McDonald J C
Environ Health Perspect. 1985 Oct;62:319-28. doi: 10.1289/ehp.8562319.
The health impact of environmental pollution resulting from the industrial use of asbestos can be assessed in three ways. First, there are the direct epidemiological surveys. These indicate that domestic exposure has been responsible for cases of mesothelioma and possibly lung cancer and radiological changes in family contacts of asbestos workers. Exposure in the neighborhood of crocidolite mines and factories has also resulted in cases of mesothelioma but no similar evidence exists for chrysotile or amosite. Neither air nor water pollution has been directly incriminated as a cause of either respiratory or digestive malignancies. Second, a few attempts have been made to extrapolate from exposure response findings in industrial cohorts. For several reasons, even for lung cancer, this approach is dubious: the observed gradients have a 100-fold range in slope; the equivalences of dust, fiber and gravimetric measures are largely guesswork; and the carcinogenic potential of mineral fibers, particularly for the pleura, varies enormously with fiber type and/or dimensions. No adequate exposure-response observations have been made for mesothelioma. A third approach makes use of the differing incidence of mesothelioma in men and women. Data from several countries indicate that, until the 1950s (i.e., 30-40 years after significant industrial use of asbestos began), the rates were similar in both sexes. Since then, the incidence in males has risen steeply--in the U.S. and U.K. at about 10% per annum. In females, on the other hand, there has been little or no convincing increase. These data suggest that the "background" level of mesothelioma in both sexes is and has been about 2 per million per annum and that--as at least some mesothelioma cases in females are directly or indirectly attributable to occupational exposure--there is little room left for any contribution from the general environment. It is recommended that mesothelioma surveillance, backed by appropriate epidemiological inquiries, offers an effective method of monitoring the health impact of asbestos air pollution.
工业用石棉造成的环境污染对健康的影响可以通过三种方式进行评估。首先是直接的流行病学调查。这些调查表明,家庭接触已导致间皮瘤病例,可能还有肺癌以及石棉工人家庭接触者的放射学变化。青石棉矿和工厂附近的接触也导致了间皮瘤病例,但温石棉或铁石棉没有类似证据。空气和水污染均未被直接认定为呼吸道或消化道恶性肿瘤的病因。其次,已经有人尝试从工业队列中的接触反应结果进行推断。由于多种原因,即使对于肺癌,这种方法也值得怀疑:观察到的梯度斜率范围为100倍;粉尘、纤维和重量测量的等效性很大程度上是猜测;矿物纤维的致癌潜力,特别是对胸膜的致癌潜力,因纤维类型和/或尺寸而异。对于间皮瘤,尚未进行充分的接触反应观察。第三种方法利用了男性和女性中间皮瘤发病率的差异。来自几个国家的数据表明,直到20世纪50年代(即石棉开始大量工业使用30 - 40年后),两性的发病率相似。从那时起,男性发病率急剧上升——在美国和英国约为每年10%。另一方面,女性发病率几乎没有或没有令人信服的增加。这些数据表明,两性中间皮瘤的“背景”水平一直约为每年百万分之二,而且——由于女性中至少一些间皮瘤病例直接或间接归因于职业接触——一般环境的任何贡献空间都很小。建议以适当的流行病学调查为后盾的间皮瘤监测提供一种监测石棉空气污染对健康影响的有效方法。