Energy alternatives: What are their possible health ... - ACS Publications

ES&T

FEATURE

Energy alternatives: What are their possible health effects? Here is an overview of actual and potential medical and environmental problems that present and future technologies may pose

132A

Environ. Sci. Technol., Vol. 17, No. 3, 1983

William N. Rom Jeffrey Lee Rocky Mountain Center for Occupational and Environmental Health University of Utah School of Medicine Salt Lake City, Utah 84112 Exciting new energy technologies are being developed to solve America's long-term energy problem. They in clude the mining and retorting of oil shale; extracting hydrocarbons from bitumen in tar sands; tapping geothermal resources; exploiting solar power; exploring fusion; developing new methods for gasifying, liquefying, or burning coal; and extracting gas eous fuels such as hydrogen or meth ane from water and plant material, respectively. However, these tech nologies may pose occupational and environmental health risks that need to be addressed early in the develop mental stage to reduce or prevent po tential exposures. By focusing on pre vention of occupational diseases and exposures, health professionals and engineers can reduce significantly the long-term costs of an energy alterna tive. And lessons learned from the past (e.g., from the incidence of lung cancer among uranium miners and pneumo coniosis in coal miners) might be ap plied to the emerging oil shale and coal conversion processes. Sociopolitical and economic factors may be more important in making energy choices than health, safety, or environmental considerations (for example, cancellation of one major oil shale project for economic reasons, government-sponsored research and development or price guarantees, consumer choice of wood-burning stoves in New England, and the like). As oil and natural gas sources are de pleted in the decades ahead, there will be a transitional or interim period for research and demonstration of the new, emerging technologies. Data generated should allow government officials, industry representatives, and the public to assess the alternatives in terms of health risk and risk manage ment strategies, as well as economic viability. Many articles, reports, books, and proceedings deal with various aspects of energy, health, or the environment (1-19). Documents from the Envi ronmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Energy (DOE) and reports of the Electric Power Re search Institute (EPRI, Palo Alto, 0013-936X/83/0916-0132A$01.50/0

Calif.) are pertinent to these topics (1, 16, 17, 19-24). Attempts at quanti tative risk assessment of various energy alternatives and technologies also have been reported (22, 23). The nuclear cycle The nuclear fission cycle includes uranium mining and milling, uranium processing, power production, spent fuel recycling, and radioactive waste disposal. Underground uranium min ing presents a well-documented health hazard of lung cancer from inhaled radon daughters (decay products) (25). Radon-222 is a chemically inert, radioactive gas formed by the radio active decay of radium-226, a longlived member of the uranium-238

decay chain. Radon itself decays with a half-life of 3.6 d, releasing alpha, beta, and gamma energy through four short-lived daughters [polonium 218, lead 214, bismuth 214, and polonium 214 (26)]. The radon daughters are adsorbed onto dust particles in the mine air and inhaled by the miner. Depending on their size, the particles attach themselves to the respiratory epithelium, particularly at airway bi furcations. High-energy alpha parti cles are released during the decay process, resulting in exposure of res piratory basal epithelial cells of the bronchi to intense radiation. The unit of measurement quanti fying the amount of radon daughters in air is the working level (WL), de fined as any mixture of the short-lived daughters in a liter of air that has a potential alpha energy of 1.3 X 105

© 1983 American Chemical Society

MeV (2.8 Χ 10" 5 J). The working level month (WLM) is defined as an exposure to 1 WL for one month (170 h), and the current Mine Safety and Health Administration standard for a uranium miner is 4 WLM/y. Radon daughter exposure is con trolled by mine ventilation and by blocking off old working areas. The average concentrations of radon daughters in working levels to which U.S. underground uranium miners are exposed have dropped from 15 in 1943 to 0.15 in 1979(27). Lung cancers The epidemiology linking uranium mining and radon daughter exposure to lung cancer is compelling and spans many decades (25). As early as 1879, Haerting and Hesse indicated that the majority of deaths among Schneeberg (East Germany) miners were attrib utable to lung cancer and that the disease occurred 20-30 y after they began their work (this was before cig arette smoking became epidemic) (28). In 1924 Ludewig and Lorenser reported high concentrations of radon in the air in the Schneeberg mines and linked this to the high rate of lung cancer among the miners (29). In 1945, Mitchell identified the short lived daughters in radon as the likely cause of the increased cancers in the Schneeberg and Joachimsthal (Czechoslovakia) miners (30). In the U.S., extensive mining of uranium ores began on the Colorado plateau in the late 1940s, with many initial mine measurements for radon daughters as high as those in the Schneeberg-Joachimsthal mines decades earlier (26). In 1962 Archer et al. reported an increased incidence of lung cancers among the Colorado plateau miners (57). Subsequently, a dose-response with radon exposure and synergism with cigarette smoking were described (32, 33). Later studies revealed the initial increase to be primarily among cigarette smokers, confirming a shorter dose-induction period among this group. However, studies of Navajo uranium miners (who seldom smoke) revealed increased risk even among light smokers and nonsmokers (33-35). Further analysis of the data showed that the average time between expo sure and development of lung cancer (the induction period) is shorter for older miners than for younger miners (25). Years of life expectancy lost are higher in smokers than nonsmokers. The metaplasia (atypia, or bizarre shape or size of the cell, and abnormal nuclei) caused by cigarette smoke may Environ. Sci. Technol., Vol. 17, No. 3, 1983

133A

reduce protection of the basal cells by the ciliated respiratory tracheobronchial epithelium. The major U.S. uranium miner epidemiologic studies have focused on a cohort of 3362 white and approximately 780 nonwhite males examined by the U.S. Public Health Service in the decade 1950-60. They had worked underground in Colorado plateau uranium mines for at least one month by Jan. 1, 1964 (35). Their mortality has been determined through Dec. 31, 1977, and compared to U.S. white males (standardized for age, calendar period, and cause of death) not working in uranium mines. Overall, 950 deaths were observed with a standardized mortality ratio (SMR) of 158 (Table 1). A fivefold excess was noted for cancer of the trachea, bronchus, and lung, and the attributable risk calculation determined that 80% of the deaths ascribable to lung cancer in this group could be attributed to uranium mining. There were also elevated risks for stomach, pancreas, prostate, and skin cancers, but none were statistically significant. Moreover, the excesses of nonmalignant respiratory disease consisted of bronchitis, emphysema, silicosis, and pulmonary fibrosis. Miners under the age of 50 had a twofold excess of mortality, primarily from lung cancer and accidents. The latter could be attributed to industrial, mining, and transportation causes. In 1964 Saccomanno et al. published results indicating an increase in the small-cell undifferentiated (oatcell) type of lung cancer (Figure lb; Figure la shows a normal lung) among uranium miner patients (36). However, epidermoid (bronchogenic) and adenocarcinoma are also increased (37). Recently, these authors have

The nuclear fuel cycle: biomedical concerns Public health concerns considered to be most urgent are: • the probability of large radioactive releases through accident or sabotage. "Areas where serious uncertainty exists include the future consequences of deterioration of parts of nuclear plants through aging, of events such as earthquakes that are difficult to predict, or of deliberate sabotage of the generating plant or other segments of the nuclear fuel cycle by terrorist or criminal elements, whose technical knowledge and sophistication, with time, will surely increase" ( 75, 54); • storage of high-level radioactive wastes; and • somatic and genetic effects of low-level radiation.

shown that small-cell undifferentiated carcinoma is associated with young age and a short dose-induction period, that adenocarcinoma was associated with a high WLM and smoking history, and that epidermoid carcinoma was associated with older age and a longer latent period (38). These associations were also consistent with a trend toward fewer small-cell carcinomas, since the high-exposed uranium miner cohort was aging, and younger miners worked under improved hygienic conditions (38). Since 1957, sputum studies of several thousand uranium miners on the Colorado plateau have been conducted. Saccomanno has demonstrated that there is a progression from mild metaplasia of squamous cells (cells originating from the respiratory epithelium) through moderate and

TABLE 1

Cause-specific mortality among a cohort of white male uranium miners (26) Cause of death

Observed

Tuberculosis All malignant neoplasms

Standardized mortality ratio

14

3.4

409

264

117.2

225

6

150

Lung

185

38.4

482

Skin

5

2.3

216

Leukemia

5

4.8

104

103

31.6

324

Stomach

Nonmalignant respiratory disease Chronic and unspecified nephritis and renal sclerosis

