Document Rar7wJgYz14QnyvnaEGB5oe6k

AN INDEPENDENT NEVSPAPSfi WEDNE^DAT/DECEMBER 3, 1980 Hazards on the Job rwi WO YEARS A(X),tbeT^ofTic*rfthOa wooHbxfctdebrrth sided as ws2aetl best avaP.ab!e" * X patiooal Safety and Health Administration die* neutral experts. The group could not Cod a single covered 18. cases of brain cancer at the same plant simple explanation for the conflicting results, but Investigators found that in the general area ot the could find many possible sources of the coufa&ica r plant this relatively rare fora of cancer appeared at and dozens of issues to argue over. j * the same rate as in the United States as a whole, but This is a perfect illustration of the toughest prob it appeared twice ae oftm amccg the plant'* workers. Jem facing health and safety regulation and these Here, however, the dues stopped. No pattern who would reform the regulators: the weakness of I emerged from the type* ofjobs the dead workers had the only available tool--epidemiology--in detecting i held. The plant's inventory included at least 10 .health threats, even potentiallv devastating ones. It known or suspected carcinogens, but owe oouid be took nearly a decade, after all, for a consensus to identified as the responsible om The IB deaths were emerge that smoking causes lung cancer, dapite the spread evenly over 26 years. fact uut there were millions of amokars to study. Meanwhile, ether plants wet* being investigatedIn all likelihood, it will be yean before anyone can by government scientists and by employees of the perform a ccat-benefit study or any other kind of petrochemical cmapanks, many of which have active strict analysisof occupational brain cancer. In the and w*U-eatabliahed departments of epidemiology, meantime, workers axe understandably scared and By mid-summer of 1980, when the first news stories . their representatives will, rightly, demand some ac- cf an `'epidemic of brain cancer" appeared, two di- lion. Industry critics are likely to argue that all the Vectly conflicting seta of results had been obtained, effort would be better directed to other, burger risks, ' Four different government-sponsored studies found and they could well turn out to be right--or wrong, that petrochemical workers bad twice the risk of And government regulators--despite every desire for contracting brain cancer as did non-workers. Four objectivity--will be forced to rely on instinct, values other studies--by Dow Chemical, Du Pont, Gulf Oil and personal judgment. and a corsoruum of British refineries--found no evi- A great deal can be done to maka government regu- dence of increased risk. None of the studies pointed lation mote sensible, less expensive and more effcethw. toward any type ofjob or any particular chemical But the sad truth is that, for many years to come, un fit an effort to reduce the confusion, OSHA asked certainty and confusioa will necessarily remain a large a leading epidemiologist to organize a meeting that paitof the process. There isjust no way around it UCC 096494