Documents coal dust 6 results

"Conflicting evidence on the carcinogenicity of diesel exhaust (DE) and coal mine dust in occupational settings exist. Exposure measurement in most studies is inferred on the basis of job classifications and may lead to misclassification. Confounding behavioral factors (i.e., smoking) and occupational risk factors (exposure to asbestos, arsenic, radon) need to be considered. We evaluated the epidemiological evidence and current findings of the carcinogenicity of DE and coal mine dust in occupational settings. Pertaining literature was identified through Medline search and recent review articles. Strengths and limitations of recent approaches are discussed. Many epidemiological studies have addressed the question of carcinogenicity in workers exposed to DE, and most showed a low-to-medium increase in the risk of bronchial carcinoma. The pooled relative risk (RR) estimates lie between 1.33 and 1.47, and a consistent rise in risk across various job categories and study designs point to a causal relationship. Data on the carcinogenicity of coal mine dust are less consistent and the potential for confounding by unmeasured risk factors (arsenic, radon, DE) are higher. While silica as one of its components has been evaluated as carcinogenic, there is inadequate evidence for the carcinogenicity of pure coal dust according to the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC).There is sufficient evidence for a causal relationship between DE and lung cancer in occupational settings. The evidence for coal mine dust is less convincing, but individual studies show an increase in risk of lung cancer in exposed workers."

"Following passage of the Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969, underground coal mine operators were required to take air samples in order to monitor compliance with the exposure limit for respirable dust, a task essential for the prevention of pneumoconiosis among coal workers. Miners objected, claiming that having the mine operators perform this task was like "having the fox guard the chicken coop." This article is a historical narrative of mining industry corruption and of efforts to reform the program of monitoring exposure to coal mine dust. Several important themes common to the practice of occupational health are illustrated; most prominently, that employers should not be expected to regulate themselves."

"En décembre 1930, un brouillard épais se répand dans la vallée de la Meuse, non loin de Liège. Hommes et bêtes sont profondément affectés, nombreux y laissent leur vie. Après sa dissipation, des experts tranchent : "le seul brouillard" est responsable. Pourtant nombreux sont ceux incriminant les émanations des usines de la région, l'une des plus industrialisées d'Europe. Un an plus tard, des experts du parquet rendent d'autres conclusions : la consommation massive du charbon et les composés soufrés des émanations industrielles sont responsables. L'exceptionnalité de l'événement est cependant attribuée à la prédisposition des corps et aux conditions météorologiques particulières de cette première semaine de décembre 1930. Mais comment du "charbon" en vient-il à participer à la production de brouillards et à rejoindre ainsi, jusqu'à tuer, les poumons de ceux qui l'ont respiré ? Ces liens "charbon-brouillards toxiques-poumons" n'ont rien d'évident. C'est à tenter de reconstituer les conditions historiques de leurs constructions que ce livre s'attache. En considérant cette catastrophe dans le temps long - comme un processus et non comme une interruption - ; en suivant la piste des matières de sa constitution - leur (a)cheminement et les assemblages techniques, sociaux, politiques et discursifs - nécessaires à leur transformation ; en étudiant le rôle et les effets des pratiques savantes, cet ouvrage permet de comprendre la transformation conjointe, par l'industrialisation, des corps et des environnements et la production de nouveaux phénomènes météorologiques."