Printer Friendly
The Free Library
4,548,631 articles and books
Member login
User name  
Password 
 
Join us Forgot password?

Listing occupational carcinogens.


The review by Siemiatycki et al. (2004) is extremely valuable, and I am sure I will refer to it often in the future. However, I would like clarification on the risk classification of some chemicals. In the text the authors state that some chemicals, such as glass wool, were downgraded in risk between 1987 and 2002, from "possible human carcinogen
epigenetic carcinogen  one that does not itself damage DNA but causes alterations that predispose to cancer.
genotoxic carcinogen  one that reacts directly with DNA or with macromolecules that then react with DNA.


car·cin·o·gen 
" (group 2B) classification, to unclassifiable (group 3). This contradicts Table 5 (Siemiatycki et al. 2004), where the chemicals are listed as "possible human carcinogens" and the authors cited the 2002 volumes of the IARC IARC - Illinois Association of Recycling Centers (now Illinois Recycling Association)
IARC - Individual Aircraft Record Card
IARC - International Aerial Robotics Competition (Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International)
IARC - International Agency for Research on Cancer
IARC - International Agency for Research on Cancer (World Health Organization)
IARC - International Agricultural Research Center
IARC - International Arctic Research Center
 (International Agency for Research on Cancer) Monographs, this gives the impression that this is the most up-to-date classification.

The author declares she has no competing financial interests.

REFERENCE

Siemiatycki J, Richardson L, Straif K, Latreille B, Lakhani R, Campbell S, et al. 2004. Listing occupational carcinogens. Environ ENVIRON - Environment Health Perspect 112:1447-1459.

Editor's note: Siemiatycki et al. submitted corrections to their paper, which were published as an Erratum in the February 2005 issue of EHP (Environ Health Perspect 113:A89).

Alice Freund

Mt. Sinai School of Medicine

New York, New York

E-mail: alice.freund@mssm.edu
COPYRIGHT 2005 National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2005, Gale Group. All rights reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.

 Reader Opinion

Title:

Comment:



 

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:Correspondence
Author:Freund, Alice
Publication:Environmental Health Perspectives
Date:Mar 1, 2005
Words:189
Previous Article:Epidemiology of radiofrequency exposure: Ahlbom et al. respond.(Correspondence)
Next Article:David Rall and the National Toxicology Program.(Correspondence)



Related Articles
Reducing carcinogens in public schools: a non-regulatory approach by a regulatory agency.
BERKELEY ANTI-SMOKING LAW STRICTER THAN STATE'S.(NEWS)
Priorities for development of research methods in occupational cancer. (Commentaries).
Listing occupational carcinogens.(Research / Review)
Occupational bladder cancer in a 4,4'-methylenebis(2-chloroaniline) (MBOCA)-exposed worker.(Environmental Medicine / Grand Rounds)
Errata.(Perspectives / Correspondence)(Correction Notice)
IARC carcinogen update.(Perspectives / Correspondence)
Occupational carcinogens: ELF MFs.(Perspectives / Correspondence)
ELF MFs: Straif et al. respond.(Perspectives / Correspondence)
Coal tar and paving products.(Perspectives: Correspondence)

Terms of use | Copyright © 2008 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters | Submit articles