Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Table of Contents
Extent of Cancer ......................................................................................................................... 3
How much cancer is in the community? .................................................................................. 3
What about other kinds of cancers in the area? ....................................................................... 3
Problend ..................................................................................................................................... 4
How long was the Problend Rubber facility in operation and what was it doing during that
time? ....................................................................................................................................... 4
What chemicals were used at the Problend facility? ................................................................ 4
Did the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) regulate Problend? ..... 5
How much contaminated water was feasibly discharged from the ProBlend facility? ............... 8
Could contaminated water from Problend have feasibly traveled to wells miles away?............ 8
Water and Soil Test Results........................................................................................................ 9
What contaminants were tested for in water? .......................................................................... 9
What contaminants were tested for in soil? ........................................................................... 10
How do I make sense of the health impacts of these contaminants? ..................................... 10
Arsenic...................................................................................................................................... 13
How does arsenic impact health? .......................................................................................... 13
Bis(2-ethylhexylphthlate)........................................................................................................... 15
How does bis(2-ethylhexylphthlate) impact health? ............................................................... 15
Caprolactam ............................................................................................................................. 17
Barium ...................................................................................................................................... 18
How does barium impact health? .......................................................................................... 18
Cadmium .................................................................................................................................. 20
How does cadmium impact health? ....................................................................................... 20
1
Chloroform ................................................................................................................................ 21
Chlorodibromomethane ............................................................................................................ 22
Chromium ................................................................................................................................. 23
How does chromium impact health? ...................................................................................... 23
Dichlorobromomethane ............................................................................................................. 25
Lead ......................................................................................................................................... 26
How does lead impact health?............................................................................................... 26
Naphthalene ............................................................................................................................. 28
How does naphthalene impact health? .................................................................................. 28
Nickel ........................................................................................................................................ 29
How does nickel impact health? ............................................................................................ 29
Selenium................................................................................................................................... 31
How does selenium impact health? ....................................................................................... 31
Silver ........................................................................................................................................ 32
Zinc........................................................................................................................................... 33
How does zinc impact health? ............................................................................................... 33
Radium ..................................................................................................................................... 35
Radon ....................................................................................................................................... 36
How does radon impact health? ............................................................................................ 36
Mercury..................................................................................................................................... 38
References ............................................................................................................................... 39
2
Extent of Cancer
Initially, Cleburne Cancer Concerns worked with Auburn University rural sociologist Dr.
Ashwood to identify patients with only
leukemia and lymphoma, which are closely
related cancers. Interviews revealed that Census Block Map CLL
! Haralson County
between 2013 and 2017, three children and one CLL &AML
"
adolescent were diagnosed with leukemia,
about 39 times the prevalence expected in the Non-Hodgkin LympohmaALL
!!
census block where they reside, compared to Leukcoytosis & Hyperlipidemia
county-wide averages over a five year period.1 ! Lymphoma
!
Cleburne County, which houses Fruithurst and
Muscadine, typically averages only about one APL !
APL
AL/GA
Cleburne County Osteosarcoma
lymphoma. !
Stateli
Fruithurst Elementary School
"
ne
"
Interviews revealed occupational exposure to ALL
Problend Rubber Facility
Cleburne Cancer Concerns would like the next step to include a survey of all residents who live
in the above census block to understand what other kinds of cancers may be related to
environmental, occupation, or household exposures. Initial accounts suggest a potential
prevalence of breast, colon, prostate, stomach, and other cancers.
3
Problend
How long was the Problend Rubber facility in operation and what was it doing during that
time?
