left-arrowright-arrow
DEPARTMENTS
img_122024-letters.png
LETTERS
The opinions expressed in letters to the editor are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of AIHA® or The Synergist®. Letters are published at the discretion of the editor and may be edited for clarity. Send letters to the Synergist team.
Asbestos Burden and Methylene Chloride: Readers Respond
MISLEADING CONCLUSIONS The article “Burden of Asbestos Exposure in the U.S.” (By the Numbers, August 2024 issue), which is based on research published in BMC Public Health, is misleading. The raw data of deaths from occupational exposure to asbestos in 1990 (33,927) and 2019 (40,764) do not take into account the increase in the number of U.S. workers between those dates (125.84 million in 1990 and 163.54 million in 2019, according to Statista). Per the article data and the worker numbers, asbestos deaths were 0.027 percent of workers in 1990 and 0.025 percent of workers in 2019, a rate decrease of 7.4 percent.
Another consideration not addressed is the cancer latency period. Cancer can appear up to 50 years after exposure to asbestos. 2019 would be 40 to 50 years after the peak of asbestos use in the 1970s.
Also, the use of tracheal, bronchus, and lung cancer as the main causes of the reported asbestos-related deaths is questionable, especially since these cancers have many other causes besides asbestos exposure, unlike asbestosis and mesothelioma, which are highly associated with asbestos exposure. The conclusions of this article are dubious and should be further explored before being accepted, possibly resulting in costly, unnecessary responses.
Note: My opinions are based only on the By the Numbers article. I did not review the analysis that appeared in BMC Public Health.
Dale Walsh, MS, CIH, CSP, CEM, LEED-AP President and Certified Industrial Hygienist Walsh Certified Consultants Inc.
When EPA publishes OELs for substances, it causes confusion for employers.
EMPLOYER CONFUSION
Editor’s note: The following message was sent in response to the By the Numbers article on methylene chloride exposure limits, which appeared in the September 2024 issue. The article compares exposure limits adopted by EPA as part of its May 2024 risk management rule for methylene chloride with exposure limits previously established by OSHA.
I feel frustrated with EPA establishing occupational exposure limits for chemical substances. I was originally educated that the mission of EPA was to protect the general population while OSHA protects workers. It took years for OSHA to be able to reduce the permissible exposure limit for methylene chloride from 400 ppm to 25 ppm.
When EPA publishes OELs for substances, it causes confusion for employers. Which OEL is industry supposed to comply with, OSHA’s or EPA’s?
Name withheld Industrial Hygienist
RULES TO WRITE BY
The Synergist is always interested in hearing from readers and encourages you to write us and express your views. Email your letter to the Synergist team.
All letters submitted are for possible publication. The Synergist reserves the right not to publish letters and to edit letters for space and clarity. Letters that include inappropriate personal comments will not be published.
STAY UP TO DATE In addition to The Synergist, all AIHA members receive two e-newsletters, The Synergist Weekly and Synergist Newswire, as part of their member benefits. If you aren’t receiving these publications, you may need to update your mailing address or customize your email preferences. You can change your mailing address by signing in to the AIHA website at and editing your profile. Instructions for customizing email preferences are available on AIHA's website.
SEASON'S GREETINGS The Synergist team wishes all our readers and advertisers a safe, productive, and enjoyable holiday season. Thank you for your support!