-
Mosegaard McCarty posted an update 6 months ago
iO2NPs on ovarian functions should be taken into account by their exposition. However, these adverse effects could be mitigated by some plant isoflavones.
Skin tumors are the most frequent neoplasms worldwide in Caucasian subjects, and UV exposure is one of the most relevant risk factors in their etiology. Cumulative UV exposure is strongly associated with an increased occurrence of both basal and squamous cell carcinomas (i.e. Non melanoma skin cancers – NMSC), while for malignant melanoma the role of UV radiation as risk factors seems more related to intermittent and intense exposures, able to induce repeated sunburns, at young ages. Considering the occupational risk, currently UV radiation, part of the solar radiation (SR) spectrum, is one of the major risks in all jobs including outdoor activities (outdoor work – OW) many studies show high levels of solar UV exposure during OW, nevertheless to date the European, and Italian, legislation on occupational risks prevention does not include specific requirements for SR compleexposure at work, as occupational exposure limits values or workers’ health surveillance. This is not coherent with the strong associatiote prevention of the adverse health effects related to solar UV exposure.
In the last decade, at the conclusion of some civil proceedings concerning appeals against INAIL (the Italian workers’ compensation authority), some Italian courts have recognised the occupational origin of tumours in workers exposed to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF EMFs) emitted by wireless phones, despite the fact that a causal role of electromagnetic fields in oncogenesis has not been demonstrated. In some cases, workers’ exposures were combined with those due to other RF EMF sources or with exposures to extremely low frequency magnetic fields (ELF MFs). Selleck PTC-209 For the sake of completeness, the case of exposure of a worker to ELF MFs only is also considered. These judgements have been widely covered by the media which, on the contrary, have virtually ignored those in which the causal link between occupational exposure to electromagnetic fields and tumours has not been recognised. The author of this communication is aware of two of these “negative” judgements in that he was, in both cases, one of thenot” (as required in civil litigation (4) ), caused by the agent in question whatever the worker’s level of exposure. On the contrary, the court appointed expert witnesses’ report on the Ivrea proceeding states that “in the present case there is an association between a rare tumour and an exposure as rare as the use since 1995 of high-emission cellular telephony. The rarity of the circumstance is indicative of a causal association”. This and other arguments underlying the “positive” judgements.
In 2013, IARC classified the radiofrequency emitted by mobile phones exposure as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B). After this classification, several studies were carried out to confirm and to robust or to reject IARC conclusions. Aim of this work was to draw a synthesis of principal scientific evidencies published till September 2019. The analysis of published results could not indicate clear risk profiles, nor surely confirm or reject the hypothesis that exposures to radiofrequency from mobile phones can threat human health. Despite the prevalence of negative studies, some methodological and temporal limitations prevent to draw firm conclusions about the potential health risks for humans, especially for heavy exposed subjects or particular categories such as children or adolescents. Thus, further studies are needed, as well as some methodological improvements, to fully respond to the question about health threats of radiofrequency emitted by mobile phones.
In 2013, IARC classified the radiofrequency emitted by mobile phones exposure as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B). After this classification, several studies were carried out to confirm and to robust or to reject IARC conclusions. Aim of this work was to draw a synthesis of principal scientific evidencies published till September 2019. The analysis of published results could not indicate clear risk profiles, nor surely confirm or reject the hypothesis that exposures to radiofrequency from mobile phones can threat human health. Despite the prevalence of negative studies, some methodological and temporal limitations prevent to draw firm conclusions about the potential health risks for humans, especially for heavy exposed subjects or particular categories such as children or adolescents. Thus, further studies are needed, as well as some methodological improvements, to fully respond to the question about health threats of radiofrequency emitted by mobile phones.
This report illustrates some points relating to the health surveillance of workers exposed to electromagnetic fields (EMF) contained in the new Guidelines on EMFs. A working group from AIRM (Italian Association of Medical Radiation Protection) is currently implementing these guidelines. The report focus in particular on two specific aspects, critical to set up and carry out a correct Health Surveillance (HS) 1. Identification of the exposed workers (who will undergo Health Surveillance). 2. Health Surveillance contents. Considering the peculiar characteristic of the agents at risk, the identification of workers to undergo health surveillance (not specified in the legislation), should involve an assessment of the exposure levels as well as the specific health condition of each “worker at particular risk”. Health surveillance programs, to be applied in case of greater exposure, will be focus on identifying sensitive risk groups who should undergo more frequent health checks.
This report illustrates some points relating to the health surveillance of workers exposed to electromagnetic fields (EMF) contained in the new Guidelines on EMFs. A working group from AIRM (Italian Association of Medical Radiation Protection) is currently implementing these guidelines. The report focus in particular on two specific aspects, critical to set up and carry out a correct Health Surveillance (HS) 1. Identification of the exposed workers (who will undergo Health Surveillance). 2. Health Surveillance contents. Considering the peculiar characteristic of the agents at risk, the identification of workers to undergo health surveillance (not specified in the legislation), should involve an assessment of the exposure levels as well as the specific health condition of each “worker at particular risk”. Health surveillance programs, to be applied in case of greater exposure, will be focus on identifying sensitive risk groups who should undergo more frequent health checks.