The Problend location in Fruithurst Alabama opened in 1987 and in 2006 was taken over by
Preferred Compounding. This acquisition included the Associated Rubber Company locations in
Fruithurst and Tallapoosa, GA. Problend’s purpose was to, “supply proprietary and custom
mixed rubber compounds, chemical blends and calendered sheet to molders, extruders, mixers
and others in the non-tire rubber goods market. Primary industries served include automotive,
construction, power generation and roll goods.”2 Because Problend was a sister company with
Associated Rubber in Tallapoosa, an interviewee stated that all waste and chemical cleanups
materials from the Fruithurst location were picked up and handled by Associated Rubber.
o N-Cyclohexy(thio)phthalmide or PVI. 4
§ Used to protect the rubber material from scorching during processing,
especially during high temperature and high speed processes
§ Also used for better storage capacities
4
o Sodium Hydroxide (ADEM Permit 1994)6
§ Used to neutralize acids and make salts
§ Known to be highly caustic
§ Corrosive to metals and tissues
§ Used to manufacture petroleum products
Problend was required to submit twice yearly stormwater reports to ADEM. That means that
ADEM permitted the facility, and required water reports, but had no enforceable standard. In the
event Problend discharged too much of something into the environment, ADEM had no
regulatory authority to act.
They did, though, have authority to act if Problend did not submit water reports. For the first
seven years of Problend’s operation, they did not submit any reports, as ADEM did not require
it. From the time of which they were required to submit reports, they failed to report water
quality data eighteen times bi-annually. In other words, nine years of water quality reports are
missing as required by law, according to what ADEM has available.
From the 24 water reports we have access to, we know that Problend was outside of acceptable
EPA benchmarks for stormwater monitoring for the following measurements: Biochemical
Oxygen demand (twice); pH, which measures acidity or alkalinity of water (12 times); total
suspended solids (4); zinc (22 times); lead (3 times); chromium (9 times); oil/grease (twice). In
total, Problend’s stormwater runoff was over EPA benchmarks for water quality 54 times for 7
different criteria. Please not that these criteria encompass only regulatory ones, and do not
include other chemicals that could have been used in production, and ones that we tested for.
In 2012, ADEM implemented a new permitting standard for rubber and plastics facilities. That
included monitoring for benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, xylene, napthalene, and Methyl Tertiary
Butyl Ether. From 2012 until Problend’s closing in 2015, it submitted no water quality reports to
ADEM, as the law requires.
Please see the next page for a comprehensive table that summarizes of all of the ADEM
stormwater discharge reports relating to ProBlend. Note the “times above EPA Benchmark”
columns: standout numbers include zinc levels in 2008, which were 42,222 times the benchmark,
and lead levels in 2008, which were 804 times above the benchmark.
5
Problend Stormwater Discharge (runoff) Water Quality Reports (ADEM Reports)
Highlighted numbers are above the EPA threshold; Abbreviations: ND = no discharge occurred during the monitoring period; 6
NR = not required; BRL = below reporting limit; BDL = below detection limit; NODI=B or NODI-B = no discharge/no data indicator
7
How much contaminated water was feasibly discharged from the ProBlend facility?
Could contaminated water from Problend have feasibly traveled to wells miles away?
Auburn University Geoscientist Dr. Lee and his team calculated that the artesian well located
250 feet from Problend is at a higher elevation than wells where some cancer patients once drank
from. The artesian well likely is a groundwater recharging site for the area. This is especially
possible in the event that fractures exists, and there are hydrologically connected aquifer
bedrocks between Problend and wells that patients drank from.
8
Water and Soil Test Results
Co
the locations of Co
Rd
R
Well Water d 40
Co Rd 91
Pilgrims R
247
wells, one stream
Point 3
Test Results
31
(Point 11), and one
Co Rd
Point 7
est Rd
municipal
Co Rd 80
household water
6
Co Rd 24
sample (Point 2) Point 5
Co Rd 296
that were tested for
7
d 21
heavy metals,
Co R
volatile organic
compounds, semi- 4
Co Rd 255
R d1
volatile organic Co Point 2
compounds, and/or
9
radon.
22
Co Rd 232
Rd
Co
949
Co Rd
Co Rd 250
What Point 4
262
d 4
oR
contaminants C
Rd
Point 9
Co
were tested for in Co R
d 20
Co Rd 50
y Rd Co
Rd
5 C offe 49
water? Point 8 Co Rd 7
6
Co
Co
Rd
24
Auburn University,
Rd
3
Co
435
7
Co Rd 65
University of
Rd
Co Rd 5
26
4
Rte
metals, volatile d State
Rd
R
ia
r g Co Rd 449
organic
23
eo Point 10 y 78
dG Hw
3
Ol US
compounds, and
4t
Co
Co
Co Rd
h
semi-volatile Rd 228
St
Rd
46 0
Point 6 29
W
4th St
6
46
Rd
organic
7
Co
Point 11Point 1
compounds. The
E
only chemicals Co R
14 d 22
listed are those Co Rd 2 8
d 72
.
