Prostate Cancer and Occupational Whole-Body Vibration Exposure

Skip Navigation

Victoria Nadalin1,*, Nancy Kreiger1,2, Marie-Elise Parent3, Alan Salmoni4, Andrea Sass-Kortsak5, Jack Siemiatycki6, Margaret Sloan1 and James Purdham5

1Research, Prevention and Cancer Control, Cancer Care Ontario, 620 University Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5G 2L7

2Epidemiology, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, 155 College Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5T 3M7

3Institut Armand Frappier, Institut National de la Recherche Scientifique, Universite de Quebec, 531, boulevard des Prairies, Laval, Québec, Canada H7V 1B7

4School of Kinesiology, Faculty of Health Sciences, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada N6A 5B9

5Occupational and Environmental Health, Gage Occupational & Environmental Health Unit, 223 College St., Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5T 1R4

6Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Montreal, PO Box 6128, Station Centre-ville, Montréal, Quebec, Canada H3C 3J7 ?* Author to whom correspondence should be addressed. Tel: (416)-971-9800 ext. 3251; fax: (416)-971-7554; e-mail: Victoria.nadalin{at}cancercare.on.ca Received July 6, 2011. Accepted February 3, 2012. Prostate cancer is common and its etiology largely unknown; therefore, it is important to explore all potential risk factors that are biologically plausible. Recent literature suggests a relationship between whole-body vibration (WBV) and prostate cancer risk. The aim of this study was to determine whether occupational WBV was a risk factor for prostate cancer. Existing data, collected on 447 incident cases and 532 population controls (or their proxies), in Montreal, Canada, were used to evaluate this question. Personal interviews collected detailed job descriptions for every job held, the tasks involved, and type of equipment used. For each job, experts assessed the intensity and daily duration of WBV exposure. Inter-rater agreement for WBV ratings was examined using the kappa statistic, with values that ranged from 0.83 to 0.94. Logistic regression models explored the relationship between WBV exposure and prostate cancer, using various combinations of intensity, daily duration, and years of exposure. Potential confounders were also examined. Occupations with WBV exposure demonstrated an increased statistically non-significant risk [odds ratio (OR) = 1.44, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.99–2.09]. The risk for transport equipment operation, a job with WBV exposure, was significantly elevated (OR = 1.90, 95% CI: 1.07–3.39). These results, together with those of an earlier study, suggest that workers in heavy equipment and transport equipment operation may have increased risk of prostate cancer. Further investigation is warranted.

© The Author 2012. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Occupational Hygiene Society [2012]This ArticleAnn Occup Hyg (2012) 56 (8): 968-974. doi: 10.1093/annhyg/mes010 First published online: April 26, 2012 Current Issue

Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.

View the original article here

Read More

Laboratory and field measurements and evaluations of vibration at the handles of riveting hammers

Skip Navigation

Thomas W. McDowell*, Christopher Warren, Daniel E. Welcome and Ren G. Dong

NIOSH Health Effects Laboratory, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 1095 Willowdale Road, Morgantown, WV 26505, USA ?* Author to whom correspondence should be addressed. Tel: (304) 285-6337; fax: (304) 285-6265; e-mail: TMcDowell{at}cdc.gov Received October 18, 2011. Accepted February 20, 2012. The use of riveting hammers can expose workers to harmful levels of hand-transmitted vibration (HTV). As a part of efforts to reduce HTV exposures through tool selection, the primary objective of this study was to evaluate the applicability of a standardized laboratory-based riveting hammer assessment protocol for screening riveting hammers. The second objective was to characterize the vibration emissions of reduced vibration riveting hammers and to make approximations of the HTV exposures of workers operating these tools in actual work tasks. Eight pneumatic riveting hammers were selected for the study. They were first assessed in a laboratory using the standardized method for measuring vibration emissions at the tool handle. The tools were then further assessed under actual working conditions during three aircraft sheet metal riveting tasks. Although the average vibration magnitudes of the riveting hammers measured in the laboratory test were considerably different from those measured in the field study, the rank orders of the tools determined via these tests were fairly consistent, especially for the lower vibration tools. This study identified four tools that consistently exhibited lower frequency-weighted and unweighted accelerations in both the laboratory and workplace evaluations. These observations suggest that the standardized riveting hammer test is acceptable for identifying tools that could be expected to exhibit lower vibrations in workplace environments. However, the large differences between the accelerations measured in the laboratory and field suggest that the standardized laboratory-based tool assessment is not suitable for estimating workplace riveting hammer HTV exposures. Based on the frequency-weighted accelerations measured at the tool handles during the three work tasks, the sheet metal mechanics assigned to these tasks at the studied workplace are unlikely to exceed the daily vibration exposure action value (2.5 m s-2) using any of the evaluated riveting hammers.

Published by Oxford University Press [2012] on behalf of the British Occupational Hygiene SocietyThis ArticleAnn Occup Hyg (2012) 56 (8): 911-924. doi: 10.1093/annhyg/mes022 First published online: April 26, 2012 Current Issue

Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.

View the original article here

Read More