Radon progeny in underground mines

"This document presents the recommendations of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) regarding occupational exposure to radon progeny in underground mines. Ventilation is discussed as an important control technology approach in the management of excessive concentrations of radon daughters. Data is presented pertaining to the linkage of radon exposure with the risk of human lung cancer. The NIOSH recommended exposure limit (REL) takes into account studies and documentation of the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), as well as its own risk assessment modeling, accumulated measurement data, and technical feasibility assessments. The REL allows for 0.2 pCi/l (picocuries per liter of air) at 1 working level month (WLM - 170 hours per month). This should be considered as an upper limit and it is recommended that mine operators limit exposure to the lowest levels possible. In addition, it is emphasized that this recommended standard contains many important provisions in addition to the annual exposure limit. These include recommendations for limited work shift concentrations of radon progeny, sampling and analytical methods, recordkeeping, medical surveillance, posting of hazardous information, respiratory protection, worker education and notification, and sanitation." - NIOSHTIC-2Cover title: A recommended standard for occupational exposure-- radon progeny in underground mines.Shipping list no.: 88-26-P."October 1987."Includes bibliographies

Criteria for a recommended standard

"Standard designed to protect the health and safety of employees exposed to ethylene-glycol-monobutyl-ether (111762) (EGBE) and ethylene-glycol-monobutyl-ether-acetate (112072) (EBGEA) by reducing those exposures to not more than 5 parts per million. The document contains information on recommended exposure limits for EGBE and EGBEA, exposure monitoring, medical monitoring, labeling and posting, protective clothing and equipment, informing workers about the hazards of EGBE and EGBEA, engineering controls and work practices, sanitation and hygiene, recordkeeping, chemical and physical properties of the substances, production methods and uses, number of workers potentially exposed, effects on humans, metabolism, elimination, effects on animals (hematologic effects, reproductive effects, carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, cytotoxicity), environmental sampling, analytical methods, correlation of effects and exposure, work practices (worker isolation, storage and handling, sanitation and hygiene), and spills and waste disposal." - NIOSHTIC-2"September 1990."Also available via the World Wide Web.Includes bibliographical references (p. 133-158)

Occupational exposure to ethylene glycol monomethyl ether, ethylene glycol monoethyl ether, and their acetates

"September 1991."Also available via the World Wide Web.Includes bibliographical references (p. 258-293)

NIOSH recommendations for occupational safety and health: compendium of policy documents and statements

"A compilation of NIOSH documents that contain recommendations for safety and health standards in the workplace was provided. Section- A listed all NIOSH documents containing recommendations for chemical, physical, and other hazards in the workplace. Section-B contained the NIOSH recommended exposure limits (RELs) for all the hazards mentioned as well as associated health effects. Section-A included NIOSH publications and written testimony from NIOSH on rules proposed by regulatory agencies such as OSHA, the Mine Safety and Health Administration, or the United States Environmental Protection Agency as well as testimony provided by NIOSH at regulatory hearings by OSHA or MSHA. Documents were in the form of Criteria Documents, Current Intelligence Bulletins, Alerts, Special Hazard Reviews, Occupational Hazard Assessments, Miscellaneous Statements and Reports, and Responses to Regulatory Agencies. Section-B contained three tables listing hazardous chemicals, physical hazards, and the particular industry, process or work environment. Five appendices dealt with classes of chemicals and chemicals for which RELs were and were not adopted by NIOSH and chemicals for which NIOSH revised existing RELs. Pesticides were categorized into three levels of toxicity based on the 1978 NIOSH criteria." - NIOSHTIC-2"January 1992."Also available via the World Wide Web.Includes bibliographical references (p. 4-44) and indexes

Environmental tobacco smoke in the workplace: lung cancer and other health effects

"NIOSH has determined that environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) is potentially carcinogenic to occupationally exposed workers. In 1964, the surgeon general issued the first report on smoking and health, which concluded that cigarette smoke causes lung cancer. Since then, research on the toxicity and carcinogenicity of tobacco smoke has demonstrated that the health risk from inhaling tobacco smoke is not limited to the smoker, but also includes those who inhale ETS. ETS contains many of the toxic agents and carcinogens that are present in mainstream smoke, but in diluted form. recent epidemiologic studies support and reinforce earlier published reviews by the surgeon general and the national research council demonstrating that exposure to ETS can cause lung cancer. These reviews estimated the relative risk of lung cancer to be approximately 1.3 for a nonsmoker living with a smoker compared with a nonsmoker living with a nonsmoker. Recent evidence suggests a possible association between exposure of nonsmokers to ETS and an increased risk of heart disease. Although these data were not gathered in an occupational setting, ETS meets the criteria of OSHA for classifying substances as potential occupational carcinogens. NIOSH recommends that ETS be regarded as a potential occupational carcinogen in conformance with the OSHA carcinogen policy, and that exposures to ETS be reduced to the lowest feasible concentration. Employers should minimize occupational exposure to ETS by using all available preventive measures." - NIOSHTIC-2U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health,Division of Standards Development and Technology Transfer [and] Division of Surveillance, Hazard Evaluation, and Field Studies."June 1991."Also available via the World Wide Web.Includes bibliographical references (p. 14-18)

Recommendations for control of occupational safety and health hazards: foundries

"is document presents the complex processes surrounding metal castings work and the associated worker injuries and illnesses that are related to exposure to the chemicals and physical agents generated by or used in the casting process. The foundry operations that have been studied include: (1) handling raw materials such as scrap metal and sand; (2) preparing sand; (3) making molds and cores; (4) reclaiming sand and other materials used in mold and core production; (5) melting and alloying metals; (6) pouring; (7) removing cores and shaking out castings: (8) rough cleaning of castings including chipping, grinding and cut-off operations; (9) maintaining and repairing equipment used in coremaking, moldmaking, and in melting, pouring, shakeout, and rough cleaning operations; and, (10) cleaning foundry areas in which molding, coremaking, melting, pouring, and rough cleaning of castings occur." - NIOSHTIC-2"September 1985."Bibliography: p. 129-152

