ISSN:
1432-1009
Keywords:
Asbestos
;
Risk assessment
;
Carcinogens
Source:
Springer Online Journal Archives 1860-2000
Topics:
Energy, Environment Protection, Nuclear Power Engineering
Notes:
Abstract The paper by Dr. William Hallenbeck of the University of Illinois on pp. 23–32 of this issue ofEnvironmental Management contains an estimate of the risk of respiratory cancer resulting from exposure to asbestos fibers emitted from asbestos-containing hairdryers. The study, which is described as a worst case analysis, concludes that the use of these hairdryers would result in a maximum of 0.15 deaths from respiratory cancer per year in the United States, based on a median case estimate of asbestos fiber emission from hair-dryers. This estimate of risk was developed using data from one epidemiologic study. In this critique, we suggest that the use of other epidemiologic studies and the inclusion of other minor, reasonable changes to the basic assumptions made by Hallenbeck could significantly change the estimate in the direction of greater risk. Indeed, the use of other epidemiologic studies in the risk estimate results in an increase in the predicted risk of up to 3 orders of magnitude. Inclusion of changes both in the epidemiologic study used and in certain model assumptions results in an increased risk prediction of over 4 orders of magnitude in the extreme. Since there is no definitive basis on which to include or exclude certain assumptions or relevant studies, the risk estimate at best must be represented as a range of values. Such a range demonstrates the inherent uncertainties associated with estimating the risk to humans from known carcinogens. The size of the range developed in this analysis may actually be underestimated since no attempt has been made to evaluate the uncertainty associated with the choice of the dose-response model.
Type of Medium:
Electronic Resource
URL:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01866605
Permalink