134A

Expected

9

8

3.1

262

Accidents

155

46.8

331

Total

950

600.3

158


marked atypia over approximately eight years to carcinoma in situ (not yet metastasized) lasting approximately three years before invasive carcinoma is identified (39). The use of sputum cytology to justify transfer of a miner to another job or out of the mines remains premature, because of the heterogeneity in the method and lack of sufficient follow-up data on those currently under surveillance (40). Furthermore, sputum cytology itself is currently under study to assess whether early diagnosis may aid in tumor localization and treatment by fiber-optic bronchoscopy and laser eradication. Relative risks Table 2 illustrates the relative impact, expressed in man-rems (number of men exposed times average exposure in rems), of various components of the nuclear fuel cycle (41). Nuclear fuel reprocessing, once under way, may lead to three times as much exposure as uranium mining. On the other hand, uranium milling has not been found to pose an occupational lung cancer risk, although one study did find an excess of lymphoma that was postulated to be related to thorium-230 (42). Uranium mill tailings also release radon gas and potentially may create a health risk when used as a filler for cement foundations. However, a recent study of an increased leukemia mortality rate in Mesa County, Colorado, where tailings were used extensively in house construction, found no association in a follow-up case-control study assessing leukemia patients resident in these houses (43). Even though uranium mill tailings are no longer used in residential or commercial construction, exposures to accumulated radon gas from tailings at other locations may occur unless remedial action is taken. The EPA and DOE recently received congressional authority to initiate a uranium mill tailing cleanup and disposal program. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) provides standards for nuclear power plants; currently, the radiation dose limit is 3 rems quarterly for any worker, with an annual limit of 5 rems. In 1977, NRC licensee data listed 71 904 nuclear power plant workers, with 44 233 exposed (0.74 rem being the mean whole-body dose for those exposed) (44). Only 1.6% had an annual exposure >4 rems. Over 70% of those exposed were maintenance employees; however, many more potentially exposed maintenance workers may be employed by outside contractors.

FIGURE 1

Lung X-rays

(α) Normal lungs.

(c) Pneumoconiosis. Discovered in coal miner who worked underground for 30 years.

(b) Oat-cell carcinoma. Found in uranium miner who sustained 3200 WLM of exposure over five years and who was a cigarette smoker. Note hilar and mediastinal enlargement with obstructive pneumonia.

(d) Mixed-dust pneumoconiosis. Patient worked in oil shale mine for one year, 23 years earlier, then laid railroad tracks in a coal mine for six months. Note hilar node calcification and lower lobe opacities.


135A

TABLE 2

100-year dose commitment/800 MWe-year a Off-site total body dose commitment (man-rems)

Nuclear fuel cycle component

Mining

110

Milling

39

UF 6 conversion

6.9

Enrichment

0.022 0.48

UO2 fuel fabrication

61

Light-water reactor effluents

0.0035

Irradiated fuel storage

330

Reprocessing Transportation

1.1

Waste management

8.9 Man-rems or

Industry total 558 0.056

Potential health effects per 800-MWe plant per year

" For the U.S. population Source: Harward, E. D. "Environmental Exposure from Nuclear Facilities. Symposium on Energy and Human Health;" "Human Costs of Electric Power Generation," EPA 600/9-80-030, Washington, D.C., 1980; p. 396 (from Atomic Industrial Forum)

The health risk of occupational exposures to low-level ionizing radiation must be obtained by extrapolation from higher levels (45, 46). This extrapolation is usually based on a linear dose-response relationship. Animal studies indicate that there is a linear relationship between low-dose exposures and health effects for X-ray, beta, and gamma radiation, but not for neutrons or alpha particles (47). Health effects include genetic effects (risk of malformation or disease in the unborn, which has received less research attention) and somatic effects, which involve cancer of a variety of organs. Ionizing radiation has been associated with myeloid leukemia, and lung, breast, thyroid, skin, liver, and bone cancer in particular. Two recent studies have assessed cancer risk from low-dose ionizing radiation. Lyon et al. have identified an increase (by a factor greater than two) in childhood leukemia mortality during 1959-67 in high-fallout counties of Utah downwind from nuclear tests in Nevada during the 1950s. Lyon subsequently confirmed the leukemia deaths by analysis of pathological specimens. He extended his observations through 1980 and found that following the 1959-67 increase seen shortly after the onset of atmospheric nuclear weapons testing, childhood leukemia mortality returned to lower levels. The attribution of this temporary excess leukemia to low-level radiation exposure has been challenged (48). Further studies will attempt to reconstruct the dosage received, examine the thyroids of children studied 136A


for thyroid abnormalities in 1965, and ascertain the mortality patterns of approximately one million Mormons potentially exposed and a similar number of those unexposed (49). Mancuso et al. and others studied radiation workers in Hanford, Wash., observing excess deaths caused by multiple myeloma and cancer of the pancreas and lung (50, 51). However, no increase in myeloid leukemia (the most radiosensitive) was observed; the diagnosis of cancer of the pancreas is often inaccurate on a death certificate; and the excess in lung cancer was not observed when controlling for calendar year, since between 1950 and 1975 general lung cancer death rates for

U.S. white males more than doubled (51-53). A permanent high-level radioactive waste storage site has yet to be identified, and potential sites face political vetoes by states reasserting their power under the "new federalism." For instance, one site in eastern Utah is adjacent to Canyonlands National Park in an area proposed for park expansion. Also, the decomissioning of spent nuclear power plants has yet to begin; recent discoveries of long-lived radioisotopes (nickel-59 and niobium-94) in nuclear power plant steel and concrete casings suggest that the amount of nuclear power plant waste needing storage may be much larger than originally believed (55). The coal cycle The coal cycle includes the mining and transportation of coal and combustion in a coal-fired electrical or heating plant with attendant air pollution and fly ash disposal problems. In addition, it includes coal conversion technologies, such as coal gasification and liquefaction. Coal is also directly burned in some small industries, as well as in homes for the purpose of space heating. The U.S. produces 20% of the world's coal and has extensive reserves. Half of the coal is mined from underground mines and half from surface mines; more than 20 states have coal mines. The majority of the coal mined is bituminous and subbituminous, with a few anthracite mines in Pennsylvania and lignite strip mines in Texas and North Dakota. Hazards to the nation's almost 200 000 coal miners include coal mine dust, diesel exhaust emis-

TABLE 3

SMRs among coal miners a covered by UMWA health and retirement funds Cause of death

Expected

SMR*

7628

7506.1

All malignant neoplasms

1223

1252.2

97.7

Respiratory organs

373

331

112.5

Stomach cancer

101.6

127

91.9

134.9"

4285

4501.2

95.2"

Chronic and unqualified bronchitis

26

29.0

89.7

Influenza

28

14.8

189.6"

Major cardiovascular diseases

Emphysema

a

Observed

All Causes

170

118.3

143.7"

Asthma

32

18.3

174.9"

Tuberculosis

63

43.3

145.5"

283.0

144.2"

CWP

187

Accidents

408

22 998 miners were studied (from Rockette, NIOSH 77-155). * Standardized mortality ratio (SMR) is significantly different from 100 at the 5% level.

sions, asphyxiant gases (CO, CO2, hydrogen sulfide, and methane), ex plosions, and accidents. The mortality of coal miners, U.S. coal miners in particular, was recently reviewed by Rockette (56). He deter mined the vital status and cause of death of a random sample (23 233 miners) eligible for United Mineworkers of America health and retirement funds as of Jan. 1, 1959. He achieved a 99% follow-up (22 998 miners) of this cohort through Dec. 31, 1971. Significant increases in the stan dardized mortality ratios for stomach cancer, respiratory disease (influenza, emphysema, asthma, and tuberculo sis), and accidents were found (Table 3). There were 187 deaths directly at tributable to coal workers' pneumo coniosis (CWP), and CWP was men

Respirable coal particles are de posited in the terminal respiratory bronchioles and alveoli where they are engulfed by alveolar macrophages. Collections of macrophages and par ticles form coal macules, a character istic lesion that is nonpalpable. The macules are nonspecific, but sharp, angular particles are characteristic of coal, whereas rounded particles are more commonly seen in smokers' ma cules (61). Next, focal emphysema, a dilation of the respiratory bronchioles caused by the stresses and strains placed on the tissue from accumulated dust, macrophages, and reticulin, de velops, and actual tissue destruction and smooth muscle atrophy may be observed (61, 62). Small pulmonary arterioles may be obliterated in the nodular stage, and cor pulmonale

tioned as a contributory cause in 393 deaths. The overall SMR was 101.6, which is comparable to the general population, although some investiga tors consider this figure high compared to that for other working groups.

