Environmental contaminants and low-level cancer risks: perceptions and scientific strategies

Our plain-English summary of Environmental contaminants and low-level cancer risks: perceptions and scientific strategies, by M.D. Lebowitz (International Journal of Epidemiology, 1990).

The study

• Author: M.D. Lebowitz
• Journal: International Journal of Epidemiology
• Published: 1990;19 Suppl 1:S11-3
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher
• In J-M's library: Johns-Manville's company medical library held a copy (J-M no. 004735).

Abstract

Scientific and public perceptions concerning low-level lung cancer risks may vary. Recently the public has been more convinced of causal links between low-level risk agents and cancer, and more interested in prevention of environmental exposures, especially those induced by others. Thus, scientific strategy is partly driven by the public need to resolve issues concerning the importance of low-level exposures and risks. Further, investigators have been challenged intellectually to create methodologies in order to study some of these relationships further, and scientific curiosity has been stimulated by the difficulties of pursuing such investigations. The importance of host characteristics, including the genetic bases of susceptibility, has become a major theme. Likewise, host behaviour has become a potential positive factor (e.g. diet) as well as a negative factor in the risk model for low-level agents. This paper discusses some of the information available on low-level agents and some of the methodological issues involved in studying them. The importance of measuring exposure as well as response is stressed, especially multi-pollutant exposures and interactions with host behaviour.

In plain English

This 1990 paper was a commentary, not a study. It collected no new data and discussed how the public and scientists view low-level cancer risks from environmental contaminants, and how such risks might be studied. The author noted that concern about cancer from non-occupational indoor exposures, including formaldehyde, volatile organic compounds, asbestos, radon and environmental tobacco smoke, is generally not based on human experience; the risk estimates come from large exposures in animal studies or from mathematical models. On asbestos, the author wrote that there is great public concern, that data are limited and apply mostly to schools and office buildings, and that general public exposure to asbestos fibres in these buildings is apparently exceedingly low. The paper did not name a fiber type. The author called for a systematic, comprehensive survey of indoor fibre contamination. The paper also discussed formaldehyde, radon, consumer products and combustion sources. The author concluded that studies need much more precise exposure assessment covering several related pollutants, and imaginative study designs.

We wrote this plain-English summary from the full article with the help of AI, and a second AI model checked each sentence against the article. It is not the authors' wording; the abstract and the article are their own account.

What the study did and found

• Design: Commentary or discussion paper with no original data; it discusses available information and methods for studying low-level environmental cancer risks
• Who was studied: No people were studied; the paper discusses environmental exposures in general, with mostly US examples
• Exposure: Low-level, mainly non-occupational indoor and outdoor contaminants: formaldehyde, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), asbestos (fiber type not specified), radon, environmental tobacco smoke, benzene, insecticides, and combustion sources such as kerosene heaters, gas appliances and wood burning
• Main results:
  • The author stated that concern about cancer from non-occupational indoor exposures is generally not based on human experience; risk estimates are derived from large exposures in animal studies or from mathematical models
  • On asbestos, the author wrote that there is great public concern, and that data are limited and apply mostly to schools and office buildings
  • The author wrote that general public exposure to asbestos fibres in these buildings is apparently exceedingly low
  • The author said a systematic, comprehensive survey of indoor fibre contamination is necessary
  • On formaldehyde, the author noted that almost all human studies have been negative, although it is classed as a 'possible' human carcinogen because of animal findings
  • On radon, the author reported an estimate that 10% of lung cancer depends on radon exposure, said most epidemiologists disagree with health physicists' projections, and said the only positive epidemiological studies appear to show a necessary interaction between radon and smoking
  • The author argued that much more precise exposure assessment is needed, covering several related pollutants rather than one
• The authors' conclusion: The author concluded that studying low-level cancer risks requires better exposure measurement, attention to host susceptibility and latency, and imaginative study designs

Topics

The National Library of Medicine indexes this study under subjects our site covers: Lung cancer.

Medical terms in this study, explained in our Lexicon: Lung Cancer, Environmental Exposure.

Related studies

• Perineal talc use and ovarian cancer risk: a case study of scientific standards in environmental epidemiology — M. Huncharek, J. Muscat (2011)
• Student nurses' risk perceptions of home environmental hazards — B.J. Polivka, C. Wills (2014)
• Environmental policies, politics, and community risk perception: case study of community contamination in Casper, Wyoming — M. Tajik, K. Gottlieb, et al. (2007)
• Asbestos related diseases in Italy: an integrated approach to identify unexpected professional or environmental exposure risks at municipal level — A. Marinaccio, A. Scarselli, et al. (2008)
• Contribution of environmental factors to cancer risk — P. Boffetta, F. Nyberg (2003)
• Public perceptions of cancer risk factors: a Western Australian study — A. MacTiernan, L. Fritschi, et al. (2014)

Browse more research in International Journal of Epidemiology, or return to medical research.