Enfermedades Profesionales: nuevos desafíos en su prevención”

Medicina y seguridad del trabajo 01/2008; LIV(210):1-9. DOI: 10.4321/S0465-546X2008000100002
Download full-text


Available from: António Sousa-Uva, Sep 28, 2015
1 Follower
31 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Carcinogenic risk assessment involves both qualitative (weight-of-evidence) and quantitative phases. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) uses a weight-of-evidence stratification scheme based on data of human and animal exposures to evaluate the risk of carcinogenicity in occupational or other exposures to chemicals. Among more than 700 chemicals or exposures, 39 have been classed as established carcinogens, 68 as probably carcinogenic, and 214 as carcinogenic in animals; 13 chemicals or exposures have been considered to have no evidence of carcinogenicity either in animals or in humans. Carcinogens to which humans are exposed in occupational settings include 4-aminobiphenyl, arsenic compounds, asbestos fibers, benzene, benzidine, bis(chloromethyl) ether, technical chloromethyl methyl ether, chromium and certain chromium compounds, coal tars, coal tar pitches, mineral oils, mustard gas, 2-naphthylamine, shale oils, soots, vinyl chloride, and cancer chemotherapeutic agents. The setting of exposure limits for carcinogens for professional guidance or regulatory standards is discussed. The exposure limits promulgated in the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG), the United States (USA) and the Soviet Union (USSR) are presented with brief discussion. The difficulties of setting and applying such limits are mentioned. Better communication internationally and intranationally is needed to improve the methodologies of risk evaluation for carcinogens for professional practice and regulatory use. Vainio, H.; Tomatis, L. Exposure to carcinogens: An overview of scientific and regulatory aspects.
    Applied Industrial Hygiene 04/1986; 1(1). DOI:10.1080/08828032.1986.10390442
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Occupational diseases are now being assessed at the cellular and molecular levels; this presents new opportunities for prevention and control [Calleman et al., 1978; Ong et al., 1987; Stejskal et al., 1989; Welch and Cullen, 1988; Garry et al., 1989]. The key to these opportunities is the ability to detect biological markers that reflect exposure, response, and susceptibility. Biological markers are not new, however. Biological markers such as blood lead, urinary phenol levels in benzene exposure, and liver function assays have long been used in occupational and public health research and practice. What distinguishes the current generation of markers from previous markers is a greater degree of analytical sensitivity and the ability to describe events that occur earlier in the progression between exposure and clinical disease. There are now new domains of response that were not known to exist 20 years ago. Accompanying this sensitivity is the increased requirement to consider the numerous factors that can influence the appearance of biological markers. It has been observed that all workers with similar exposures do not develop disease or markers indicative of exposure or disease. Various acquired and hereditary host factors are responsible for this variation in responses. The role of assessing the nature and degree of variation between individuals is of paramount importance. Finally, the use of biological markers in occupational health research and practice also brings new ethical and legal considerations into high profile. This paper presents my personal opinions on how biological markers can contribute to occupational health efforts and the new requirements that they bring to the field. As with any technological change, the more we can anticipate the impact, the better our ability to adjust.
    American Journal of Industrial Medicine 01/1991; 20(4):435-46. DOI:10.1002/ajim.4700200402 · 1.74 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: RULA (rapid upper limb assessment) is a survey method developed for use in ergonomics investigations of workplaces where work-related upper limb disorders are reported. This tool requires no special equipment in providing a quick assessment of the postures of the neck, trunk and upper limbs along with muscle function and the external loads experienced by the body. A coding system is used to generate an action list which indicates the level of intervention required to reduce the risks of injury due to physical loading on the operator. It is of particular assistance in fulfilling the assessment requirements of both the European Community Directive (90/270/EEC) on the minimum safety and health requirements for work with display screen equipment and the UK Guidelines on the prevention of work-related upper limb disorders.
    Applied Ergonomics 05/1993; 24(2):91-9. DOI:10.1016/0003-6870(93)90080-S · 2.02 Impact Factor
Show more