(heart failure secondary to lung dis ease) has been described. Coal workers' pneumoconiosis may be simple or complicated; radiographically, these two diseases are defined by the size of the pulmonary nodules, with >1 cm characterized as complicated. Pathologically, a 2-cm nodule is considered evidence for complicated CWP (61). Simple CWP usually is not associated with pulmo nary function impairment, whereas complicated CWP more often is, and categories Β and C have been shown to result in decreased longevity (57). (Categories A, B, and C refer to the increasing volume of the large opaci ties in complicated CWP). Simple CWP is divided into categories 1, 2, and 3, according to the profusion of opacities in a chest radiograph. Phys iologic changes in categories 2 and 3

Pneumoconiosis Coal workers' respiratory disease consists primarily of CWP (Figure 1 c) and industrial bronchitis, but expo sures to cigarette smoke, silica, and air pollution may alter the spectrum of responses to include emphysema, sili cosis, tuberculosis, and other respira tory diseases (57, 58). Coal dust has been shown to cause pneumoconiosis in the absence of silica, for example, among coal trimmers working with washed coal in the holds of ships dec ades ago and among electrotypists working with pure carbon (59, 60).

are minimal: They consist of alter ations in the distribution of inspired gas, increased closing volume and ca pacity, increased residual volume, in creased alveolar-arterial oxygen gra dient, and, in the p-type (rounded opacities less than 1 mm), a reduced diffusing capacity (63). Complicated CWP or progressive massive fibrosis (PMF) usually in volves physiological abnormalities and may result in respiratory impairment. Coal dust exposure or other fibrogenic dust (usually siliceous) plus an un known factor—probably immuno logic—may lead to PMF (57). Al though most cases of PMF appear to arise in persons with categories 2 and 3 simple CWP, recent British studies indicate that almost half may arise directly in persons whose chest films showed category 1, or even normal (64). Thus, preventing or reducing the chances of the development of cate gory 2 pneumoconiosis by dust control may not entirely eliminate the risk for developing PMF. Longitudinal studies (prospective epidemiological investigations) in the United Kingdom, sponsored by the National Coal Board, have developed estimates of the probability of devel oping category 2 simple CWP after 35 y at the coal face at different mean dust concentrations (65). Their recent data suggest a risk of approximately 5% or less at the current U.S. dust standard of 2 mg/m 3 . PMF lesions tend to occur in the upper and posterior regions of the lungs bilaterally and destroy blood vessels and airways, greatly distorting the lung architecture. These lesions are composed of collagen, calcium phos phates, and various proteins, including hydroxyproline, and glycosoaminoglycans (66). Caplan described a syn drome of bilateral, peripheral, 1-5-cm rounded lesions associated with simple CWP and with rheumatoid arthritis and high titers of rheumatoid factor in the serum (67). Coal workers have been described as having a variety of circulating immune responses, but their relationship to the etiology of CWP remains uncertain (68). Epidemiologic studies have been performed by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) under the Federal Coal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1969 (69). Round two (1974-77) of the NIOSH National Coal Workers' Health Surveillance Program of more than 114 000 miners found 5.7% to have CWP and 0.2% to have PMF (70). Pulmonary function studies have shown that the obstructive impairment Environ. Sci. Technol., Vol. 17, No. 3, 1983

137A

in simple CWP or among coal miners with normal chest radiographs is probably related to cigarette smoking (71). National studies have also demon strated a geographic difference, with CWP more prevalent in Appalachia than in the Midwest or West (57). These differences were explained on the basis of coal rank (higher rank re ferring to a higher Btu coal with less volatile matter), with the East having higher-ranked coal. British studies also have found an effect of coal rank on pneumoconiosis risk and have shown that silica exposure correlated with CWP in low-rank coal mines, while mean mass of coal particles correlated with CWP in high-rank mines (70, 72, 73). Toxicity and size of the coal dust particles may also influence pneumo coniosis risk (74). Bronchitis and emphysema Coal miners have excess industrial bronchitis (cough and phlegm pro duction) related to larger coal particles (>5 μπι) depositing on the larger air ways (75). This does not generally re sult in any changes in pulmonary function tests (76). Considerable controversy exists, however, on em physema in coal miners. Nonsmoking coal miners have been found to have similar type (centrilobular) and extent of emphysema at autopsy as do smok ing coal miners (77). Centrilobular emphysema has correlated with both age and coal mine dust exposure among British coal miners autopsied by scientists at the Institute of Occu pational Medicine in Edinburgh, Scotland (A. Seaton, personal com munication). Surface coal mining poses far less risk of CWP, since ex posures are generally much lower, al though accelerated silicosis has been reported among surface drillers by NIOSH (78, 79). In 1976, NIOSH estimated that there were 65 new cases of CWP per million tons of coal mined under ground. NIOSH also estimated the accident rate per million tons of coal: 0.10 accidental deaths and 5.2 acci dental injuries for surface mining, and 0.35 accidental deaths and 2 injuries for underground mining (23). Power plants Following mining, coal is trans ported, crushed, and burned in power plants. NIOSH has estimated that there are 0.084 occupational acciden tal deaths per million tons of coal transported, and 9.8 general-public and 1.08 occupational injuries per million tons of coal transported (23). 138A


The occupational environment in power plants is complex, with many paths of potential exposure including coal dust, chemical solvents, PCBs, noise, mercury in switches, electro magnetic radiation, asbestos, fly ash, sulfur dioxide, and others (80). Un fortunately, epidemiologic research on occupational health in this industry is sparse. Asbestos-related disease has been reported among pipe coverers in power plants in France; also, one of our colleagues recently observed a patient with hypersensitivity pneumonitis from being exposed to fungi while cleaning a power plant baghouse (81). New technologies might, in the fu ture, play a role in curtailing health risks from coal. For instance, the hot gases from coal combustion can be used directly to generate electricity, a process termed magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) (79,82). Fluidized-bed combustion is an additional technology that may achieve reductions in SO* and NO* emissions when high-sulfur coal is burned (79). Other issues related to the coal cycle include sulfur oxide(s) and particulates from exhaust stacks, which contribute to general air pollution, and acid rain (10,83,84). Radioactive isotopes and toxic metal and halogen compounds also are generated and released by coal combustion (85, 86). The release of carbon dioxide contributes to the glo bal increase in CO2 levels (77). The reclamation of strip mined lands, acid seepage from mined-out areas, un controlled fires in closed Underground mines, and disposal of fly ash with ar senic, beryllium, lead, cadmium, mercury, nickel, and other hazardous metals present additional environ mental concerns related to the coal cycle. Land reclamation, restoration of lands disturbed by both surface and underground mining, is required by the 1977 Federal Surface Mining Act. Gasification Coal conversion technologies in clude coal gasification and liquefac tion. These synthetic fuel routes pro vide clean-burning gas and liquid fuels for multiple uses: power production, transportation, and chemical feed stocks. In the western U.S., coal con version plants are likely to utilize strip mining, which has a lower occupa tional health and safety impact than does underground coal mining. Coal gasification involves cracking heavy hydrocarbons into lighter ones and enriching the resultant molecules with hydrogen. Three types of coal gas can be produced by coal3 gasification: low (100-200 Btu/ft ), medium

