Cancer in the Semiconductor Industry

Jim Fisher
{"title":"Cancer in the Semiconductor Industry","authors":"Jim Fisher","doi":"10.1080/00039890209602922","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"THE POSSIBLE ASSOCIATION between chemical exposures and brain cancer is receiving renewed interest in light of the recently published results of the United Kingdom’s Health and Safety Executive (HSE) investigation of cancer among current and former workers of the National Semiconductor, Ltd., Facility (NSUK) in Creenock, Scotland.’ The HSE investigators found not only a higher than expected incidence of breast, lung, and stomach cancers among female workers, but approximately 4 times as many brain cancer deaths in males as expected, on the basis of comparisons with age and sex-specific mortality rates for Scotland. Although recognizing the need for additional, broader cancer studies among workers in the semiconductor industry, the HSE investigators took a questionable stance on the brain cancer findings: “In view of the fact that brain cancer was not of specific interest at the outset of the investigation and the short latency for 3 of the 4 cases, it i s most probably not work-related,” the authors wrote.* The statement is worrisome, suggesting that if the HSE does not initially suspect a particular type of cancer as being work related, then indications to the contrary may be dismissed. It is especially worrisome when the cancer in question has been associated with exposure to toxic chemicals since the mid-I 970s3 and when several of the associated chemicals and agents-including the organic solvents trichloroethane and trichloroethylene, and both ionizing and nonionizing radiation-are found in Table 1 of the HSE report, in which the known or suspected carcinogens are listed that had been used or had been present at the NSUK Creenock plant since operations began in 1970.4 In fact, a review of the epidemiological literature over the past 2 decades-which, as the HSE investigators note, is generally based on electronics manufacturing industries-gives reason for one to suspect that the increased risk of brain cancer among NSUK workers is work related. The HSE investigators argue that because exposures in electronics assembly work are not identical to those in semiconductor manufacturing, “It would be unwise to draw any conclusions about the semiconductor industry from more broadly based studies.” However, as was noted earlier, several of the suspected carcinogens associated with brain cancer in these broader studies are as common, if not more so, in the semiconductor industry. At the very least, the studies should caution against concluding that the excess of brain cancer at NSUK is not work related. In 1983, the first (and only) evaluation of the general cancer incidence pattern in the electronics industry-as opposed to a study of a particular cancer or of a subpopulation, such as workers of a particular company or gender-was conducted in Sweden by linking the Swedish Cancer Registry with Swedish census records for the period 1961-1973.5 Of more than 75,000 subjects, the investigators found an increased risk of cancer of 1.1 5 times for men and 1.08 for women who were employed in the electronics manufacturing industry. That may not sound profound, but keep in mind the size of the study. More than 75,000 subjects were included and were taken from all sectors of the industry-from manufacturing to administrative to sales. Listen to the authors’ own cautionary statement: “An estimated slight excess risk [of cancer], referring to the electronics industry as a whole, could reflect some hazardous practice of a more severe type in some sectors of the industry. Since the registry does not include any specific exposure data, risk estimates should be taken as starting points for further inquiry, focusing on particular features of the work environment.”6 Two years later, Milham7 looked for links between cancer and exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMFs) by linking the death records with occupational codes of males in Washington State. He found an increased risk of death from lung, pancreas, kidney, and brain cancer “usually greatest in those occupations which have [chemical] inhalation exposures in addition to EMF [electromagnetic field] exposure^.\"^ In that same year, Lin et aL8 conducted a study and looked specifically at brain tumors among electrical workers. They found an excess death rate from brain cancers in their data set. “It is not known,” the authors concluded, ”whether the increased risk of brain tumors observed among electrical workers is due to the magnetic or electric fields themselves or possibly to a common chemical exposure, for example polychlorinated bi p hen y Is, organic solvents, or metal fumes.”8","PeriodicalId":8276,"journal":{"name":"Archives of Environmental Health: An International Journal","volume":"5 1","pages":"95 - 97"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2002-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of Environmental Health: An International Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00039890209602922","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

