Long-Term Mortality Study of Steelworkers

Jw, Lloyd; Ciocco, Antonio

doi:10.1097/00043764-196906000-00001

Cited by 49 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Differential environmental and occupational exposures may also may explain a portion of the lung cancer excess. There is some evidence that African Americans disproportionately reside or work in areas exposed to industrial chemicals (2,22 (33,35), health care access (35)(36)(37), age (38), proximity or contact with pesticides (39), diet (40), and genetic susceptibility (41,42).…”

Section: Oral Cavity and Pharynxmentioning

confidence: 99%

Differences in Cancer Incidence, Mortality, and Survival between African Americans and Whites

Walker¹,

Figgs²,

Zahm³

1995

Environmental Health Perspectives

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This report highlights selected evidence of different cancer patterns among African Americans and whites and considers potential risk factors associated with these cancers. During the years 1987 to 1991, African Americans experienced higher incidence and mortality rates than whites for multiple myeloma and for cancers of the oropharynx, colorectum, lung and bronchus, cervix, and prostate. African Americans had lower incidence and mortality for cancer of the urinary bladder. The incidence of breast cancer was higher among white women, but mortality was higher among African American women. Five-year relative survival for the period 1983 to 1990 was generally lower among African Americans than whites for cancers of the oropharynx, colorectum, cervix, prostate, and female breast but slightly higher for multiple myeloma. From 1973 to 1991, there were significant declines in cervical cancer incidence among women of both races, oropharyngeal cancer mortality among whites, and bladder cancer mortality for whites and African Americans. Risk factors for the more prominent cancers suggest that efforts aimed at changing lifestyles, achieving socioeconomic parity, and insuring environmental equity are likely to relieve African Americans of much of their disproportionate cancer burden. -Environ Health Perspect 103(Suppl 8): 275-281 (1995)

show abstract

Section: Oral Cavity and Pharynxmentioning

confidence: 99%

Differences in Cancer Incidence, Mortality, and Survival between African Americans and Whites

Walker¹,

Figgs²,

Zahm³

1995

Environmental Health Perspectives

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Subdivision by work area showed a high risk for lung cancer among the 2552 coke-oven workers (Lloyd et al, 1970;Lloyd, 1971). An update and extension of the study that focused on coke plant workers was reported by Redmond et al (1972), and included 1356 workers from the two coking facilities of the original cohort and 4661 coke plant workers (all workers who had been employed any time between 1951 and 1955) in 10 plants in the USA and Canada.…”

Section: 12mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Work histories were complete only for a subset of the cohort, and it was not possible to investigate SMRs by department in the plant. No data on tobacco smoking habits were available.A cohort study of over 59 000 steel workers from seven plants in Allegheny County, OH (USA) was first reported by Lloyd and Ciocco (1969) and included all steel workers who were employed in 1953. Subdivision by work area showed a high risk for lung cancer among the 2552 coke-oven workers (Lloyd et al, 1970;Lloyd, 1971).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrating Field Analyses with Laboratory Exposures to Assess Ecosystems Health

Hellou¹,

Beach²,

Leonard³

et al. 2012

Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

initiated a programme on the evaluation of the carcinogenic risk of chemicals to humans involving the production of critically evaluated monographs on individual chemicals. The programme was subsequently expanded to include evaluations of carcinogenic risks associated with exposures to complex mixtures, life-style factors and biological and physical agents, as well as those in specific occupations. The objective of the programme is to elaborate and publish in the form of monographs critical reviews of data on carcinogenicity for agents to which humans are known to be exposed and on specific exposure situations; to evaluate these data in terms of human risk with the help of international working groups of experts in chemical carcinogenesis Publications of the World Health Organization enjoy copyright protection in accordance with the provisions of Protocol 2 of the Universal Copyright Convention. All rights reserved.The International Agency for Research on Cancer welcomes requests for permission to reproduce or translate its publications, in part or in full. Requests for permission to reproduce or translate IARC publications -whether for sale or for noncommercial distribution -should be addressed to WHO Press, at the above address (fax: +41 22 791 4806; email: permissions@who.int).The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the World Health Organization concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city, or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.The mention of specific companies or of certain manufacturers' products does not imply that they are endorsed or recommended by the World Health Organization in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. Errors and omissions excepted, the names of proprietary products are distinguished by initial capital letters.The IARC Monographs Working Group alone is responsible for the views expressed in this publication. IARC Library Cataloguing in Publication Data NOTE TO THE READERThe term 'carcinogenic risk' in the IARC Monographs series is taken to mean that an agent is capable of causing cancer under some circumstances. The Monographs evaluate cancer hazards, despite the historical presence of the word 'risks' in the title.Inclusion of an agent in the Monographs does not imply that it is a carcinogen, only that the published data have been examined. Equally, the fact that an agent has not yet been evaluated in a Monograph does not mean that it is not carcinogenic.The evaluations of carcinogenic risk are made by international working groups of independent scientists and are qualitative in nature. No recommendation is given for regulation or legislation.Anyone who is aware of published data that may alter the evaluation of the carcinogenic risk of an agent to humans is encouraged to make this information available to the Section of IARC Monographs, International Agency for...

show abstract

“…This term usually refers to a tendency for any particular employed population to have lower mortality than the general population. The tendency has been observed for a variety of occupations and causes of death (4,5,8,9,10,14,19,23,24). Thus an observed-to-expected (0 : E) ratio of less than one might still suggest excess mortality as long as the "general population" is used as the reference population.…”

Section: The "Healthy Worker Effect"mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The reason is that the magnitude of the healthy worker effect is not constant but varies according to many factors, ie, (i) cause of death (4,5,8,9,10,14,16,19,23,24), (ii) demographic factors [It varies by occupation and work category (4,5,8,9,10,14,16,19,23,24,27), is usually -stronger for nonwhites than whites (4,5,14,16) and stronger for the young than for the old (9,16), generally decreases with early retirement (6, 28), etc. ], and (iii) time lag since starting the work or -since the zero time of a cohort [It is prominent at the beginning and tends to decline with the passage of time (6,9,16,20,24,28).]…”

Section: The "Healthy Worker Effect"mentioning

confidence: 99%