(300-650 Btu/ft 3 ), and high (9501000 Btu/ft 3 ) Btu gas. Low-Btu gas is produced by reacting coal with steam and air; medium-Btu gas is produced similarly, except that oxygen is sub stituted for air; and high-Btu gas is made from medium-Btu gases by a methanation reaction and is equivalent to natural gas. Low-Btu gas has been produced from coal since the 19th century; currently the Lurgi, Koppers-Totzek, and other technologies are being evaluated (79). A gasification scheme begins when pulverized coal is injected into a reac tor where it is gasified with heat (hot steam), oxygen, and elevated pressure. Next come gas cleanup, which re moves solids, tars, and oils; gas cooling; and shift conversion, whereby CO and steam are converted to H2 and carbon dioxide so that increased hydrogen is reacted with residual CO · to form methane. The next steps in the gasifi cation process are acid gas removal, which consists of using methanol to absorb gases such as carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, and carbonyl sulfide; sulfur recovery, usually employing the Claus process, which uses bauxite to burn hydrogen sulfide to sulfur and water; and catalytic methanation, usually using a nickel catalyst to hydrogenate various carbon oxides to methane. Finally, compression and dehydration prepare gas for the pipe line in the case of a high-Btu gas or deliver it to a boiler to produce heat or steam in the case of low- or mediumBtu gas (87). Coal gasification also may be accomplished underground, producing a low-Btu gas that makes possible the use of coal seams not amenable to mining, and avoids the expensive and risky step of coal mining (88). Coal gasification processes may be used to produce a clean gas for power plant combustion by removing sulfur and nitrogen as hydrogen sulfide and ammonia in the gas cleanup phase. This process completely gasifies the coal, leaving neither a tarry residue nor the calcium sulfate sludge resulting from flue gas desulfurization in stan dard power plants (89). Gasification health hazards The major occupational hazards of gasification are to maintenance workers who may be exposed to pro cess streams and fugitive emissions containing a variety of possible toxi cants. These include: • trace metals that may be ad sorbed On particulate matter or in cluded in by-products, final products, or other gases as fugitive pollutants;

• polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), suspected of being mutagenic and carcinogenic; • sulfur compounds in the form of hydrogen sulfide and lesser amounts of carbonyl sulfide and carbon disulfide found in the gas stream; • nitrogen, which in coal is chemically bound as amines and in ring structures. Under heat and pressure, organic nitrogen compounds are released and react to form ammonia primarily but also lesser amounts of amines, hydrogen cyanide, and heterocyclic nitrogen compounds—several of which are mutagenic; and • carbon monoxide. Liquefaction Coal liquefaction, particularly solvent refining, has been shown to produce many mutagenic substances, but it has one advantage over gasification in that a range of liquid products (heavy boiler fuel, distillate fuel oil, gasoline, jet fuel, and diesel oil) can be produced by varying the type of process and operating conditions. There are several major technologies: • Solvent extraction. In this method, crushed coal is dissolved in a process—derived solvent through an indirect transfer of the hydrogen to the coal. • Direct hydrogénation. A catalytic reactor adds hydrogen under pressure to slurried coal with recycled oil. • Pyrolysis. Thermal decomposition of coal is brought about by heating it in the absence of oxygen, producing a liquid product as well as a by-product of gas and char. • Indirect liquefaction. This method (Fischer-Tropsch process) involves the initial gasification of coal to produce a mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen (synthesis gas), which is purified and converted to a liquid fuel via a catalytic reaction (90). The Fischer-Tropsch process is in operation in Sasolburg, South Africa. In both coal conversion processes, closed systems are the design objective to prevent any significant occupational exposure, and considerable effort in pilot studies has been expended to prevent any breaching of the system. Conversion plants will have water effluents, gaseous emissions, and solid wastes similar to those of oil refineries and chemical plants. However, coal liquefaction produces numerous carcinogenic and mutagenic toxicants, thereby providing a challenge to industrial engineers and hygienists to reduce or eliminate occupational exposures to these substances (91-97). The heavy distillates appear to be a

major source of PAHs and the primary amines of PAHs that have both mutagenic and carcinogenic properties. Catalytic hydrogénation within liquefaction processes is quite effective in converting these substances to nontoxic species, and current wastewater treatment systems are effective in removing many of the toxic hydrocarbons. In 1952, Union Carbide developed a commercial coal liquefaction process with a medical surveillance program. Between 1955 and 1960, R. J. Sexton, the plant medical director, found one worker with two cutaneous (skin) cancers, nine workers with one cuta-

coal (higher hydrogenxarbon ratio) and it can be converted into liquid fuels more economically. The oil in oil shale is contained in an organic substance known as kerogen, a waxy, solid, and largely insoluble complex organic material composed mainly of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, sulfur, and nitrogen. The shales of the Green River formation on the Utah-Colorado border contain an estimated 1.8 trillion barrels of oil; 600 billion barrels of oil are recoverable from these deposits with current technology. Oil shale can be mined by open pit methods or underground room-andpillar methods, or retorted in situ.

neous cancer each, and 40 workers with one cutaneous precancerous lesion each, out of an exposed work force of 359 (98). A follow-up of the cohort of 50 workers with skin lesions through 1977 confirmed five deaths, none from cancer (99). The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health is developing a literature and data bank on the coal conversion processes, primarily consisting of industrial hygiene information from pilot plants (12).

Retorting requires heating of the oil shale to between 350 and 500 ° C , at which it decomposes and yields an oil vapor which, in turn, condenses at a lower temperature into liquid oil. True in situ techniques involve the explosive, underground fracturing of the shale, and retorting in place. A horizontal in situ retort has been developed in Utah; a thin, 30-ft layer of oil shale is retorted with the flame front on one end, while pumps remove the shale oil on the far end. Modified in situ processes involve mining 20-40% of the oil shale and then blasting the remainder to rubble, which fills the void spaces. The mined portion can be transported to the sur-

The oil shale cycle Oil shale is very attractive in the synthetic fuels industry because its molecular chemistry is simpler than


139A

face and retorted. The unmined por tion is retorted in place, generally vertically by igniting the upper layer and pumping the shale oil from the bottom of the mined area. Oil shale may be retorted above ground by two methods: direct and indirect. In the direct method, oil shale is crushed into particles of suitable sizes and charged in a retort. One end is ignited, and air and recycled gas are pumped into the retort. An oil mist is collected and condenses into shale oil. In the indirect method, another me dium (such as porcelain balls) is heated and introduced into the retort, or the oil shale is retorted by recycled gas heated outside the retort. Because the kerogen molecule (C215H330O12N5S) is too large to be refined conventionally, it must be hydrogenated before refining to various petroleum products (100). Hydrotreating shale oil reduces the nitrogen content from 2 to 0.3% and the sulfur content to negligible levels, and sig nificantly reduces the levels of various metals, such as arsenic, nickel, iron, and vanadium (101). In addition to refining, oil shale may be burned hi the pulverized powder form in electric power plants; however, in Estonia, U.S.S.R., where this is done, large amounts of noncombustible wastes are generated. Oil shale pollution problems Oil shale development will create pollution problems involving air, water, and solid waste. Particulate emissions will be produced by mining, crushing, and retorting, with higher pollutant levels produced by those processes re quiring a fine oil shale feed. For ex ample, an industrial hygiene survey of the pilot operations at the Anvil Points, Colo., facility has demonstrated in creased levels of silica-containing dust (102). The major source of SO2 will be from the ammonia and sulfur recovery processes (103). Nitrogen oxides will be emitted when low-Btu shale offgases are burned in steam and power production. Hydrocarbons and carbon monox ide appear to be less of a problem, but they may be emitted in the aboveground retorting operations. Carbon monoxide may be a hazard near the in situ or modified in situ retorts because of ongoing combustion, while fugitive emissions through fissures following the rubbling process may be a partic ular hazard for workers. Oil shale wastewater may contain many toxic constituents, including trace metals, phenols and other or ganic chemicals, and carcinogens 140A