THE POSSIBLE ASSOCIATION between chemical exposures and brain cancer is receiving renewed interest in light of the recently published results of the United Kingdom’s Health and Safety Executive (HSE) investigation of cancer among current and former workers of the National Semiconductor, Ltd., Facility (NSUK) in Creenock, Scotland.’ The HSE investigators found not only a higher than expected incidence of breast, lung, and stomach cancers among female workers, but approximately 4 times as many brain cancer deaths in males as expected, on the basis of comparisons with age and sex-specific mortality rates for Scotland. Although recognizing the need for additional, broader cancer studies among workers in the semiconductor industry, the HSE investigators took a questionable stance on the brain cancer findings: “In view of the fact that brain cancer was not of specific interest at the outset of the investigation and the short latency for 3 of the 4 cases, it i s most probably not work-related,” the authors wrote.* The statement is worrisome, suggesting that if the HSE does not initially suspect a particular type of cancer as being work related, then indications to the contrary may be dismissed. It is especially worrisome when the cancer in question has been associated with exposure to toxic chemicals since the mid-I 970s3 and when several of the associated chemicals and agents-including the organic solvents trichloroethane and trichloroethylene, and both ionizing and nonionizing radiation-are found in Table 1 of the HSE report, in which the known or suspected carcinogens are listed that had been used or had been present at the NSUK Creenock plant since operations began in 1970.4 In fact, a review of the epidemiological literature over the past 2 decades-which, as the HSE investigators note, is generally based on electronics manufacturing industries-gives reason for one to suspect that the increased risk of brain cancer among NSUK workers is work related. The HSE investigators argue that because exposures in electronics assembly work are not identical to those in semiconductor manufacturing, “It would be unwise to draw any conclusions about the semiconductor industry from more broadly based studies.” However, as was noted earlier, several of the suspected carcinogens associated with brain cancer in these broader studies are as common, if not more so, in the semiconductor industry. At the very least, the studies should caution against concluding that the excess of brain cancer at NSUK is not work related. In 1983, the first (and only) evaluation of the general cancer incidence pattern in the electronics industry-as opposed to a study of a particular cancer or of a subpopulation, such as workers of a particular company or gender-was conducted in Sweden by linking the Swedish Cancer Registry with Swedish census records for the period 1961-1973.5 Of more than 75,000 subjects, the investigators found an increased risk of cancer of 1.1 5 times for men and 1.08 for women who were employed in the electronics manufacturing industry. That may not sound profound, but keep in mind the size of the study. More than 75,000 subjects were included and were taken from all sectors of the industry-from manufacturing to administrative to sales. Listen to the authors’ own cautionary statement: “An estimated slight excess risk [of cancer], referring to the electronics industry as a whole, could reflect some hazardous practice of a more severe type in some sectors of the industry. Since the registry does not include any specific exposure data, risk estimates should be taken as starting points for further inquiry, focusing on particular features of the work environment.”6 Two years later, Milham7 looked for links between cancer and exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMFs) by linking the death records with occupational codes of males in Washington State. He found an increased risk of death from lung, pancreas, kidney, and brain cancer “usually greatest in those occupations which have [chemical] inhalation exposures in addition to EMF [electromagnetic field] exposure^."^ In that same year, Lin et aL8 conducted a study and looked specifically at brain tumors among electrical workers. They found an excess death rate from brain cancers in their data set. “It is not known,” the authors concluded, ”whether the increased risk of brain tumors observed among electrical workers is due to the magnetic or electric fields themselves or possibly to a common chemical exposure, for example polychlorinated bi p hen y Is, organic solvents, or metal fumes.”8
半导体行业的癌症
根据最近公布的英国健康与安全执行委员会(HSE)对苏格兰格林诺克国家半导体有限公司(NSUK)现任和前任工人癌症的调查结果,化学品暴露与脑癌之间可能存在的联系重新引起了人们的兴趣。HSE的调查人员发现,不仅女性员工患乳腺癌、肺癌和胃癌的几率高于预期,而且在与苏格兰年龄和性别死亡率进行比较的基础上,男性员工患脑癌的几率大约是预期的4倍。虽然认识到需要对半导体行业工人进行更多更广泛的癌症研究,但HSE调查人员对脑癌的研究结果持怀疑态度:“鉴于脑癌在调查开始时并不是特别感兴趣,而且4例中有3例的潜伏期很短,因此很可能与工作无关,”作者写道。*该声明令人担忧,这表明如果HSE最初没有怀疑某种特定类型的癌症与工作有关,那么相反的迹象可能会被驳回。尤其令人担忧的是,自20世纪70年代中期以来,所讨论的癌症与接触有毒化学物质有关,并且在HSE报告的表1中发现了几种相关的化学物质和试剂,包括有机溶剂三氯乙烷和三氯乙烯,以及电离和非电离辐射。其中列出了自1970年开始运营以来在NSUK Creenock工厂使用或存在的已知或可疑致癌物。事实上,回顾过去20年的流行病学文献——正如HSE调查人员指出的那样,这些文献通常基于电子制造业——让人们有理由怀疑NSUK工人患脑癌风险的增加与工作有关。HSE调查人员认为,由于电子组装工作中的暴露与半导体制造中的暴露不同,“从更广泛的研究中得出关于半导体行业的任何结论都是不明智的。”然而,正如前面提到的,在这些更广泛的研究中,与脑癌有关的几种疑似致癌物在半导体工业中同样常见,甚至更常见。至少,这些研究应该提醒人们不要得出结论,认为NSUK的脑癌发病率过高与工作无关。1983年,瑞典首次(也是唯一一次)对电子工业的一般癌症发病率模式进行了评估,将瑞典癌症登记处与瑞典1961- 1971年期间的人口普查记录联系起来,而不是对某一特定癌症或某一特定公司或性别的人群进行了研究。研究人员发现,在电子制造业工作的男性患癌症的风险增加了1.1倍,女性增加了1.08倍。这听起来可能并不深奥,但请记住这项研究的规模。超过75,000名研究对象被纳入调查,他们来自行业的各个部门——从制造业到行政管理再到销售。听听作者自己的警示性声明:“就整个电子行业而言,估计的(癌症)风险略微过高,可能反映出该行业某些部门存在更严重的危险行为。”由于登记册不包括任何具体的接触数据,因此应将风险估计作为进一步调查的起点,重点放在工作环境的特定特征上。两年后,米尔哈姆通过将死亡记录与华盛顿州男性的职业代码联系起来,寻找癌症与暴露于电磁场之间的联系。他发现,死于肺癌、胰腺癌、肾癌和脑癌的风险增加“通常在那些除了电磁场暴露外还吸入[化学物质]的职业中最大”。^同年,林等人进行了一项研究,专门研究了电力工人的脑肿瘤。他们在数据集中发现了脑癌的高死亡率。“目前还不清楚,”作者总结道,“在电力工人中观察到的脑肿瘤风险增加是由于磁场或电场本身,还是可能是由于常见的化学物质暴露,例如多氯联苯、有机溶剂或金属烟雾。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信