2 9 5 Co R
33
which showed up o R d
Rd
C
in levels at or tested well 0 0.5 1 2 Miles
Co
9
the laboratory equipment finds there is something in the water. Detecting something does not
mean there is too much according to federal or international standards, but it does mean there is
something in your well that could potentially cause health problems.
Co Rd 91
Rd
40
We examined the same Soil Sample
31
contaminants in soil as
Test Results
Co Rd
we did water,
0
Co Rd 8
excluding radon and
6
Co Rd 24
Point 1 Co Rd 266
radium, which were 7
Co Rd 296 !
only tested for in water.
d 21
65
Co R
Rd
Co
How do I make sense
4
Co Rd 255
of the health impacts R d1 Co Rd 1 8
0
Co
of these Co Rd 380
contaminants?
9
22
Co
Rd
Rd
22
Co
2
949
Co Rd
WATER:
d 232
The charts below list Co Rd 250
Point 2
262
d 4
every time a oR
Co R
C !
Rd
Co Rd 50 Co
Rd Rd
ffey Co
and contextualize its Co 49 Rd
76
level by using Co
57
Co
Rd
24
Rd
standards for water
Rd
3
Co
Co
435
Rd
established by the
Co Rd 65
26
Environmental 6
Co H
wy 6
9C
1 oR
Protection Agency Co Rd 426 d2 d6
C oR Co Rd 208 9
(EPA) or World Health
Co Rd 35
76
Organization (WHO). Co Rd 82 R
d
Co
o
C
The first organization is
Rd
Co Rd 449
23
Sta
second is international.
4t
Co
Co
h
The WHO Rd
Co Rd 267
St
Rd
46 Co Rd 2
W
4th St
6 90
46
School St
recommendations are
7
78 Point 4Point 5
guidelines for US Hwy
E
!!
! Points 3 & 6
chemicals that are of Co R
14 d 22
significance to human Co Rd 2 8
d 72
Co R
33
.
level over which
Co
Co
29
48
9
Co
encouraged. Co Rd 59
Map Made By:
Kenzley Defler
Auburn University
Undergraduate Student
10
In terms of the EPA, the chemical levels found in your water were compared to maximum
contaminant levels (MCL) and maximum contaminant level goals (MCLG). The first level,
MCL, reflects a negotiated level of pollution allowed based on discussion between researchers,
industry, and the EPA. This is the most pollution that can legally be in the water. MCLG,
conversely, is a level that the EPA sets to be reflective of health concerns. The MCLG for some
contaminants is often lower than the MCL.
Maximum contaminant levels are not always straightforward. Take radon, for example. The EPA
does not federally enforce safe levels of radon that can be found in drinking water. They do
propose communities to monitor and regulate radon levels at a state-level to provide water with
no more than 4,000 pCi/L. The radon test results shown below are from water samples.
Any row highlighted in red shows the chemical level in the water sample was higher than the
MCL level set by the EPA. Any row highlighted in yellow is above the MCLG set by the EPA.
Any row highlighted in green is above the WHO guideline.
SOIL: Unfortunately there is not one overarching soil contaminant standard accepted by all,
therefore, the sample results were compared to standards set by different organizations. The
California Human Health Screening Levels (CHHSLs) from the Office of Environmental Health
Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) are used as a guideline, but have no regulatory effect or authority
to require remediation for affected sites. Numbers are advisory and simply a reference for
citizens, government, and communities. For individual homes, the CHHLs residential scenario
standards were used.