(such as PAHs). Mine drainage waters may contain inorganic salts, chloride and fluoride ions, and boron. Leachates from spent shale piles may contain many inorganic salts, trace elements, and organic compounds. Their alkalinity (pH 8-13) could result in significant water quality changes. A potentially major concern is the un known contamination of aquifers from in situ or modified in situ retorts, re sulting from contaminated water that would be difficult to treat. Several potential occupational health problems are associated with the oil shale industry. These include oil shale mine dust, PAHs, irritant and asphyxiant gases, toxic metals and catalysts, physical factors such as heat and noise, and the threat of accidents related to the hazardous nature and large scale of many of the proposed operations (104). A commercial oil shale industry existed in Scotland from the mid-19th century until 1963. Oil shale from the underground mines was retorted to shale oil and used for a variety of commercial purposes, including lu brication for spindles in the English textile mills. In 1876, Bell reported the first oil shale cancer in the scrotum of a Scottish oil shale worker at the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh (105). Alex ander Scott observed oil shale workers, and reported 65 cases of epithelioma from 1900 to 1921 (106). There were over 5000 Scottish shale oil workers; thus the total incidence rate was 1.5%, or less than 0.1%/y. In 1922, Leitch documented the carcinogenicity of Scottish shale oil by producing skin papillomas in animals through skin-painting experiments (107). Berenblum and Schoental identified 0.01% 3,4-benzo[a]pyrene (B[a]P) in blue shale oil, which is carcinogenic in animals (108). Sea ton et al. recently described complicated pneumoconiosis in four patients diagnosed toward the end of a lifetime's work in underground oil shale mines (109). They reported that the clinical and histological features resembled the pneumoconioses of coal miners and kaolin workers and that the lungs of three of the patients were shown to contain dust composed pre dominantly of kaolinite, mica, and silica. Two of the patients were found at necropsy to have peripheral squamous-cell carcinoma of the lung (Figure Id). Estonia has had an oil shale industry for several decades, with about 25 million tons mined annually for use in power plants, as a chemical feedstock, and as a lubricant, as well as for other

purposes. Bogovskiy has shown that B[e]P-containing and B[a]P-free fractions of shale oil may be carcino genic to mice when administered by skin painting or intratracheal injection (110, 111). He concluded that carci nogenicity was highest for the fractions retorted at the highest temperatures, that there was no parallelism among local irritant, general toxic, and car cinogenic effects, that blending carci nogenic oils with noncarcinogenic ones was relatively ineffective in lowering carcinogenic potency, and that deter mining Β [α] Ρ quantity did not provide a reliable index of potency. Bogovskiy stated that many fractions contained promoters and co-carcinogens in the complex mixtures. PAHs from coal and oil shale Both the coal conversion and oil shale cycles produce PAHs that have three or more fused aromatic rings and include several that are carcinogens (13,14, 95-97). The biologic activity of these compounds is complex; de pending upon the site of methylation of benzanthracene, for example, the resulting compound may be carcino genic or noncarcinogenic. PAHs are activated by the hepatic microsomal enzyme system to carci nogenic forms that may bind covalently to DNA (112). The PAH forms are metabolized by aryl hydrocarbon hydroxylase, an enzyme located in the endoplasmic reticulum or microsomes of a variety of tissues. Most PAHs are hydroxylated in tissue; the resulting phenolic compounds are then conju gated, usually with glucuronic or sul furic acid, and excreted via the urine or the bile. The carcinogenic property of soot (containing certain PAHs) was rec ognized as early as 1775 when Sir Percival Pott associated the soot that contaminated the chimney sweeps' pants with cancer of the scrotum (112). Even after two centuries, the chimney sweep trade still exists, and a recent Swedish study found that there is still an excess risk for occupational cancer (113). Kawai has reported a 33-fold in crease in lung cancer risk among male workers exposed to tar fumes while employed at the gas generation facility of a Japanese steel mill (114). The risk was greatest among those with greater than 20 years' employment and could not be explained by cigarette smoking. Sir Richard Doll studied 2071 male pensioners of a London gas company and found that lung cancer deaths were double those of male inhabitants of London of the same age but without

exposure and that bladder cancer was increased fourfold (115). Cancers of the skin and scrotum were also detected. Coke-oven workers have been found to have a lung cancer mortality rate greater than twice that predicted by the experience of all steelworkers; excess cancer of the kidney also has been identified (116, 117). Risk increased with increasing duration of exposure, and those exposed to higher P A H concentrations topside had a greater risk than those working along the sides of the ovens (117). Oil shale coke has been found to be a potent carcinogen in animal experiments (118). Hueper of the National Cancer Institute, who conducted extensive bioassay testing of hydrocarbon products from synthetic fuel processes, stated in 1953: "It

following low-temperature (100 °C) alkaline separation (121). Based on petroleum refinery experience, the upgrading of 10 000 barrels per day of bitumen could yield approximately 360 lb of carbon monoxide, 11 600 lb of hydrocarbons, 6500 lb of nitrogen, and 8800 lb of particulates (722). N o P A H s have been detected in the lowtemperature pilot plant tar sands operation conducted by the University of Utah. Geothermal power plants are in operation in California, Mexico, New Zealand, and Italy, with lower temperature geothermal energy being used for space heating in a variety of other places as diverse as Salt Lake City, Utah; Reykjavik, Iceland; and Boise, Idaho (20). Water temperatures of 100-150 ° C may be used for space

Solar electricity.

The production process could involve several toxicants. can be expected, therefore, that both producers and consumers of these coal hydrogenates may run a definite cancer hazard, if they are not properly protected against contact to the skin or [against] inhalation of these products in the form of pastes, greases, liquids, fumes, or mists" (119). Tar sands and geothermal cycles The tar sands and geothermal energy cycles are less important than other alternatives at present because their potential energy is less than that of nuclear fission, coal, or oil shale. Tar sands are found mainly in Utah (30 billion barrels of oil) and New Mexico (20 billion barrels) (120). These deposits differ from the Athabasca tar sands in Canada in that there is less water interposed between the sand and tar. The tar is removed as a bitumen

heating. Temperatures of 150-210 °C are required for a binary system that uses the geothermal fluid to heat a high-vapor-pressure gas such as isobutane in a heat exchanger that then drives a turbine. With temperatures above 210 ° C , the geothermal fluid may be used to drive the turbine directly. Because processes at the various geothermal plants and environments differ, their impacts are also different. The geothermal cycle is rather short, since steam is flashed from hot water; the condensate can be used in cooling towers or reinjected into the reservoir. This obviates the need for combustion, mining, retorting, and refining. The major environmental and occupational exposure involves hydrogen sulfide, which has annoyed inhabitants near The Geysers, Calif., with its pungent

odor (123). Processes to abate hydrogen sulfide emissions have concentrated on removing it from the condensate and producing a sulfur sludge, which presents disposal problems and has resulted in several cases of occupational dermatitis (123). A design change that mitigates ths situation employs a tube-and-shell condenser that forces more of the hydrogen sulfide into the noncondensable gas stream; the stream is then treated in a Stretford unit to convert hydrogen sulfide to commercial-quality sulfur. Other occupational and environmental problems include noise [120 dB(A) has been measured during the venting of wells], explosive gases such as isobutane in binary systems, carbon dioxide in enclosed spaces, ammonia near the cooling toWers, arsenic in the wastewater, and very small amounts of mercury, boron, and radon gas (123). Fusion and solar Both nuclear fusion and solar energy schemes envisage bountiful energy harvests with minimal environmental or social disruption. Critics argue that these are "pie-in-the-sky" solutions, but solar at least may make a substantial contribution even in the near term. Advocates of centralized thermonuclear fusion power state that their fuel supply is accessible, abundant, and cheap, and that this cycle would achieve a high degree of safety with low levels of social and environmental impact (124). However, fusion power in a reactor in the laboratory leading to net power production has not yet been accomplished. Major environmental liabilities would include tritium leakage and activation of structural materials by neutron bombardment. Specific concerns include: • extraction and processing of the basic fuels, • routine emissions of radioactivity from fusion reactors, • production and handling of radioactive wastes, • nonroutine releases of radioactivity (through accidents or hostile acts), • demands on nonfuel materials, • thermal discharges, and • the use of nuclear materials for weapons (124). A nuclear fusion reactor would initially utilize the deuterium-tritium reaction and "breed" tritium by bombarding a lithium blanket with neutrons. Very high energies could be generated, and the fuel elements (lithium) are abundant and easy to Environ. Sci. Technol., Vol. 17, No. 3, 1983

