| 1. |
- Lewkowski, Kate, et al.
(författare)
-
Exposure to Hand-Arm Vibration in the Australian Workforce
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Annals of Work Exposures and Health. - : Oxford University Press. - 2398-7308 .- 2398-7316. ; 65:6, s. 659-667
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective: To estimate the prevalence of hand-arm vibration (HAV) in Australian workplaces.Methods: The Australian Workplace Exposure Survey (AWES)—Hearing was a cross-sectional telephone survey of Australian workers conducted in 2016–2017. Respondents were asked about the time spent using tools or performing tasks known to be associated with HAV during their most recent working day. We created a library of HAV magnitude levels for each tool/task and estimated each worker’s daily HAV exposure level using standard formulae. We categorized each worker as to whether they exceeded the daily occupational limits of 2.5 and 5.0 m/s2. Results were extrapolated to the Australian working population using a raked weighting method.Results: In our sample of 4991 workers, 5.4% of men and 0.7% of women exceeded the HAV action limit of 2.5 m/s2 on their most recent working day. We estimate that 3.8% of the Australian workforce exceeds the HAV limit of 2.5 m/s2 and 0.8% exceeds the 5 m/s2 limit. Men were more likely to exceed the HAV limits than women, as were those with trade qualifications, and those who worked in remote locations. Workers in the construction, farming, and automobile industries had the highest prevalence of HAV exposure. Tool groups that contributed to higher exposure levels included: compactors, rollers, and tampers; power hammers and jackhammers; and underground mining equipment.Conclusions: HAV is common in the Australian working population. Given the health risks associated with this exposure, reduction strategies and interventions should be developed, with engineering controls as the starting point for exposure reduction strategies.
|
|
| 2. |
- Pearce, Neil E, et al.
(författare)
-
IARC Monographs : 40 Years of Evaluating Carcinogenic Hazards to Humans
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Journal of Environmental Health Perspectives. - : Environmental Health Perspectives. - 0091-6765 .- 1552-9924. ; 123:6, s. 507-514
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Recently the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Programme for the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans has been criticized for several of its evaluations, and also the approach used to perform these evaluations. Some critics have claimed that IARC Working Groups' failures to recognize study weaknesses and biases of Working Group members have led to inappropriate classification of a number of agents as carcinogenic to humans.OBJECTIVES: The authors of this paper are scientists from various disciplines relevant to the identification and hazard evaluation of human carcinogens. We have examined here criticisms of the IARC classification process to determine the validity of these concerns. We review the history of IARC evaluations and describe how the IARC evaluations are performed.DISCUSSION: We conclude that these recent criticisms are unconvincing. The procedures employed by IARC to assemble Working Groups of scientists from the various discipline and the techniques followed to review the literature and perform hazard assessment of various agents provide a balanced evaluation and an appropriate indication of the weight of the evidence. Some disagreement by individual scientists to some evaluations is not evidence of process failure. The review process has been modified over time and will undoubtedly be altered in the future to improve the process. Any process can in theory be improved, and we would support continued review and improvement of the IARC processes. This does not mean, however, that the current procedures are flawed.CONCLUSIONS: The IARC Monographs have made, and continue to make, major contributions to the scientific underpinning for societal actions to improve the public's health.
|
|