For locations other than homes, for example the Problend test sites, the commercial industrial
scenario standards were used. OEHHA notes that the arsenic numbers are for contamination
from human activities only and natural arsenic concentrations may be above the screening value.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) also developed standards, called soil screening
levels (SSL), which are limits above which site-specific studies of risks are warranted. These
take into account data from the regulatory and human health benchmarks used for SSL
development, but again, have no regulatory power and are not enforced federally. While there
11
are many different categories of SSLs, the two used are the ingestion limits and the limits for one
dilution-attenuation factor (DAF). A category of 1 DAF refers to chemicals released into the
environment through groundwater pathways with one natural process present to reduce
contaminant concentrations. According to EPA, DAF is defined as the ratio of contaminant
concentration in soil leachate to the concentration in ground water at the receptor point. For
example, if the acceptable ground water concentration is 1 mg/L and the DAF is 10, the target
soil leachate concentration would be 10 mg/L.
Any row highlighted in red shows the soil sample level was above the CHHLs set limit. Any row
highlighted in yellow shows the sample was above the EPA SSL set limits for ingestion. Any
row highlighted in green shows the sample was above the EPA SSL set limits for 1 DAF.
12
Arsenic
Arsenic can be found in many sources in which people come in contact with everyday including
food, soil, and drinking water. In many studies, arsenic from drinking water was found to be a
leading cause of cancer risk9, most typically linked with cancer of the bladder, kidney, lung, and
liver10. In addition to cancer, arsenic has been reported to cause DNA disruptions including
strand breaks, synthesis inhibition, repair inhibition, and retardation of replication11. It also is
connected to chronic respiratory problems, circulatory disease, hypertension, diabetes,
myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular disease, reproductive issues, immune system effects,
endocrine effects, development issues, skin cancer, coronary heart disease, and neurological
impacts.12 Evidence suggests that high levels of arsenic exposure can cause leukemia,
particularly childhood leukemia.13
MCL MCLG
13
Soil Test Results: Arsenic
Ingestion 1 DAF
(mg/kg) (mg/kg)
14
Bis(2-ethylhexylphthlate)
MCL MCLG
15
Soil Test Results: Bis(2-ethylhexylphthalate)
Ingestion 1 DAF
(mg/kg) (mg/kg)
16
Caprolactam
MCL MCLG
17
Barium
MCL MCLG
Point 1: Fruithurst Well Barium 0.034 mg/L 2 mg/L 2 mg/L 0.7 mg/L
18
Soil Test Results: Barium
Chemical Amount CHHLs SSLs
Detected (mg/kg) mg/L
Ingestion 1 DAF
(mg/kg) (mg/kg
)
19
Cadmium
Ingestion 1 DAF
(mg/kg) (mg/k
g)
20
Chloroform
MCL MCLG
21
Chlorodibromomethane
MCL MCLG
22
Chromium
MCL MCLG
Ingestion 1 DAF
(mg/kg) (mg/kg)
23
Point 3: Dirt Chromiu 17 mg/Kg III: 100,000 Total: 390 b Total: 2 i
Pile m nc, max III: 78,000 b III: ---
IV: 37 ca IV: 390 b IV: 2 i
Point 4: North Chromiu 7.6 mg/Kg III: 100,000 Total: 390 b Total: 2 i
Side Railroad m nc, max III: 78,000 b III: ---
IV: 37 ca IV: 390 b IV: 2 i
24
Dichlorobromomethane
MCL MCLG
25
Lead
Children exposed to lead have cognitive impairment and behavioral problems. Health effects
later in life include ADHD, hypertension, renal effects, and reproductive problems. In pregnant
women, maternal exposure to lead reduces fetal growth and results in lower birth weight,
including decreased postnatal growth of head, height, and delayed puberty. Pregnant women can
