Evidence of carcinogenicity in humans of water-soluble nickel salts

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Increased risks of nasal cancer and lung cancer in nickel refiners have been investigated scientifically and discussed since they were detected in the 1930s. Nickel compounds are considered to be the main cause of the cancer excess. Parts of the nickel producing industry and their consultants oppose the classification of water-soluble nickel salts as human carcinogens, and argue that the risk in exposed workers should be ascribed to other occupational exposures and smoking.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>Respiratory cancer risks in Welsh, Finnish, and Norwegian nickel refiners add to the evidence of carcinogenicity of water-soluble nickel. In Norwegian refiners, the first epidemiological study in 1973 identified high risks of lung cancer and nasal cancer among long-term electrolysis workers. Risk analyses based on exposure estimates developed in the 1980s supported the view that water-soluble nickel compounds were central in the development of cancer. Recently, new exposure estimates were worked out for the same cohort based on personal monitoring of total nickel and chemical determination of four forms of nickel. Additional data have been collected on life-time smoking habits, and on exposure to arsenic, asbestos, sulphuric acid mists, cobalt, and occupational lung carcinogens outside the refinery. After adjustment for these potential confounding exposures in case-control analyses, the risk pattern added to the evidence of an important role of water-soluble nickel compounds as causes of lung cancer. These Norwegian cancer studies rely on national Cancer Registry data, considered close to complete from 1953 onwards; and on National Population Register data continuously updated with mortality and emigration. Canadian mortality studies--perceived to offer the strongest support to the industry position not to recognise carcinogenicity of water-soluble nickel--appear to suffer from limitations in follow-up time, loss to follow-up, absence of risk analysis with individual exposure estimates, no confounder control, and a likely underestimation of cancer mortality.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Rejection to recognise water-soluble nickel as a human carcinogen seems to contradict material epidemiological evidence that demonstrates a strong association between water-soluble nickel compounds and risks of lung cancer and nasal cancer. Independent international scientific bodies have classified nickel compounds as carcinogenic to humans, inclusive of water-soluble nickel.</p

Effect of ultrasonic cavitation on small and large organisms for water disinfection during fish transport

Motivated by the need for additional tools to disinfect discharge water from well boats, and to prevent distribution of salmon lice, the effect of ultrasonic cavitation on the planktonic stages of the salmon louse, nauplii and copepodids, as well as marine heterotrophic bacteria, and the marine green microalgae Tetraselmis suecica, has been investigated. Survival and morphology were registered after different exposure times. Efficacy of the ultrasonic cavitation treatments varied with exposure time. A reduction in survival was registered even for the shortest exposure time (5 seconds) for both naupliar and copepodid stages of the salmon louse (36.7 ± 11.5 and 67.20 ± 7.2% survival respectively). Survival reached zero after exposure times of 20 and 60 seconds for the nauplii and copepodid stages, respectively. A reduction in 70% was observed for bacteria at all exposure times (5 to 300 s), while a reduction of 95% was observed after 300 s for algal cells. The logged energy transfer to the samples was on average 17.5 J/s. In conclusion, cavitation treatment is destructive for the planktonic stages of salmon lice, and may contribute to reduce discharge of pathogens and parasites from well boats when adapted for this purpose and combined with existing water disinfection methods.publishedVersio

IARC Monographs: 40 Years of Evaluating Carcinogenic Hazards to Humans

Background: Recently, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Programme for the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans has been criticized for several of its evaluations, and also for the approach used to perform these evaluations. Some critics have claimed that failures of IARC Working Groups to recognize study weaknesses and biases of Working Group members have led to inappropriate classification of a number of agents as carcinogenic to humans. Objectives: The authors of this Commentary are scientists from various disciplines relevant to the identification and hazard evaluation of human carcinogens. We examined criticisms of the IARC classification process to determine the validity of these concerns. Here, we present the results of that examination, review the history of IARC evaluations, and describe how the IARC evaluations are performed. Discussion: We concluded that these recent criticisms are unconvincing. The procedures employed by IARC to assemble Working Groups of scientists from the various disciplines and the techniques followed to review the literature and perform hazard assessment of various agents provide a balanced evaluation and an appropriate indication of the weight of the evidence. Some disagreement by individual scientists to some evaluations is not evidence of process failure. The review process has been modified over time and will undoubtedly be altered in the future to improve the process. Any process can in theory be improved, and we would support continued review and improvement of the IARC processes. This does not mean, however, that the current procedures are flawed. Conclusions: The IARC Monographs have made, and continue to make, major contributions to the scientific underpinning for societal actions to improve the public’s health