Document a4QDqg3Ga7L1Jv9jJEaVkVy89

JOURNAL OF COM5ERCE 10/29/80 Cancer Deaths Held Work-Related ^ FEDERAL HEALTH investigators sax the brain cancer deaths of 18 workers at a Texas petrochemical plant apparently were work-related, but plant officials claim more investigation iSj needed to prove the chemical-cancer link. "A preliminary j estimate reveals a plant-wide excess brain cancer risk twice that expected among 6,800 white males at the plant since 1941," investigators said after reviewing deaths at a Union Carbide petrochemical plant in Texas City, Texas, between 1956 and 1980. Dr. Victor Alexander of the Occupational Safely and Health Administration released the results of investigations by federal health sleuths at the opening session of a three-day New York Academy of Sciences workshop on brain tumors in the chemical industry. CHEMICAL MARKETING REPORTER 11/4/80 Petrochemical Tumors: Industry Rebuts Linkage Chemical industry researchers last , week rebutted assertions by govern- ' ment and union experts that there, may be a link between petrochemicals and brain cancers reported in workers in volved in petrochemical manufacture. Describing a case control study of brain tumor deaths among workers at Dow's Freeport, Tex., petrochemical complex, j Gregory G. Bond, a company epidemiolog- I 1st asserted there is no apparent associa- j tion between having held a job assignment . in sny particular department or process | area and subsequent death from brain tumor, "While there is a weak association with employment in .a magnesium production department, this' does not suggest any chemical agent which could be causally re lated," he said. Dr. Bond said, however, that there was ____ _Continued on Page 24 Petrochemicals, Tumors * Continued from Page 5 a "striking" association between tumor deaths and employment of the deceased workers who were first hired between 1940 and 1946. But he added that "while it is generally assumed that hygienic conditions within the chemical industry in the early 1940's were quite different than they are presently, the lack of a common documented work expert- 1 ence among the cases did not allow us to- | implicate a particular process area or chemical." Dr. Bond presented his findings to a seminar on brain tumors in the chemical / industry held under the auspices of the New York Academy of Sciences last week. Among other experimental brain carcin ogens cited at the meeting were: vinyl chlo ride, acrylonitrile, diethyl and dimethyl sulfates, and propylene inline. Participants in the seminar last week . sharply disputed the methodologies used to assess the relationship, if any between pet rochemical plant environments and brain cancer. ,, One example of a methodilogical differ ence is the use of proportionate mortality ratio (PMB) as opposed to the use of standardized mortality ratio (SMB) analy sis. According to Gulf Science & Technolo gy's Chi-Pang Wen, PMB inflates the esti mated risk of cancer when the study group has a lower mortality rate for all causes of death. Dr. Weftg described *a study of 19,352 workers at a "full service" Texas refinery. The study found, Jie said, that deaths from malignant tumors of all kinds were no more than would be expected in the general popu lation. - The thirty brain cancers that were re ported for the whole group were also no more than would be expected from the ex perience of the general population, he said. Similar conclusions were reached in a study of brain cancer in the duPont Compa ny carried out by Bruce W. Karrh and Sid ney Pell, both corporate medical experts.