141A

extract. Furthermore, compared to fission reactors, fusion has the poten tial for a less hazardous radioactive material inventory, less long-lived waste, less vulnerability to loss-ofcoolant accidents, no fissionable ma terials to steal, and production of less waste heat because of higher efficiency (124). Solar energy includes a wide variety of technological approaches that could be considered under two headings: solar heating and cooling systems and central electric generation (24, 125). A typical solar heating system includes a flat-plate collector on the roof of a building plus a storage device varying from cement walls to a water tank in the basement (126). Other designs include various passive concepts in housing design and orientation, such as southerly oriented greenhouses that can vent warm air into the house dur ing cold winter months (24). Central electric generation encom passes a variety of concepts. These in clude: using temperature differentials in oceans; collecting and focusing the rays of the sun with giant mirrors or heliostats that move with the sun; concentrating the sun's rays upon a point to elevate temperatures suffi ciently to produce steam; solar-pow ered satellites that can transmit energy to the earth's surface via microwaves; and solar or photovoltaic cells that convert the sun's energy directly into electricity (127). Windmills can produce electrical energy, and they have been used for centuries to pump water. When sup plemented with central power for windless days, windmills can provide electricity for private homes. However, inconsistent wind requires electrical storage that usually makes wind en ergy uneconomical. Now enjoying renewed interest, wood or biomass is the oldest known form of solar energy, but the increase in winter particulate loads from wood-burning stoves may lead to, or exacerbate, chronic bronchitis and asthma (21). Photovoltaic solar cells, which con vert sunlight directly into electricity, consist of three types: silicon, cadmium sulfide, and gallium arsenide (19). The three cells work on the same principle, that is, by driving electrons from an electron-rich layer (η-type semicon ductor) to an electron-poor layer (ptype semiconductor) using light en ergy. Silicon is the more common type of photovoltaic cell. Its production pro cess involves exposures to a variety of toxicants. The process entails mining 142A


quartz-bearing rock; reducing the quartz with coke in an electric arc furnace at 1000 °C to produce silicon; and purifying the silicon through the fluidization of a bed of finely pulver ized, metallurgical-grade silicon with hydrogen chloride (little is known about the human health effects of the resulting chlorosilanes). Additional steps entail heat conversion of chlorosilane to polycrystalline silica; sin gle-crystal production via the Czochralski process of zone refining and addition of boron to form the p-type semiconductor (exposures to diborane or silicon monoxide may occur); and creating the wafers and adding phos phorus to form the η-type semicon ductor (exposures to phosphorous compounds, including phosphine, may occur) (128). Thus, manufacturing solar cells in volves resource extraction procedures similar to those for other fuel cycles, use of numerous exotic compounds in the production process, and eventual disposal of hazardous waste. Advances in photovoltaic materials technology and automation in processing are necessary before solar cells can be cost-competitive (129). No innocuous system The health, safety, and environ mental effects of the various energy alternatives are complex. Nevertheless, several sources of exposure are com mon to all of them: resource extraction, milling and processing; construction and operation of the energy-producing unit; and environmental pollution of air, land, and water. No system is en vironmentally innocuous; moreover, social, political, and economic dictates may affect the priority of the op tions. The consuming public has a role in shaping the governmental function, since the federal government sponsors research and development in energy cycles, for example, through DOE, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Syn thetic Fuels Corporation, and the Solar Energy Research Institute. The federal government itself is such a large pur chaser of energy that economies of scale become possible. An example is found in the use of photovoltaic cells at remote military stations or for highway lights. We encourage government research and development funding for solar and nuclear fusion projects, which appear to have less potential for adverse en vironmental and health impacts, rather than for nuclear fission or synthetic fuels where the private sector is al ready active. We also suggest that

impacts on health, safety, and the en vironment from synthetic fuel cycles are potentially significant and that nuclear fission has adverse impacts more difficult to measure precisely (accidents, risk of sabotage, and the disposal of radioactive waste). Other energy ideas, such as genetic engineering to produce methanol from biomass cheaply to fuel transportation systems; using solar energy to produce hydrogen fuel from water; and cogeneration to produce both heat and electricity from methane or natural gas, using municipal and industrial waste or coal gasification, should offer opportunities for federal and private research. A transitional period from the use of oil, gas, and coal to renew able or long-term energy resources is necessary, but it is unclear whether this period should be dominated by syn thetic fuels or extended oil and gas development. Expanded oil and gas exploration may have adverse impacts on sensitive ecosystems, including wilderness areas, coastal estuaries, Arctic wilderness, or the Arctic Ocean itself. Finally, it seems reasonable to apply the " A L A R A " concept from the ionizing radiation field to the synthetic fuels cycles and to emerging new technologies in solar, geothermal, and tar sands, that is, to keep hazardous emissions " a s /ow as reasonably achievable" to protect health, safety, and the environment. Acknowledgment The authors thank Victor Archer, M.D., for reviewing this manuscript. Prior to publication, this article was read and commented on for suitability as an ES& Τ feature by Dr. Philip Landrigan, Robert A. Taft Laboratories, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio 45226, and Dr. L. D. Hamilton, Department of Energy and Environment, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, N.Y. 11973.

William N. Rom, M.D., (/.) graduated from the University of Minnesota Medical School in 1971 and completed a residency in internal medicine at the University of California, Davis. He received a Master's of Public Health in environmental and occupational health from Harvard in 1973. He was a fellow in environmental and pulmonary medicine at Mt. Sinai in

New York. Currently, he is an associate professor of medicine at the University of Utah School of Medicine and director of the Rocky Mountain Center for Occupa tional and Environmental Health. He is editor-in-chief of Environmental and Occupational Medicine, published by Little, Brown and Company. Jeffrey Lee obtained M.P.H. and Ph.D. degrees in industrial hygiene from the University of California, Berkeley. He had extensive experience with government oc cupational health agencies (i.e., OSHA and NIOSH) prior to joining the Univer sity of Utah faculty in 1978. He is an as sistant professor in the Department of Family and Community Medicine, School of Medicine, and is the director of the In dustrial Hygiene Program at the Rocky Mountain Center for Occupational and Environmental Health. He is board cer tified in the comprehensive practice of industrial hygiene and is a registered professional engineer in safety. References (1) Department of Energy. "Environmental Data Energy Technology Characterizations. Synthetic Fuels," USDOE/EV-0073, Washington, D.C., 1980. (2) American Medical Association Council on Scientific Affairs. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 1978, 240,2193-95. (3) Gleick, P. H.; Holdren, J. P. Am. J. Public Health 1981,7/, 1046-50. (4) Johnson, D. H.; Kastenberg, W. E.; Griesmeyer, J. M. Am. J. Public Health 1981,7/, 1050-57. (5) Symposium on Energy and Human Health. "Human Costs of Electric Power Genera tion," EPA 600/9-80-030, Washington, D.C., 1980. (6) "Radiation Hazards in Mining. Control, Measurement, and Medical Aspects";. Gomez, M., Ed.; American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum En gineers Inc.: New York, N.Y., 1981. (7) "Health Implications of New Energy Technologies"; Rom, W. N.; Archer, V. E., Eds.; Ann Arbor Science Publishers Inc.: Ann Arbor, Mich., 1980. (8) "Energy and the Environment. Cost-Ben efit Analysis"; Karam, R. Α.; Morgan, Κ. Ζ., Eds. Pergamon Press: New York, N.Y., 1976. (9) Hammond, A. L. Science 1978, 199, 607-64. (10) "The direct use of coal: prospects and problems of production and combustion"; Office of Technology Assessment of the Congress of the U.S., Washington, D.C., 1979. (11) "Report on Health and Environmental Effects of Increased Coal Utilization"; En viron. Health Perspect. 1980, 36, 135-54. (12) NIOSH. "Recommended health and safety guidelines for coal gasification pilot plants," DHEW (NIOSH) Publ. No. 78-120, 1978. ( 13) Santodonato, J.; Howard, P.; Basu, D. J. Environ. Pathol. Toxicol. 1981,5, 1-364. (14) Perera, F. Environ. Health. Perspect. 1981,42, 163-85. (15) Solon, L. R.; Sidel, V. W. Ann. intern. Med. 1979, 90, 424-26. (16) Department of Energy. "Environmental Data Energy Technology Characterizations. Coal," USDOE/EV-0074, Washington, D.C., 1980. (17) Department of Energy. "An Assessment of National Consequences of Increased Coal Utilization"; USDOE, Office of the Assistant Secretary for the Environment, Washington, D.C., 1979.