Alternatives to Di-2- ethylhexyl phthalate ("DOP") in respirator quantitative fit testing

"The toxicity of dimethicone (9006659), di-2-ethylhexyl-sebacate (7313544) (DEHS), and corn-oil (8001307) is reviewed. The goal is to suggest alternatives to the use of di-2-ethylhexyl-phthalate (117817) (DEHP) in quantitative fit testing of respiratory protective devices. DEHP has been used for many years to generate a polydisperse aerosol test atmosphere in testing and to determine facial leakage in individual respirator wearers by quantifying aerosol leakage by light scattering photometry. However, DEHP has been found to be carcinogenic in two rodent species. NIOSH has thus reevaluated the overall toxicity of DEHP in respirator testing. Refined corn-oil, DEHS, and dimethicone exhibit polydisperse aerosol properties essentially equivalent to those of DEHP. Limited available reports indicate little toxicity data on DEHS and dimethicone that is relevant to testing. Refined corn-oil demonstrates lack of carcinogenic potential in its extensive use as a vehicle in carcinogenesis bioassay and in other more direct experimental applications. The author concludes that refined corn- oil aerosol is best suited as an alternative to DEHP in testing." - NIOSHTIC-2"March 1983."Includes bibliographical references (p. 24-29)

Acrylamide: a review of the literature

"Information on acrylamide (79061) was reviewed as a basis for the development of an occupational health standard. Topics included: chemical properties, physical properties, production levels, uses, the potential for occupational exposure, occupational exposure limits, toxicology, methods for monitoring exposures, and adverse health effects from exposure. Acrylamide is a raw material used in the manufacture of polyacrylamides. It is an odorless, white, crystalline solid. The potential for occupational exposure to acrylamide exists in acrylamide manufacturing and processing, grouting operations, and research and analytical laboratories. The monomeric form has been found to be toxic, but tests have shown the polyacrylamide products to be generally nontoxic. Possible hazards include neurotoxicity, carcinogenicity, genotoxicity, and harmful effects to the reproductive system. Studies have confirmed that exposure to acrylamide can cause cancer and reproductive disorders in animals. However, epidemiological data are not available to confirm these findings in human workers." - NIOSHTIC-2Vlasta Molak.Includes summary in Swedish.This document was prepared by Division of Standards Development and Technology Transfer of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services (NIOSH) in cooperation with the National Institute for Occupational Health (NIOH).Includes bibliographical references (p. 29-37).CurrentPrevention and ControlEnvironmental Healt

Security and privacy requirements for a multi-institutional cancer research data grid: an interview-based study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Data protection is important for all information systems that deal with human-subjects data. Grid-based systems – such as the cancer Biomedical Informatics Grid (caBIG) – seek to develop new mechanisms to facilitate real-time federation of cancer-relevant data sources, including sources protected under a variety of regulatory laws, such as HIPAA and 21CFR11. These systems embody new models for data sharing, and hence pose new challenges to the regulatory community, and to those who would develop or adopt them. These challenges must be understood by both systems developers and system adopters. In this paper, we describe our work collecting policy statements, expectations, and requirements from regulatory decision makers at academic cancer centers in the United States. We use these statements to examine fundamental assumptions regarding data sharing using data federations and grid computing.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>An interview-based study of key stakeholders from a sample of US cancer centers. Interviews were structured, and used an instrument that was developed for the purpose of this study. The instrument included a set of problem scenarios – difficult policy situations that were derived during a full-day discussion of potentially problematic issues by a set of project participants with diverse expertise. Each problem scenario included a set of open-ended questions that were designed to elucidate stakeholder opinions and concerns. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and used for both qualitative and quantitative analysis. For quantitative analysis, data was aggregated at the individual or institutional unit of analysis, depending on the specific interview question.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Thirty-one (31) individuals at six cancer centers were contacted to participate. Twenty-four out of thirty-one (24/31) individuals responded to our request- yielding a total response rate of 77%. Respondents included IRB directors and policy-makers, privacy and security officers, directors of offices of research, information security officers and university legal counsel. Nineteen total interviews were conducted over a period of 16 weeks. Respondents provided answers for all four scenarios (a total of 87 questions). Results were grouped by broad themes, including among others: governance, legal and financial issues, partnership agreements, de-identification, institutional technical infrastructure for security and privacy protection, training, risk management, auditing, IRB issues, and patient/subject consent.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The findings suggest that with additional work, large scale federated sharing of data within a regulated environment is possible. A key challenge is developing suitable models for authentication and authorization practices within a federated environment. Authentication – the recognition and validation of a person's identity – is in fact a global property of such systems, while authorization – the permission to access data or resources – mimics data sharing agreements in being best served at a local level. Nine specific recommendations result from the work and are discussed in detail. These include: (1) the necessity to construct separate legal or corporate entities for governance of federated sharing initiatives on this scale; (2) consensus on the treatment of foreign and commercial partnerships; (3) the development of risk models and risk management processes; (4) development of technical infrastructure to support the credentialing process associated with research including human subjects; (5) exploring the feasibility of developing large-scale, federated honest broker approaches; (6) the development of suitable, federated identity provisioning processes to support federated authentication and authorization; (7) community development of requisite HIPAA and research ethics training modules by federation members; (8) the recognition of the need for central auditing requirements and authority, and; (9) use of two-protocol data exchange models where possible in the federation.</p