|
<br />EN\!IRl,Nt\\ENTALCANCER RI~KS
<br />
<br />SEP-11-1997 15:56
<br />~ ~.J.rf '1 ~.......-.. .
<br />
<br />MN DEPT HEALTH MCSS
<br />v I .
<br />
<br />d .-
<br />
<br />
<br />Environmental causes probably account for well over
<br />half of all cancer cases. Most environmental risks are
<br />determined b lifes Ie choices smokin ,diet, etc.),
<br />wet e rest arise in community and workp ace
<br />settings. The degree of cancer hazard posed by these
<br />voluntary and involuntary risks depends on the concen-
<br />tration or intensity of the carcinogen and the exposure
<br />dose a person received. In situations where high levels
<br />of carcinogens are present and where exposures are
<br />extcnsive, significant hazards may exist, but where
<br />concentrations are low and exposures limited, hazards
<br />are o~ten negligible. However, when low-dose exposures
<br />are wIdespread, they can represent significant public
<br />health hazards (for example, secondhand tobacco
<br />smoke). Strong regulatory control and constant attention
<br />to safe occupational practices are required to minimize
<br />the ~orkplace potential for exposure to high-dose
<br />carcinogens.
<br />
<br />Risk Assessment
<br />
<br />Risks are assessed to protect people against unsafe
<br />exposures and to set appropriate environmental
<br />standards. The process of risk assessment has two steps.
<br />The first identifies the chemical or physical nature of
<br />a hazard and its cancer-producing potential, both in
<br />clinical and epidemiologic studies and in laboratory tests
<br />using animals or cell systems. Special attention is iiven
<br />to any evidence suggesting that cancer risk increases
<br />with increases in exposure. The second step measures
<br />levels of hazard in the environment (air, water, food,
<br />ete.) and the extent to which people are actually exposed
<br />(how much they eat of a particular food, use a particular
<br />water source, etc.). Knowledge of how the body absorbs
<br />chemicals or is exposed to radiation is essential for such
<br />dose measurements.
<br />Unfortunately, evidence of risk for most potential car-
<br />cinogens is usually the result of high-dose experiments
<br />on animals or observations where high-dose exposures
<br />have occurred in humans. To use such information [0 set
<br />human safety standards, scientists must extrapolate from
<br />animals to humans and from high-dose to low-dost:
<br />conditions. Because both extrapolations involve much
<br />uncertainty, conservative assumptions arc used so that
<br />risk assessment will err on the side of safety. For cancer
<br />safety standards, only increased risks of one case or less
<br />per million persons over a lifetime are usually acceptable.
<br />Safety standards developed in this way for chemical or
<br />radiation exposures a.re the basis for federal regulatory
<br />
<br />/
<br />
<br />612623512199
<br />J' -.,'
<br />
<br />P.12I5/1215
<br />
<br />'.. ....~ " . -
<br />
<br />. "" J
<br />
<br />t"k
<br />
<br />activities at the Food and Drug Administration, the;
<br />Environmenral Protection Agency, and the Occupational
<br />Safety and Health Administra.tion, The application
<br />of laws and procedures by which standards are
<br />implemented and risks are controlled is called risk
<br />management.
<br />
<br />Chemicals
<br />
<br />Various chemicals show definite evidence of human
<br />carcinogenicity (for example, benzene, asbestos, vinyl
<br />chloride, arsenic, aflatoxin) or are probable human
<br />carcinogens based on evidence from animal experiments
<br />(f?r example, chloroform, dichlorodiphenyl-
<br />trIchloroethane [DDT], formaldehyde, polychlorinated
<br />biphenyls [PCBs], polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons).
<br />Often in thl;; past, direct evidence of human carcino-
<br />genicity has come from studies of workplace conditions
<br />i~volving sustai~ed, high-dose exposures- Occasionally,
<br />nsks are greatly increased when particular exposures
<br />occur together (for example, asbestos exposure and
<br />cigarene smoking).
<br />
<br />Radiation
<br />
<br />Only high.frequeney radiation, ionizing radiation (IR)
<br />and ultraviolet (UV) radiation, has been proven to cause
<br />human cancer. Exposure to sunlight (UV radiation)
<br />causes almost all cases of basal and squamous cell
<br />skin cancer and is a major cause of skin melanoma.
<br />Disruption of the earth's ozone layer by atmospheric
<br />chemical pollution (the "ozone hole") may lead to rising
<br />levels of UV radi .nion.
<br />Evidence that high-dose IR (x-rays, radon, etc.) causes
<br />cancer comes from studies of atomic bomb survivors,
<br />patients receiving radiotherapy, and certain occupational
<br />groups (for e.xample, uranium miners), Virtually any parr:
<br />of the body can be a.ffected by IR, but especially bone
<br />marrow and the thyroid gland. Diagnostic medical and
<br />dental x-rays are set at the lowest dose levels possible to
<br />minimize risk without losing image quality. Radon
<br />t:xposures in homes can increase lung cancer risk,
<br />especially in cigarette smokers; remedial actions may be
<br />needed if radon levels are too high,
<br />
<br />Unproven Risks
<br />Public concern about erwironmental cancer risks often
<br />focuses on risks for which no carcinogenicity has been
<br />proven or on situations where known carcinogen
<br />exposures arc at such low levels that risks an: neg:ligible,
<br />For example:
<br />
<br />28
<br />CANCER FACTS & FIGURES 19<)7
<br />
<br />TOTAL P.12I5
<br />
|