(18) Comar, C. L.; Sagan, L. A. Ann. Rev. Energy 1976, / , 581-600. (19) Environmental Protection Agency. "En vironmental, Operational and Economic As pects of Thirteen Selected Energy Tech nologies," EPA 600/7-80-173, Washington, D.C., 1980. (20) Department of Energy. "Environmental Data Energy Technology Characterizations. Geothermal," USDOE/EV-0077, Wash ington, D.C., 1980. (21) Department of Energy. "Health Effects of Residential Wood Combustion," USDOE/ EV-0114, Washington, D.C., 1980. (22) Department of Energy. "Comparing En ergy Technology Alternatives from an Envi ronmental Perspective," USDOE/EV-0109, Washington, D.C., 1981. (23) Department of Energy. "Comparative Assessment of Health and Safety Impacts of Coal Use," USDOE/EV-0069, Washington, D.C., 1980. (24) Environmental Protection Agency. "Po tential Environmental Impacts of Solar Heating and Cooling Systems," Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Devel opment Program Report, EPA 600/7-76-014, Washington, D.C., 1976. (25) Archer, V. E. J. Occup. Med. 1981, 23, 502-505. (26) Myers, D. K.; Stewart, C. G.; Johnson, J. R. In "Radiation Hazards in Mining. Control, Measurement, and Medical As pects"; Gomez, M., Ed.; American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers Inc.: New York, N.Y., 1981; pp. 513-24. (27) Swent, L. W. In "Radiation Hazards in Mining. Control, Measurement, and Medical Aspects"; Gomez, M., Ed.; American Insti tute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers Inc.: New York, N.Y., 1981; pp. 4-7. (28) Haerting, F. H.; Hesse, W. Vierteljahreschr. Gerichtl. Med. 1879, 30, 296-309; 1879, 31, 102-32 and 312-37. (29) Ludewig, P.; Lorenser, Ε. Z. Phys. 1924, 22, 178-85. (30) Mitchel, J. S. "Memorandum on some aspects of the biological actions of radiations with special reference to tolerance problems," Montreal Lab Report 111-17, 1945. (31) Archer, V. E.; Magnuson, H. J.; Holaday, D. A. et al. J. Occup. Med. 1962, 4, 55-60. (32) Archer, V. E.; Wagoner, J. K.; Lundin, F. E. J. Occup. Med. 1973,15, 204-11. (33) Archer, V. E.; Gillam, J. D.; Wagoner, J. K. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1976, 271, 28093. (34) Gottlieb, L. S.; Husen, L. A. Chest 1982, 81, 449-52. (35) Waxweiler, R. J.; Roscoe, R. J.; Archer, V. E. et al. In "Radiation Hazards in Mining. Control, Measurement, and Medical As pects"; Gomez, M., Ed.; American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers Inc.: New York, N.Y., 1981; pp. 823-30. (36) Saccomanno, G.; Archer, V. E.; Saunders, R. P. S. et al. Health Phys. 1964, 10, 1195-1201. (37) Archer, V. E.; Saccomanno, G.; Jones, J. H. Cancer 1974, 34, 2056-60. (38) Saccomanno, G.; Archer, V. E.; Auerbach, O. et al. In "Radiation Hazards in Mining. Control, Measurement, and Medical As pects"; Gomez, M., Ed.; American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers Inc.: New York, N.Y., 1981; pp. 675-79. (39) Saccomanno, G. In "Health Implications of New Energy Technologies"; Rom, W. N.; Archer, V. E., Eds.; Ann Arbor Science Publishers Inc.: Ann Arbor, Mich., 1980; pp. 29-36. (40) Prorok, P. C ; Mason, T. J.; Saccomanno, G. et al. In "Radiation Hazards in Mining. Control, Measurement, and Medical As pects"; Gomez, M., Ed.; American Institute

of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers Inc.: New York, N.Y. 1981; pp. 957-61. (41) Harward, E. D. "Environmental exposure from nuclear facilities"; Symposium on En ergy and Human Health; "Human Costs of Electric Power Generation," EPA 600/980-030, Washington, D.C., 1980, pp. 38298. (42) Archer, V. E.; Wagoner, J. K.; Lundin, F. E. J. Occup. Med. 1973,15, 11-14. (43) Franz, L. W. In "Health Implications of New Energy Technologies"; Rom, W. N.; Archer, V. E., Eds.; Ann Arbor Science Publishers Inc.: Ann Arbor, Mich., 1980; pp. 89-98. (44) Minogue, R. B.; Eiss, A. L. "Occupational health experience in nuclear power"; Sym posium on Energy and Human Health; "Human Costs of Electric Power Genera tion," EPA 600/9-80-030, Washington, D.C., 1980; pp. 400-423. (45) United Nations. "Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation," United Nations Scien tific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation 1977 Report to the General As sembly, 32nd Session; Vienna, 1977. (46) "BEIR Report III: The Effects on Popu lations of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation"; National Academy Press: Washington, D.C., 1980. (47) Radford, E. P. In "Health Implications of New Energy Technologies"; Rom, W. N.; Archer, V. E„ Eds.; Ann Arbor Science Publishers Inc.: Ann Arbor, Mich., 1980; pp: 67-78. (48) Land, C. E. Science 1980, 209, 1197. (49) Wrenn, M. E. In "Quantitative Risk in Standards Setting"; 16th Annual Meeting of NCRP, April 2-3, 1980; NCRP: Washing ton, D.C.; pp. 179-192. (50) Mancuso, T. F.; Stewart, Α.; Kncale, G. Health Phys. 1977, 33, 369-85. (51) Lyon, J. L.; Klauber, M. R.; Gardner, J. W. et al. TV. Engl. J. Med. 1979, 300, 397-402. (52) Kneale, G. W. ; Mancuso, T. F.; Stewart, A. M. Br. J. Ind. Med. 1981, 38, 156-66. (53) Gilbert, E. S.; Marks, S. Radiât. Res. 1979, 79, 122. (54) World Health Organization, Regional Office for Europe. "Health Implications of Nuclear Power Production. Report on a Working Group"; Brussels, Dec. 1-5, 1975; Copenhagen, 1978. (55) Norman, C. Science 1982, 215, 376-79. (56) Rockette, H. "Mortality among coal miners covered by the UMWA Health and Retirement Funds," DHEW (NIOSH) Publ. No. 77-155, March 1977. (57) Morgan, W. K. C ; Lapp, N. C. Am. Rev. Respir. Dis. 1976, 113, 531-59. (58) Higgins, I. T. T.; Oh, M. S.; Whittaker, D. E. "Chronic respiratory disease in coal miners," DHHS (NIOSH) Publ. No. 81-109, 1981. (59) Collis, E. L.; Gilchrist, J. C. J. Ind. Hyg. 1928,10, 101-110. (60) Gaensler, Ε. Α.; Cadigan, J. B.; Sasahara, A. A. et al. Am. J. Med. 1966, 41, 864-82. (61) Kleinerman, J.; Green, F. H. Y.; Harley, R. et al. Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med. 1979,103, 375-429. (62) Green, F. H. Y.; Laqueur, W. A. Pathol. Annu. 1980,2,333-410. (63) Morgan, W. K. C ; Handclsman, L.; Kibelstis, J. et al. Arch. Environ. Health 1974, 28, 182-89. (64) Shennan, D. H.; Washington, J. S.; Thomas, D. J. et al. Br. J. Ind. Med. 1981,38, 321-26. (65) Hurley, J. F.; Copland, L.; Dodgson, J. et al. "Simple pneumoconiosis and exposure to respirable dust. Relationships from twentyfive years' research of ten British coal min ers," Report No. TM/79/13, Institute of Occupational Medicine, Roxburgh Place, Edinburgh, EH8 9SU, U.K. (66) Wagner, J. C; Wusteman, F. S.; Edwards, J. H. et al. Thorax 1975, 30, 382-88. Environ. Sci. Technol., Vol. 17, No. 3, 1983

143A

A STANDARD REFERENCE IN THE FIELD OF ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY. . . FUNDAMENTAL

REVIEWS

Chances are you've heard a lot about this special volume. And it's no wonder! For here, in some 400 pages, are authoritative, up-to-date surveys of the most recent literature, with the outstanding work cited and digested. Below are just a few of the areas covered in the 1982 Fundamental Reviews issue: • Analytical electrochemistry • Chromatography: gas, paper, thin-layer, liquid • Chemometrics • Kinetics • Surface analysis • Spectrometry: NMR, ESR, atomic, emission, IR, mass, X-ray • Nucleonics • Microscopy • Titrations It's a portable library! And an enormous time-saver for any professional. Use the coupon below to order your copy today. Distribution Center American Chemical Society 1155 Sixteenth Street. N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 Yes! Send me Fundamental Reviews. I enclose $6 for each copy ordered. Na:i.6 Afi ~.:ç*< .

_ _

Cty S-iiH

144A

.

