Weak Associations in Occupational Epidemiology and the Criteria for Deducing Causality

Conference paper
Part of the Veröffentlichungen aus der Geomedizinischen Forschungsstelle der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften book series (HD AKAD, volume 1991 / 1991/1)

Abstract

Study of the incidence of cancer in men and women employed in different occupations has been the most prolific method for establishing the carcinogenicity of chemicals to Man. The specific risks of cancer that have been observed have commonly been large, either absolutely in the case of common cancers, like cancer of the lung attributed to bis-chloromethyl ether, or relatively, like angiosarcoma of the liver attributable to vinyl chloride, and it has been easy enough to determine that the chemicals to which the employees were specifically exposed were the causal agents, once certain elementary rules had been defined for the scientific conduct of epidemiological research. With the care that is now taken to evaluate the toxicity of chemicals before they are used on a large scale and the higher standards of housekeeping in industry, which diminish the risk of prolonged and intensive exposure to agents whose effects are not fully understood, there is little chance of situations occurring in the future like those that caused such large risks in the past and the problems with which we are now faced are much more difficult to solve. These are mostly posed by the discovery that very large doses of an agent to which people have been exposed at work in much smaller amounts for many years are capable of causing cancer in one or more species of animal. Studies then have to be undertaken to see if any effect can be detected from the occupational exposure and, as often as not, some types of cancer are found to have occurred more often than would be expected: judged, that is, by comparison with some selected control population. We are then faced with the problem of deciding whether the observed excesses should be regarded as due to chance, bias in the conduct of the study, confounding with some other factor, or the carcinogenicity of the agent of interest.

Keywords

Nickel Formaldehyde Toxicity Dust Europe 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Acheson ED, Barnes HR, Gardner MJ, Osmond C, Pannett B, Taylor CP (1984) Formaldehyde in the British chemical industry: an occupational cohort study. Lancet 1:611–616.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Armstrong BG and Kazantzis G (1983) The mortality of cadmium workers. Lancet 1:1425–1427.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blair A, Stewart P, O’Berg M, Gaffey W, Walrath J, Ward J, Bales R, Kaplan S, Cubit D (1986) Mortality among industrial workers exposed to formaldehyde. J Natl Cancer Inst 76:1071–1084.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Cox DR (1972) Regression models and life-tables. J R Statist Soc B34:187–219.Google Scholar
  5. Enterline PE, Marsh GM (1982) Mortality among workers in a nickel refinery and alloy manufacturing plant in. West Virginia. J Natl Cancer Inst 68:925–933.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Holden H (1980) Further mortality studies in workers exposed to cadmium fume. In: Occupational exposure to cadmium fume. Cadmium Association, London.Google Scholar
  7. International Agency for Research on Cancer (1980) Some metals and metallic compounds. IARC monograph on the evaluation of the carcinogenic risk of chemicals to humans. Vol. 23. International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon.Google Scholar
  8. International Agency for Research on Cancer (1989) Biennial report, 1988–1989. International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, pp 41-42.Google Scholar
  9. International Workshop on the Carcinogenicity of Metals (1981) Problems of epidemiological evidence. Environ Hlth Perspect 40:11–20.Google Scholar
  10. Mancuso TF (1979) Occupational lung cancer among beryllium workers. In: R. Lernen, J.M. Dement (eds), Dusts and Diseases. Pathoton Publishers, Park Forest, 111, p 463.Google Scholar
  11. Olsen JH, Asnaes S (1986) Formaldehyde and the risk of squamous cell carcinoma of the sinonasal sinuses. Brit J industr Med 43:769–774.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Olsen JH, Jensen SP, Hink, M, Faurbo K, Breum NO, Jensen OM (1984) Occupational formaldehyde exposures and increased nasal cancer risk in man. Int J Cancer 34:639–644.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Patterson DG, Fingerhut MA, Roberts DW, Needham LL, Haring Sweeney M, Marlow DA, Andrews JS, Halperin WE (1989) Levels of polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans in workers exposed to 2, 3, 7, 8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin. Amer J Ind Med 16:135–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Simonato L, Fletcher AC, Cherrie J, Andersen A, Bertolazzi PA, Charnay N, Claude J, Dodgson J, Esteve J, Frentzel-Beyme R, Gardner MJ, Jensen OM, Olsen JH, Teppo L, Winkelmann R, Westerholm P, Wintger PD, Zochetti C, Saracci R (1987) The International Agency for Research on Cancer historical cohort study of MMMF production workers in seven European countries. Ann Occup Hyg 31:603–623.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Thun MJ, Schnorr TM, Smith AB, Halperin WE, Lernen RA (1985) Mortality among a cohort of US cadmium production workers — an update. J Natl Cancer Inst 74:325–333.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Zober A, Messerer P, Huber P (1990) Thirty four year mortality follow-up of BASF employees exposed to 2, 3, 7, 8-TCDD after the 1953 accident. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 62:139–157.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. Doll
    • 1
  1. 1.Imperial Cancer Research Fund Cancer Studies UnitRadcliffe InfirmaryOxfordEngland

Personalised recommendations