Pulmonary Disability in Coal Workers' Pneumoconiosis

Lyons, J P; Ryder, R. C.; Campbell, Harry; Gough, J.

doi:10.1136/bmj.1.5802.713

Cited by 36 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 9 publications

(15 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Some researchers in the past have excluded a priori consideration of irregular opacities among coal miners [Ruckley et al, 1984; Fernie and Ruckley, 1987; Remy‐Jardin et al, 1990]. However, a substantial body of research exists which highlights the importance of irregular opacities in CWP [Lyons et al, 1972; Lyons et al, 1974; Musk et al, 1981; Cockcroft et al, 1983; Collins et al, 1988]. Both rounded and irregular radiographic opacities have been recognized as a manifestation of CWP based upon studies that linked the profusion of opacities on a miner's radiograph with prior work tenure and dust exposure [Amandus et al, 1976; Cockcroft et al, 1983; Collins et al, 1988].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A prognostic model for advanced stage nonsmall cell lung cancer

Mandrekar

Schild

Hillman

et al. 2006

Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Radiographic shadows of coal workers' pneumoconiosis (CWP) are commonly described as predominantly in the upper lung zones. Methods We evaluated the lung distribution of small opacities on surveillance chest radiographs (CXRs) taken between 1981 and 2010 among 2,467 underground US coal miners. All had evidence of pneumoconiosis (category ≥1/0), based on the contemporary International Labour Office Classification of Radiographs of Pneumoconioses. Results Small opacity involvement was approximately equal over all lung zones, with 30.7% of the total involvement reported in the upper zones, 37.1% in the middle zones, and 32.1% in the lower zones. Primarily rounded opacities were seen in 62.1% of miners and primarily irregular opacities were seen in 37.9%. Miners with primarily rounded opacities had a distribution with moderate upper zone predominance (upper = 36.8%, middle = 36.5%, and lower = 27.2%). In contrast, miners with primarily irregular opacities showed a lower zone preponderance (upper = 20.5%, middle = 38.4%, and lower = 41.1%). Conclusion The distribution of small pneumoconiotic opacities on surveillance CXRs of working US coal miners is not consistent with the conventional expectations of upper lung zone predominance. Am. J. Ind. Med. 55:793–798, 2012. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A prognostic model for advanced stage nonsmall cell lung cancer

Mandrekar

Schild

Hillman

et al. 2006

Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Complicated pneumoconiosis is recognized as a more advanced disease and is also called progressive massive fibrosis [UICC Committee, 1970]. Severe impairment of pulmonary function is believed to occur commonly in complicated pneumoconiosis [Lyons and Campbell, 1976;, whereas the relationship of simple coal workers' pneumoconiosis (CWP) to impairment of pulmonary function and respiratory symptoms has been an issue of persistent controversy, in spite of the fact that decrements in pulmonary function (such as low FEV 1 ) have been used as evidence of disability compensation for miners with simple CWP in some countries [United States Department of Labor, 1980;Lewis et al, 1996]. Some early studies concluded that there was little or no abnormality of pulmonary function in the miners without complicated CWP [Higgins and Oldham, 1962;Rogan et al, 1973;Calvert et al, 1991], and simple CWP was not associated with any respiratory symptoms [Morgan, 1982].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Respiratory symptoms and pulmonary function in coal miners: Looking into the effects of simple pneumoconiosis

Wang

Wong

et al. 1999

Am. J. Ind. Med.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Current coal mining technology has not caused a significant increase in cancer mortality rates in coal workers, but it is difficult to anticipate in any prospective technology the risk inherent in the exposure of workers to trace toxic compounds, carcinogens, or mutagens (S, 19). It is straightforward to specify exposure levels for known carcinogens.…”

Section: Appendix B Carcinogen Detection In Advanced Coal Technologiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A job requiring a high energy expenditure will require a greater air volume, thus presenting to the alveoli a greater load of coal dust per unit time. There also seems to be an individual variation in the ability of the lung to clear these smaller dust particles from the alveoli, thus yielding a varying susceptibility of'the individual to the development of pneumoconiosis (5,19).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Health requirements for advanced coal extraction systems

Zimmerman¹

1980

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Health requirements have been developed as long-range goals for future advanced coal extraction systems which would be introduced into the market in the year 2000. This document summarises those k requirements and presents the analyses and data supporting them.The goal of the requirements is that underground coal miners work in an environment that is as close as possible to the working conditions of the general population, that they do not exceed mortality and morbidity rates resulting from lung diseases that are comparable to those of the general population, and that their working conditions comply as closely as possible to those of other industries as specified by OSHA regulations. The primary health requirements for advanced coal XLraction systems are that coal dust be reduced to less than 2 mg/m 3 to reduce the incidence of chronic lung diseases in miners, and that carcinogens and mutagena be reduced to levels typical of the air in large urban centers. Secondary requirements are thats (1) relative humidity be between 50% and 75% and that temperature be between 65 OF and 780F, with no extreme swings in either; (2) noise and lighting levels conform to present MSHA standards; (3) working space accommodate most body configurations, and (4) vibration damping equipment be provided.A brief technique for evaluating whether proposed advanced systems meet these safety requirements is presented, as well as a discussion of the costs of respiratory disability compensation. Appendices describe the effects of coal dust ingestion, suggest a recommended technique for detecting potential carcinogens, and present tables of accepted working space standards. L. fit FOREWORDThis document is one of a series which describe systems level requirements for advanced underground coal mining equipment. These requirements are summarized in "Overall Requirements for an Advanced Underground Coal Extraction System," JPL Publication 80-39 by Martin Goldsmith and Milton , L. Lavin. Five areas of performance are discussed:(1) Production cost.(2) Miner safety.(3) Miner health.(4) Environmental impact.(5) Recovery efficiency.The report which follows presents details of the analysi-used to formulate the health requirements. This work is part of an effort to define and develop innovative coal extraction systems suitable for the significant resources remaining in the year 2000. Sponsorship is provided by the Office of Mining, United States Department of Energy via an interagency agreement with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

show abstract

Pulmonary Disability in Coal Workers' Pneumoconiosis

Cited by 36 publications

References 9 publications

A prognostic model for advanced stage nonsmall cell lung cancer

A prognostic model for advanced stage nonsmall cell lung cancer

Respiratory symptoms and pulmonary function in coal miners: Looking into the effects of simple pneumoconiosis

Health requirements for advanced coal extraction systems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About