewage Cleanup How To Clean Sewer Discharge In Basements you MUST clean properly to prevent you and your family from becoming sick or injured. Do Not bring children into the flooded area during clean-up! The following are suggestions on how to cleanup   read more..

Desiccant Vs Mechanical Dehumidification

System description and operation principle Various low-temperature desalination units have been constructed base on the principle of humidification-dehumidification. The basic principle of all these techniques is to convert salt water to humidified air and Dehumidification Desiccant Vs Mechanical Dehumidification then condense the water vapo  read more..

Physical Symptoms Of A Meth Lab In Your Apartment

CLEANUP PROCEDURES FOR SOIL, GROUNDWATER AND SURFACEWATER
If areas of soil, surface water or groundwater contamination Meth Lab Cleanup Physical Symptoms Of A Meth Lab In Your Apartment are present, characterizationand cleanup of these areas should be conducted by a professional environmentalcontractor, in consultation with the CT Department  read more..

How To Clean After Tenants

When the tenant moves out of a rental unit, the landlord has thirty (30) days in which to either return the entire security deposit plus interest if appropriate, or send a written statement of any deductions made from the deposit for repairs, cleaning, etc., the cost of each repair (supported by cop  read more..

Mold Mitigation

Molds will grow best on damp or wet carbon-based substance which could be used for a food basis and tend to hold in the dampness. Dehumidification Mold Mitigation need a high dampness level to sprout and begin developing. Most molds need a water amount of the substance of 70% to 90% to begin developing. Mold spores that   read more..

Black Mold Removal

Coccidioidomycosis is caused by Coccidioides immitis, a dimorphic fungus that grows as a mold in the soil. The mold forms arthroconidia within the hypha, a type of conidia formation known as enteroarthric development (Figure 1) (4). C. immitis is the only species within the primary pathogenic fungi   read more..

Lead Paint Removal Requirements

Where any employee is exposed to lead above the permissible exposure limit for more than 30 days per year, the employer shall implement engineering, work practice, and administrative controls to reduce and maintain employee exposure to lead in accordance with the following implementation schedule ex  read more..

Remove Toxic Smoke Damage From An Apartment Fire

The newly-created Coalition for Fire-Safe Cigarettes issued a call to the tobacco companies today to produce and sell only "fire-safe ” cigarettes nationwide. Fire Damage Remove Toxic Smoke Damage From An Apartment Fire

The Coalition, which is being launched today, is a national group of fire service members, consumer, e  read more..