Cancer and the workplace

Abstract

Form for taking a patient's exposure history to carcinogens developed by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

Prudent management of minors with occupational exposures to hazardous agents: the radiation protection “standard of care”

“…For agents exhibiting known latency periods before the manifestation of a biological response, such as benzene and leukemia, exposures at earlier ages hold a greater potential for impacting on an individual's life span compared with those received later in life. 17 A general lack of information on the biological responses of minors to exposures to toxic substances has been repeatedly noted. And with occupational exposure limits and recommendations being based on data almost exclusively from adult males, unequivocal reliance on such limits as satisfactory for minors may not be appropriate.…”

Begutachtung bei malignen Erkrankungen

“…2 ermöglicht auch die Anerkennung weiterer Erkrankungen, bei denen eine berufsbedingt krebsauslösende Noxe angenommen werden kann [13,27,30,31]. Sie nennt 1997 neben den bereits in Tabelle Informationen sind auch aus den Monographien einer Unterabteilung der WHO, der "International Agency for Research on Cancer" (᭤ IARC) in Lyon erhältlich [26,28]. Diese Zusammenstellung wird jährlich aktualisiert.…”

Carcinogens and the workplace

“…In the article on carcinogens and the workplace by Stellman and Stellman in the March/April issue, 1 Table 2 simply lists asbestos as though all forms of asbestos were the same. Table 5 does identify chrysotile but does not give any data on the workers' smoking habits.…”

“…The evidence for carcinogenicity of asbestos as well as the other substances mentioned in the article “Cancer and the Workplace” 1 was based on assessments published in the monographs of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). These assessments are made by consensus of international working groups of experts from academia, government, and industry.…”

“…While some mineralogic forms of asbestos may be quantitatively more carcinogenic than others, none is “safe.” The hypothesis that chrysotile asbestos in particular is less hazardous than amphibole varieties (crocidolite, amosite, tremolite) has recently been critically reviewed by Staynor et al, 2 who concluded that “mechanistic and lung burden studies do not provide convincing evidence for the amphibole hypothesis,” while toxicologic and epidemiologic studies provide “strong evidence” that chrysotile is associated with an increased risk of lung cancer and mesothelioma. Table 5 of the article 1 documents a dose‐response for lung cancer in both male and female textile workers exposed primarily to chrysotile asbestos 3 in one of the studies that provides key results in analyzing the carcinogenic potential of chrysotile alone. While there is some evidence that the risk of mesothelioma associated with exposure to chrysotile may be less than that for other forms of asbestos, it is not zero.…”