Document rBVByew3zXwwomgkE440Eox8e

1 News of the .<=eK r\ - . .. scv _ OSHA TASK FORCE FROM: AIHC____ DATE: 11/7/80 I/S ETBOCiJBSKAL LBR PROBED The possibility that workers in the - petrochemical industry have an ele- vated risk for developing brain tu- . toon continues to receive intense, and unusually public, scientific scrutiny. ' X But conclusions about the extent and even the existence of a genuine health _ problem that might be caused by workplace exposure to carcinogens remain tentative and controversial. The latest tableau of this issue was out during a three-day, polite ten smoldering workshop on "brain tumors in the chemical in* . dustry," sponsored by the New York - Academy of Sciences in New York -1?' City. The meeting was convened in rapid response to a request last sum- v mer from officials of the Occupational Safety & Health Administration and scientists from that agency; from its research arm, the National Institute for Occupational Safety & Health; and from other federal and medical institutions. ; The organizers of the workshop v called the meeting extraordinary not only for its scientific breadth but also for its being representative of a novel effort to identify and to solve an emerging public health problem be fore it gets out of hand. That very ef wide excess brain cancer risk twice that expected among 6800 white males at the plant since 1941." A similar nsk estimate, namely two times higher than normal for brain cancer, bas also been ascribed to workers at some of the other facilities in Texas. fort--to anticipate a problem by an alyzing often sketchy health records and items such as county death cer tificates---is understandably loaded Other analysts have reached just the opposite conclusion, however. For example, a group of epidemiologists at Dow says, about the company's with technical difficulties. Also Texas plant, "Preliminary calcula equally understandable, it is charged tions or expected deaths from [brain with economic, political, and almost tumors] among the employees suggest philosophical tensions. there is no excessive risk." Several petrochemical plants and refineries in Texas are the focus of major attention during the current controversy. In particular, a moder "It's not unusual for epidemiolog ical data to be conflicting," says OSHA head Eula Bingham. And she adds that it would be "unfair to ate-sized Union Carbide plant in working men and women" if the dis Texas City and a Dow Chemical fa agreeing parties were not brought cility in Freeport have been under together "to come to grips with this close scrutiny. But several other fa cilities, including three additional refineries in the Port Arthur-Beaumonl area of the Texas Gulf Coast : also are involved. The Union Carbide facility is get- problem." The problem is formidable in more ways than one, and promises to be anything but straightforward. "Brain tumors are uncommon, one can al most say rare," says meeting orga V. ting perhaps the hardest look. So far, IS brain cancer deaths between 1956 and 1980 have occurred among male workers at that plant "We believe this is the largest single series of pre nizer and epidemiologist Irving P. Selikoff of Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York. "Things that cause cancer are rarely site specific." Thus, whatever is rausing the brain sumably occupationally related brain tumors in Texas may prove difficult cancers reported to date," says an to identify. Also, it could prove to be OSHA epidemiology group. "A pre related only indirectly to the work liminary estimate reveals a plant- place, or unrelated altogether. So far, everyone agrees that no one chemical or group of chemicals is emerging as the likely culprit for in ducing brain tumors. Candidate compounds, including vinyl chloride. be.nze.ne, vinylidene "cKTonde," and diethyl sulfate, are present in signif icant amounts in certain operations at some of the Texas petrochemical fa cilities. The compounds are known human carcinogens. However, "none can be linked definitely to people who had brain tumors," says NIOSH of ficial Anthony Robbins There are other vexing questions. Similar petrochemical plants at other locations, so far, report no unusual incidence of brain tumors among their employees. Moreover, some of the employees of the Texas plants who died because of brain tumors worked only for short periods at the plants or in some cases did not work in areas in which exposure to chemi cals was (under ordinary .circum stances) unusually high. Such analy sis is complicated, inasmuch as it in volves identifying workplace experiences of people who have been dead for a decade or more. The list of vexing questions, ap parent false scents, and the many bits of inconsistent information is much longer. No one denies that. But there is a sense among many but by no means all of-the scientists that this just might be another emerging instance of a workplace horror story. This possibility, however unlikely., is one thal forcibly beckons federal regulators responsible for ensuring the safety and health of workers. "Occupational disease is preventable when we car. pinpoint the cause," asserts NIOSH's Robinson. The recent workshop represents an attempt to pool all the available clues regarding those causes. That infor mation, drawn from programs testing chemicals for carcinogenic activity in animals and from ongoing epidemio logic studies that ao not revolve around the chemical industry, makes a highly fragmented picture at best. . "To the extent that we scientists can make a contribution, we felt it urgent that this be done," Selikoff says. "NIOSH and OSHA have de-` fined a cluster [of brain cancer inci dence] in a very important U.S. in dustry. Public health problems have to take precedence." 4 4AIA OLI 6952