On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 11:35:29 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:

On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 06:30:52 GMT, wrote:

On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 20:23:28 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:

On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 19:15:27 -0700, "David Hakala"
wrote:

Well, I'll go with the experts on this:


WOODD-DUST-EXPOSURE
NASAL-CANCER

WOOD DUST AND SINO-NASAL CANCER: POOLED REANALYSIS OF TWELVE CASE-CONTROL
STUDIES
Data from 12 case control studies conducted in seven countries were pooled
and reanalyzed in an effort to examine the relationship between wood dust
and sino/nasal cancer. There was a high risk of adenocarcinoma among male
employees in wood related occupations, with the greatest risk found for
those in jobs with the highest wood dust exposure and increased duration of
exposure. The risk of adenocarcinoma was also greater among women employed
in wood related jobs. An excess of squamous cell carcinoma appeared in women
in dust exposed jobs, which increased with the duration of exposure, but
only men employed for 30 or more years showed an increased risk of squamous
cell carcinoma. The authors conclude that the study provides strong support
to the link between wood dust exposure with various occupations and the risk
of sino/nasal adenocarcinoma, but the evidence with regard to squamous cell
carcinomas is ambiguous.

American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 28(2):151-166, 1995. (36
references)

http://infoventures.com/osh/abs/wood0002.html

Not very helpful. "high", "... also greater", "an excess of .."
"increased risk" are all very fuzzy assertions. What is the definition of
higher risk? Twice as likely? 4 times? These are important questions
since epidemiological studies generally consider anything less than 2 times
as great to be down in the noise and inconclusive -- especially when
dealing with cause and effect kind of numbers over the lifetimes of
individuals. Often there are many confounding factors.

Note, I'm not recommending that people ignore the hazards of wood dust --
just the annoyance should be enough to make one wear a dusk mask. However,
the "moon-suited" woodworker is probably going overboard.

... snip
I'm sure all those questions are answered in the study itself. It
wouldn't get into a peer-reviewed journal without a lot of hard
numbers and methodology.

--RC

I'm sure numbers are in the study, but citing the study abstract as proof
does not help.

Actually it does help. It gives you a piece of evidence -- should you
choose to accept it -- and a solid reference to look at for more
information about that piece of evidence should you have questions.

You're quite correct that there are a lot of studies out there that
have to be taken with a grain of salt, but critical thinking is a
critical skill on the Internet. People who brandish studies like
mystical talismans are at best grinding an axe and at worst are
seriously deluded. (And no, I'm not implying that's what's going on
here.)

--RC


Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit;
Wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad

-- Suzie B