Document qmgKorEkegza8BZBLkXzOB9Oq

w I OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALTH REPORTER A weekly review of occupetionel tefety end heelth development *\ Volume . Number 32 THE BUREAU OF NATIONAL AFFAIRS, INC. January 4,1079 IMS {See NfiN Dec.) ASBESTOS ASSOCIATION CALLS HEW REPORT ON OCCUPATIONAL CANCER 'UNSUPPORTABLE' la letter to the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, the asbestos industry charged theta federal report do occupational cancer war based on "scientifically unsupportaMe assumptions.*' The Asbestce lafonnatioo Association/North America seat HEW Secretary Joseph A. Califano, Jr., comments December It oa the federal report, `Estimates of theFreetion of Cancer in the United Sutes Related to Occupational Factors." The "Estimates" paper released by Califaao in a speech la September said previous estimates of the contribution to cancer incidence In the United States of occupational ex posures were low and that the occupational factor probably was closer to SO percent (Current Report, September 14, p. 459). The posthearing record oa the OSHA cancer policy dosed December 19 following extension of more than two months for receipt of additional comments. Work to prepare the an nually large record for certification by the administrative law Judge was proceeding smoothly and was expected to take another week, hearing officer Tom Hall said January 2. * Owedmate Charpad The asbestos Industry group, summarising Its criticisms, said the population at risk of dying from asbestos-caused cancer was "grossly overestimated" in the government report. The A1A accused the authors of ignoring "the likelihood that minima), short-term exposures" to cancercausing substances would cany far leu risk for workers than sustained, long-term heavy exposures. "The very important objective of protecting the health of employed persons will not be served either by un derestimating or exaggerating the risks to which they are exposed." AIA President T. A. Dougherty wrote to Oslifano. A copy of the letter also was sent to the Labor Department where the Occupational Safety and Health Administration las included the "Estimates" paper in the record of a proposed carcinogens regulatory policy (Current Report, September 21, p. 217). Contributors to the asbestos association's comments were William Weiss, professor of medicine at Halineman Medical College in Philadelphia; Philip E. Enteriine, profeasor of biostatistics et the University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health: and Hans Weill, professor of medicine at TuUnc University School of Medicine. Oomments also were included from Paul Kotin and Gerald R. Chase of the health, safety, awl environment department of Johns-Manvllle Cor poralion. 1-4-W HoovNr Expoaod Oraupa According to Weill, the HEW estimates of relative risks for future cancer are baaed n workers who were heavl^ ex posed in the past in Jobs as laudators. "These same relative riaki are being applied to working populations who have recently been exposed to far lower levels of asbestos dust, a procedure which ignores the demonstrated and uniformly agreed upon dose-rdatedness of environmental cardaogeoesls." WdU aaJd the experience of heavily exposed workers of the put was being projected onto a cohort of four million wmters regarded as heavily exposed now but that this pro jection was not based oo fact Welu, of Hanneman, commented: "The 'fallacy' of 'one effect -- one cause' explanations is developed by mis directed discussion." Weiss continued that the synergistic relationship of asbestos and smoking in causing lung is well established. But hug cancer is rare in asbestos ' workers who do not smoke, he claimed, and thus smoking it the primary factor and asbestos an ihnr<ng factor, Weiss concluded. Weiss died a study of Irish insulators presented at a re cent New York Academy of Sciences conference. According to Weiss, the study concluded that smoking is the "important factor." The "survival curve" for the insulators who did' ' . smoke was similar to that of the general population, Wt > reported. Concerning the paper's estimates of cancer from arsenic ex posure, Weiss declared that "the same sin is committed u in the estimate of asbestos risk." Die high risk assigned part of a cohort of smelter workers who.received IS or more years' exposure to enealc was applied to 1.5 million workers, he said. "Do all arsenic workers have the same risk as half the smelter workers? This question is not even considered by the authors," Welts commented. Other Overestimates Aliened ' Enteriine echoed the doubts of the other commenters over figures on workers who had received heavy asbestos ex posure. He uid the "Estimates" paper apparently applies "heavy exposure" to the type of exposure experienced by 17,900 insulation workers studied by Irving J. Selikoff at the Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York and referred to In the paper. Of theseven to 10 million workers alive today who are or were exposed to ubestos, four million were estimated in tie paper rived heavy exposure. *T '!**tionjwhethei theie are 4,000,000 workers in the U.S. who havcKSj*"?-type of exposure," Enteriine smote. The University of Pittsburgh scientist also said the paper ex aggerated the number of asbestos-related cancers. Enteriine differed with the conclusions on the risk-factor for lung cancer of workers exposed to bexavalent chromium. He uid the "Estimates" paper relied on a study of workers refining chromite ore who had "an extraordinary risk." But assigning a five-fold lung cancer risk for 1.0 million workers from that evidence was in error, Enteriine argued. ) Reporter SOD) H8D HFM - 009553 SCF-FA-7312 ppntYr tpptt pv Prpr