Document Nebqwqn1YGRGJ4QL5yJnowLVV

ioi _& W. E. Hnprrpr Ot. S. G. Austins Mr. J. H. Barrett /Th# Homton Pott/Sun., April 1, 1984 Dr. D. H. Glenn Mr. J. B. Leverton Mr. F. S. Provenzano Brain cancersMr. R. C. Wise Ms. A. P. Yalcinkaya Mr. R. L. Yelton remain mystery Researchers have only suspicions about studying chemical plant case Put EnlnuoMt Writer Federal health KMZdm, while years of studies turned up no proof, adll have a "gut feellnf" that yet-uaktenUfled chemical expoaum may have caused ant brain -w deaths hi chemical plants and refineries along the upper Tens Cult Coast. The researcher*, however, believe aay auch chemical exposures oc curred yesre ago when atsadards were leas strict, and say danger probably no longer exists. ihtmmiwg up the results of medi cal dstsctiv* work that began In 1979 sod le itUl conttnulng, Dr. Cordon R. Reeve of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health In Cincinnati said be and his NIOSH colleagues are still suspicious shout the brain cases. "I don't mean we're auspicious that the companies involved are cov ering up anything,H Reeve laid. "We are Just auspicious that given the methods availsbis for the stud ies, our gut feeling la that at Dow Oteaical and Unlae Carbide and some of tha Resmount-Port Arthur nt least la the past But we can't pin It down." Reeve is the land au thor of i NIOSH report, recently ctonred tor rrienae. that summsrtaes the of brain cancer studies expected 9.8 deaths. Among workers done by NIOSH and the affected In with 10 to 15 yean on the Job, the 11 dustries over the past five yean. deaths were more than triple the ex Tbs studies turned up 88 brain pected 3.2 fatalities. cancer deaths at eight refineries and At Dow Chemical, a total of 25 plants In the Houston area deaths did not greatly exceed the and other Texas coastal regions. expected 21.1 brain cancer fatalities. At two chemical plants, Dow to But for Dow workers with 20-plus Freeport and Union Carbide at Tex yean on the job, or who were hired as Oty, NIOSH said the studies from 1940 to 1944, brain cancer mor "dearly Indicate" excessive brain tality was about double the expected cancer deaths -- about double the rate. expected number -- at least to cer These patterns lead Reeve and his tain categories of workers. co-revtewen, Drs. William E. Hal- Bat the companies' researchers and Philip J. Landrigan. to be- have pointed out that exhaustive re that if chemical exposures views of the lobs held by the brain caused the brain eaacen, they prob-i tumor victims Showed no pattern of ably occurred under past conditions' exposure to any specific chemicals that may no longer exist knows to cause brain cancer. The aeries of NIOSH studies began 'Chance occurrence'? . at Union Carbide to February 1979, after a complaint by a plant worker The companies maintain the clus to the Occupatl aal Safety sad' ters of brain cancers therefore were, Health Admlnlstntion about brain to the wards of a Union Carbide offi cancer cases at the plant cial, a "chance occurrence" not re At that time, the National Cancer lated to the workplace. Institute was finding brain cancer However, the just-released NIOSH deaths at three Beaumont-Fort Ar review notes that n large number of thur refineries, and those Initial find the brain cancer fatalities Involved ings led to a broader joint study by long-term workers at the plants. The the NCI and NIOSH. victims Included some workers hired That study turned up 33 deaths -- as far back as the 1940s, when work about double the expected number-- place standards allowed much greet at the Gulf, Texaco and Mobil er exposure to chemicals then Is now refineries. permitted. As the NIOSH review notes. Gulf At Union Carbide, NIOSH found 19 and Texaco also conducted their own brain cancer deaths, or double an studies and, using a different and APR 41984 & Q. AUSTIN, Sc.D. UCC 052955 auppootdly mare accurate method of calculation, concluded the brain death** were not excessive in number. Reeve and his NIOSH colleague*, however, are not certain the socalled cohort studies used by the oli companies were rosily more accu rate In these Instance*. Different potential "What Gull and Texaco did was study their whole stray ot union and contract workers, everybody except office and clerical workers," Reeve said, "and there could be a vastly different potential for chemical ex posure among these different groups." Mobil also announced It would conduct its own study, originally scheduled for completion In Into ISO. A MobQ spokesman said last week the study is still incomplete, but the results should be ready in a few mootits. Meantime, while studying the Union Carbide cases, NIOSH heard teparta of more brain cancer deaths at two Texas City refineriea -- Amoco and Marathon. Subsequent checking showed no excessive deaths at those refineries. But In Investigating the two refin eries, the NIOSH report disclosed, NIOSH looked nt Brazoria County death records. "Quite unexpectedly," the report eld, "it was discovered that 33 per records is to meet payroll end book-' Z cent of nil brain tumor deaths keeping requirements," they said, In . . . Brazoria County were listed "and not to provide the basis far an on the certificates ss former Dow epidemiology study that may be com .Chemical employees." ducted 30 or ID years in the future." Thus another cluster of brain can Reeve said NIOSH now has no fur cer deeths was detected at Dow. ther brain cancer studies planned or : The next step was so-called case control studies in which the Job his The NCI, however, la now funding tories of brain cancer victims are n massive two-year study at 300 new compared with other unaffected brain cancer cases along the Texas, workers la an effort to detect any and Louisiana coasts. The study wtli^ chemical cause of the cancers. tty to determine If industrial work At Union Carbide, the company ers have an abnormal dare of the and NIOSH conducted separate case brain cancers in the total coastal control studies, white Dow and Tex population of 5.5 million -- and what aco carried out their own studies. may bo ig them. _ Nans turned up evidence of any . In addition. Union Carbide and*] chemical link to the cancers. Texaco are updating their tnttut I However, the NIOSH report sug worker studies which went through I gests a chemical linkup may have 1ST?. The new studies win track any | gone undetected because chemical additional brain cancer deaths I and refinery workers frequently ro through 1982. --* uts to different John and workers fat fflhffQMTmMTQutidei different Job categories may have' similar chemical exposures. tiie company has found about five additional onla ' "It la possible that all workers, both (brain cancer) cases and con rlw im not beiievrthat an excee- trols bad similar exposure*," the re port noted, adding that this would Reeve mid he doubts there win confound efforts to link particular ever be a positive answer to what Jobs to specific chemical exposures. caused the brain cancers In the Tex Inaccurate data? as plant* "We may be lucky enough la the The NIOSH reviewers noted that future to discover a chemical cause the work history records used in the by looking nt another plant." he . studies may have been Inaccurate. aid. "But that ia not a high >' "The main function of personnel probability." .1 _ ucc 052956