7.|


(67) Caplan, A. Thorax 1953, 8, 29-35. (68) Lippmann, M.; Eckert, H. L.; Hahon, N. et al. Ann. Intern. Med. 1973, 79, 807-11. (69) Bridbord, K.; Costello, J.; Gamble, J. et al. Environ. Health Perspect. 1919, 33, 285302. (70) Merchant, J. A. In "Environmental and Occupational Medicine"; Rom, W. N., Ed.; Little, Brown and Company: Boston, Mass., 1983; pp. 183-96. (71) Kibelstis, J. Α.; Morgan, E. J.; Reger, R. et al. Am. Rev. Respir. Dis. 1973, 108, 886-93. (72) Bennett, J. G.; Dick, J. Α.; Kaplan, Y. S. et al. Br. J. Ind. Med. 1979, 36, 206-210. (73) Walton, W. H.; Dodgson, J.; Hadden, G. G. et al. In "Inhaled Particles IV, Part 2"; Walton, W. H., Ed.; Pergamon Press: Oxford, U.K., pp. 669-90. (74) Christian, R. T.; Nelson, J. B.; Cody, T. E. et al. Environ. Res. 1979, 20, 358-65. (75) Morgan, W. K. C. Br. J. Ind. Med. 1978, 35,285-91. (76) Rom, W. N.; Kanner, R. E.; Renzetti, A. D. et al. Am. Rev. Respir. Dis. 1981,123, 1,12-11. {11) Lyons, J. P.; Ryder, R. C ; Seal, R. M. E. et al. Bull. Eur. Physiopathol. Respir. 1981, 17, 75-85. (78) Fairman, R. P.; O'Brien, R.; Sweeker, S. et al. Arch. Environ. Health 1977, 32, 211-215. (79) Bauer, Μ. Α.; Banks, D. E.; Castellan, R. M. et al. "Silicosis in surface coal mine drillers"; Presented to International Confer ence on Occupational Lung Disease, Chicago, 111., March 24-27, 1982. (80) Rom, W. N. "Occupational health aspects of fossil-fuel electric power plants"; Sympo sium on Energy and Human Health; "Human Costs of Electric Power Generation," EPA 600/9-80-030, Washington, D.C, 1980; pp. 231-56. (81) Hirsch, Α.; Di Menza, L.; Carre, A. et al. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1979, 330, 137-46. (82) Melcher, J. Environment 1978, 20, 1217. (83) Altshuller, A. P.; Johnson, W. B.; Nader, J. S. et al. Environ. Health Perspect. 1980, 36, 155-79. (84) Glass, N. R. Environ. Health Perspect. 1979, 33, 249-72. (85) McBride, J. P.; Moore, R. E.; Witherspoon, J. P. et al. Science 1978, 202, 104550. (86) Van Hook, R. I. Environ. Health Perspect. 1979, 33, 227-47. (87) Young, R. J.; McKay, W. J.; Evans, J. M. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 1978, 39, 985-97. (88) Maugh, T. H. Science 1977, 198, 1132-34. (89) Ableson, P. H. Science 1982, 215, 351. (90) Ross, D. M. "Tomorrow's energy, today's concerns—synthetic fuels"; Presented to 40th ΑΜΑ Congress on Occupational Health, Salt Lake City, Utah, September 1980. (91) Perera, F. Environ. Health Perspect. 1981, 42, 163-85. (92) Bridbord, K.; French, J. G. In "Carcino gens, Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons"; Jones, D. W.; Freudenthal, R. I., Eds.; Raven Press: New York, N.Y., 1978; Vol. 3, pp. 451-63. (93) Berwald, Y.; Sachs, L. J. Nat. Cancer Inst. 1965,35,641-61. (94) Timourian, H.; Felton, J. S.; Stuermer, D. H. et al. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health 1982,9, 975-94. (95) Zedeck, M. S. J. Environ. Pathol. Toxicol. 1980, 3, 537-67. (96) Kipling, M. D.; Waldron, H. A. Prev. Med. 1976, 5, 262-78. (97) Bingham, E.; Trosset, R. P.; Warshansky, D. J. Environ. Pathol. Toxicol. 1980, 3, 483-563. (98) Sexton, R. J. Arch. Environ Health. 1960, / , 181-86. (99) Palmer, A. J. Occup. Med. 1979, 21, 41-44.

(100) Futrell, J. H. In "Health Implications of New Energy Technologies"; Rom, W. N.; Archer, V. E., Eds.; Ann Arbor Science Publishers Inc.: Ann Arbor, Mich., 1980; pp. 427-43. (101) Cawein, D. L. In "Health Effects of Oil Shale Development"; Griest, W. H.; Guerin, M. R.; Coffin, D. L., Eds.; Ann Arbor Science Publishers Inc.: Ann Arbor, Mich., 1980; pp. 15-25. (102) Garcia, L. L.; Schulte, H. F.; Ettinger, H. J. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 1981, 42, 796-804. (103) Office of Technology Assessment. "An Assessment of Oil Shale Technologies," Publ. No. 80-600101, Washington, D.C, 1980; pp. 3-47. (104) Rom, W. N.; Lee, J. S.; Craft, B. Am. J. Ind. Med. 1981, 2, 247-60. (105) Bell, J. Edin. Med. J. 1876, 22, 35. (106) Scott, A. Br. Med. J. 1922, 2, 11081109. (107) Leitch, A. Br. Med. J. 1922, 2, 11041106. (108) Berenblum, I.; Schoental, R. Br. J. Exp. Pathol. 1944, 25, 95-96. (109) Seaton, Α.; Lamb, D.; Brown, W. R. et al. Thorax 1981, 36, 412-18. (110) Bogovskiy, P. Α.; Vinkmann, F. Environ. Health. Perspect. 1979,30, 165-69. (111) Bogovskiy, P. Α.; Mirme, H. I. Environ. Health Perspect. 1979, 30, 177-78. (112) Rom, W. N. In "Environmental and Occupational Medicine"; Rom, W. N., Ed.; Little, Brown and Company: Boston, Mass., 1983; pp. 535-40. (113) Hogstedt, C ; Andersson, K.; Frenning, B. et al. Scand. J. Work Environ. Health 1982, 8, 72-78. (114) Kawai, M.; Amamoto, H.; Harada, K. Arch. Environ. Health 1967,14, 859-64. (115) Doll, R.; Vessey, M. P.; Beasley, R. W. R. et al. Br. J. Ind. Med. 1972, 29, 394-406. (116) Lloyd, J. W. 7. Occup. Med. 1971, 13, 53-68. (117) Redmond, C. K.; Strobino, B. R.; Cypess, R. H. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1976, 271, 102-115. (118) Rowland, J.; Shubik, P.; Wallcave, L. et al. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 1980, 55, 522-34. (119) Hueper, W. C. Arch. Ind. Hyg. Occup. Med. 1953, 8, 307. (120) Maugh, T. Science 1978,199, 756-60. (121) Bunger, J. W. "Characterization of a Utah tar sand bitumen"; "Advances in Chemistry Series No. 151"; American Chemical Society: Washington, D.C, 1976; pp. 121-36. (122) Environmental Protection Agency. "Production and Processing of U.S. Tar Sands; An Environmental Assessment," EPA-600/7-76-035, 1976. (123) Anspaugh, L. R.; Hahn, J. L. In "Health Implications of New Energy Technologies"; Rom, W. N.; Archer, V. E., Eds.; Ann Arbor Science Publishers Inc.: Ann Arbor, Mich., 1980; pp. 565-80. ( 124) Fraas, A. P. In "Energy and the Envi ronment Cost-Benefit Analysis"; Karam, R. Α.; Morgan, Κ. Z., Eds.; Pergamon Press: New York, N.Y., 1976; pp. 39-58. (125) Boehm, R. In "Health Implications of New Energy Technologies"; Rom, W. N.; Archer, V. E., Eds.; Ann Arbor Science Publishers Inc.: Ann Arbor, Mich. 1980; pp. 587-92. (126) Hammond, A. L.; Metz, W. D. Science 1978,207,36-39. (127) Herendeen, R. Α.; Kary, T.; Ribitzer, J. Science 1979,205,451-54. (128) Boeniger, M.; Briggs, T. In "Health Implications of New Energy Technologies"; Rom, W. N.; Archer, V. E., Eds.; Ann Arbor Science Publishers Inc.: Ann Arbor, Mich., 1980; pp. 593-606. (129) Perez-Albuerne, Ε. Α.; Tyan, Y. S. Science 1980, 208, 902-907.

Energy alternatives: What are their possible health ... - ACS Publications

Recommend Documents