Document jmaDOV1vx7nwbDY7qzxpzabGR

f'UaTON SIISDAY C.LOliK JANtJAKN 2 V. !--'2 JiZli1J. er Mink Is minimiz&d Hy riobert Cooke Glnlic Staff' A new study among former workers at a themkal plant ir Sprinv'f'Yld shows only a small - and possibly m.-.ignifi:.T.nt - correlation between exposure to chrmicals and thr inci dence cf car.ccr. the scimust who conducted the study u^ys. . "There was a [statistically] significant ex* res*s for the rectal cancers." said Dr. Gary Marsh. "But that was the only significant find ing in the whole report, and you can't place weight on'U." Marsh, as-'-slant professor of blostatistfcs a: the University of Pittsburgh, conducted the study for the Monsanto Co., owner of the plant. In ail. he studied tne records of some 2500 em ployees who worked at the plant between 1949 and I960.. The main findings from the new study. Marsh said, were: o The results did not support the hypothesis that tumors of the digestive tract or the gonitai/urinary tract were rented to general expo sure to chemicals ir. the plant, or were related to the dates workers were hired. o Cancer of the digestive tract and the genital'urinnry tract - other than tumors of the prostate gland or rectum - were not related to employment in any of 21 specific work stations at the chemical plant. a Of the w.ii Kers with rectal cancer. 57 per cent had been employed in cellulose nitrate pro duction. which was a statistically significant excess of tumors. But. Marsh said, tlier-- is no r<rrnt literal .:re linking bowel cancer with ex posure to cellulose nitrate. " Among the chemical workers with proslatic ca ncer. 2t- percent had worked In polystyrene prwressing. but this result was not considered statistically significant. Marsh, in a telephone interview. orTimrrni'sd that "we tried to identify a particular workplace or agent they [the workers] were exp^s-ed ?o that could have oeeri related to this [cancer] excess, hut the only thing that came out of the report was this rectal thing." As s result of these fir IliigA. Mnrsh'r report recommended "updating the original Spring- field study ... so as to better asscr-. the possible risk." ! This third study was done because earlier j work suggested there might be an excess of di- > gestive tract cancers and tumors of the ger.itx- . 1/urinary system, mostly the prostate gland. ! A study conducted by a search group at UMasa Amherst had also suggested there could be excejv.ive mortality from cancer among for mer workers at the plant. That study focused or how the health of workers might vary' according to where they worked In the plant. The UMass study was conducted by Dr. Ken- , neth HOi-enman and a team of graduate stu dents fiora the university's Division of Public Health. Dr. WtlJlm R. Gaffey. speaking for Monsanto, noted that the University of Pittsburgh study "says that w.:h the exception of the rectal and proatatic cancers. there's no suggestion of workrelated lIJncsjes in the deaths from ail the diges tive and genitounrinary canters." Asked whether current conditions nt the plant will be changed In response to the find ing*. Gaffey replied that exposure conditions have changed significantly over the years, so the exposures are no longer the same. "If these cancers are occupational, they're' the result of exposures that occurred se\eral decades ago. under conditions that were prohabiv quite different" than they are today. RSV 0007071