Copyright

(c) 2010-2024 Jon L Gelman, All Rights Reserved.
Showing posts with label Environmental Health Perspectives. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Environmental Health Perspectives. Show all posts

Friday, October 4, 2013

New York City workers have high pesticide exposure

Workers in New York have something else to worry about now...pesticide exposure. Today's post was shared by FairWarning and comes from www.environmentalhealthnews.org






New York City residents are more highly exposed to two types of widely used pesticides than the U.S. average, according to a new study from the city's Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.

The findings “underscore the importance of considering pest and pesticide burdens in cities when formulating pesticide use regulations,” the researchers from the city's Department of Health and Mental Hygiene wrote in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives.New York City residents are more highly exposed to two types of widely used pesticides than the U.S. average, according to a new study.

Population-based biomonitoring of exposure to organophosphate and pyrethroid pesticides in New York CityEnvironmental Health Perspectives http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/1206015/

Organophosphate metabolites were measured in the urine of 882 New Yorkers, while 1,452 residents were tested for pyrethroid metabolites. Some organophosphates have been banned in the United States in recent years, although many are still heavily used in agriculture. Pyrethroids are used indoors and outdoors in sprays and bug bombs to kill fleas, mosquitoes and other pests.

Among New Yorkers who were 20 to 59 years old in 2004, the highest exposed group had between two and six times more organophosphates in their urine...
[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Thursday, October 6, 2011

The New Danger of Thirdhand Smoke: Why Passive Smoking Does Not Stop at Secondhand Smoke

"Passive smoking exposure is a topic of great concern for public health because of its well-known adverse effects on human health (International Agency for Research on Cancer 2004). Two news articles on this topic were published in the February 2011 issue of Environmental Health Perspectives (Burton 2011; Lubick 2011). Lubick (2011) discussed the global health burden of secondhand smoke, and Burton (2011)emphasized a new and alarming consequence of 
smoking in indoor environments—“thirdhand smoke”—a term first coined in 2006 (Szabo 2006).

"Thirdhand smoke is a complex phenomenon resulting from residual tobacco smoke pollutants that adhere to the clothing and hair of smokers and to surfaces, furnishings, and dust in indoor environments. These pollutants persist long after the clearing of secondhand smoke. They are reemitted into the gas phase or react with oxidants or other compounds present in the environment to form secondary contaminants, some of which are carcinogenic or otherwise toxic for human health (Matt et al. 2011). Thus, thirdhand smoke exposure consists of unintentional intake (mainly through inhalation but also via ingestion and dermal routes) of tobacco smoke and other related chemicals that occurs in the absence of concurrent smoking. Exposure can even take place long after smoking has ceased, through close contact with smokers and in indoor environments in which tobacco is regularly smoked.

Citation: Protano C, Vitali M 2011. The New Danger of Thirdhand Smoke: Why Passive Smoking Does Not Stop at Secondhand Smoke. Environ Health Perspect 119:a422-a422. http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1103956


For over 4 decades the Law Offices of Jon L. Gelman  1.973.696.7900  jon@gelmans.com have been representing injured workers and their families who have suffered occupational accidents and illnesses.




Saturday, August 28, 2010

There is No Good Asbestos -- It Is All a Killer


Chrysotile Asbestos and Mesothelioma

Richard A. Lemen
Assistant Surgeon General, U.S. Public Health Service (retired), National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (retired), Canton, Georgia, E-mail: richard@ralemen.org
The Editor’s Summary for the article by Tse et al. (2010) stated the following:

Assuming an average latency of 42 years, the authors predict that incidence rates will peak in 2009 and that diagnoses will peak in 2014. However, they caution that ongoing use of chrysotile asbestos (which has been implicated but not conclusively established as a cause of mesothelioma) and the release of asbestos fibers from older buildings during demolition or renovation may slow the projected decline.
The statement concerning chrysotile asbestos being “implicated but not conclusively established as a cause of mesothelioma” is inconsistent with current scientific opinion. I refer you to the most recent evaluation by the International Agency for Research on Cancer in which Straif et al. (2009) stated,
Epidemiological evidence has increasingly shown an association of all forms of asbestos (chrysotile, crocidolite, amosite, tremolite, actinolite, and anthophyllite) with an increased risk of lung cancer and mesothelioma. Although the potency differences with respect to lung cancer or mesothelioma for fibres of various types and dimensions are debated, the fundamental conclusion is that all forms of asbestos are “carcinogenic to humans” (Group 1).
In addition, opinions such as that expressed in the Editor’s Summary are advanced only by scientists with prochrysotile industry bias.
When I wrote the draft for the first IARC Monograph on asbestos in 1976, which the expert committee accepted and published in 1977 as IARC Monograph Volume 14, a similar conclusion was stated: “Many pleural and peritoneal mesotheliomas have been observed after occupational exposure to crocidolite, amosite and chrysotile.” Since then—more than 30 years—science has not changed its opinion that all forms of asbestos, including chrysotile, cause mesothelioma.
In fact, in the article that is the subject of the Editor’s Summary, Tse et al. (2010) did not indicate that chrysotile is not a cause of mesothelioma; on the contrary, they stated the following:
Although the mesothelioma incidence is anticipated to decline in the coming decades, it may not decrease to background risk levels given that chrysotile consumption has not been banned under the current legislation and that secondary asbestos exposure from the environment will likely continue. Nevertheless, the hypotheses generated from this ecologic study need further confirmation by subsequent analytic studies. The present study provides supportive evidence for an immediate and global ban on asbestos use.
I hope that future Editor’s Summaries will reflect the conclusions of the article and not put forth statements that are not supported by mainstream science. I also support the conclusion of Tse e al. (2010) for “an immediate and global ban on asbestos use.”

References Top

  1. IARC 1977. Asbestos. IARC Monogr Eval Carcinog Risk Hum 14: 1–106. FIND THIS ARTICLE ONLINE
  2. Straif K, Benbrahim-Tallaa L, Baan R, Grosse Y, Secretan B, El Ghissassi F, et al. 2009. A review of human carcinogens—part C: metals, arsenic, dusts, and fibres. Lancet Oncol 10: 453. –454. FIND THIS ARTICLE ONLINE
  3. Tse LA, Yu IT, Goggins W, Clements M, Wang XR, Au JS, et al. 2010. Are current or future mesothelioma epidemics in Hong Kong the tragic legacy of uncontrolled use of asbestos in the past? Environ Health Perspect 118: 382–386. FIND THIS ARTICLE ONLINE
Click here to read more about asbestos related disease and claims for benefits. For over 3 decades the Law Offices of Jon L. Gelman 1.973.696.7900 jon@gelmans.com  have been representing injured workers and their families who have suffered asbestos related illnesses.

Enhanced by Zemanta