also experience neurological symptoms similar to children. Childhood lead exposure can have
renal effects, cause anemia, and effect endocrine levels. Amongst all people, exposure can cause
cardiovascular effects, reproductive effects (like fertility), lower bone mineral density – which
slows childhood growth. Classified elemental lead and inorganic lead can be carcinogenic,26 and
is connected to pancreatic cancer,27 cancers of the stomach, lunch, kidney, brain, and meninges.28
MCL MCLG
26
Soil Test Results: Lead
Ingestion 1 DAF
(mg/kg) (mg/k
g)
Point 3: Dirt Pile Lead 20 mg/Kg Lead & lead 400 k None
compounds: 320 nc given
Lead acetate: 10 ca
Point 6: Dirt Pile Lead 19 mg/Kg Lead & lead 400 k None
compounds: 320 nc given
Lead acetate: 10 ca
27
Naphthalene
MCL MCLG
28
Nickel
MCL MCLG
29
Soil Test Results: Nickel
Ingestion 1 DAF
(mg/kg) (mg/kg)
30
Selenium
Ingestion 1 DAF
(mg/kg) (mg/kg
)
31
Silver
MCL MCLG
32
Zinc
MCL MCLG
33
Soil Test Results: Zinc
Ingestion 1 DAF
(mg/kg) (mg/k
g)
Point 3: Dirt Pile Zinc 3000 mg/Kg 23000 nc 23,000 b 620 b,i
Point 6: Dirt Pile Zinc 2600 mg/Kg 23000 nc 23,000 b 620 b,i
34
Radium
MCL MCLG
35
Radon
MCL MCL
G
Point 10: 844 County Radon 2165 pCi/L <4000 pCi/L 2702.7
Road 35 Fruithurst, AL 11/27/2017 pCi/L
36262
36
Point 4: 456 County Radon 3206.5 pCi/L <4000 pCi/L 2702.7
Road 80, Muscadine, AL 7/10/2017 pCi/L
36269
37
Mercury
Ingestion 1 DAF
(mg/kg) (mg/kg)
38
References
1
Alabama Department of Public Health. 2015. “Alabama Cancer Facts & Figures.” Accessed
November 13, 2017. http://www.alabamapublichealth.gov/ascr/assets/FactsFigures2015.pdf
2
Preferred Compounding. 2006. “Preferred Compounding Acquires Associated Rubber
Compounding.” Retrieved Jan 29, 2018 (http://preferredperforms.com/preferred-compounding-
acquires-associated-rubber-compounding/).
3
National Center for Biotechnology Information. “PubChem Compound Database- CID=8722.”
Retrieved Jan 19, 2018 (https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/ziram#section=Top); also
see, The University of California at Berkley Lab. 2007. “The Carcinogenic Potency Project: Zinc
Dimethyldithiocarbamate.” Retrived Jan 19, 2018
(https://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cpdb/chempages/ZINC%20DIMETHYLDITHIOCARBAMATE.htm
l).
4
Rongcheng Chemical General Factory Company. “Products: Agent CTP (PVI).” Retrieved Jan
19, 2018 (http://www.rchchem.com/pages/pvi.htm); R. E. Carroll Inc. Specialty Chemicals &
Petroleum Products. “Products: PVI PDR-D.” Retrieved Jan 19, 2018
(http://www.recarroll.com/product-details.cfm/ProdID/516/category/307).
5
Science Lab Chemicals and Laboratory Equipment. 2013. “Material Safety Data Sheet: N-
Cyclohexy(thio)phthalmide.” Retrieved Jan 19, 2018
(http://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9923812).
6
National Center for Biotechnology Information. “PubChem Compound Database-
CID=14798.” Retrieved Jan 19, 2018
(https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/sodium_hydroxide#section=Top).
7
Note, that zinc and lead level benchmarks are dependent upon the hardness of the water; which
we are uncertain of. This is a middle-line standard: see
https://www3.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/msgp2008_part8.pdf. For BOD, we drew from the summary
provided at https://www3.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/msgp2008_part8.pdf.
8
Aquino, Natalie B., Mary B. Sevigny, Jackielyn Sabangan, and Maggie C. Louie. 2012. “Role
of Cadmium and Nickel in Estrogen Receptor Signaling and Breast Cancer: Metalloestrogens or
Not?” Journal of Environmental Science and Health. Part C, Environmental Carcinogenesis &
Ecotoxicology Reviews 30(3): 189-224. Accessed January 28, 2018
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3476837/.
39
9
Smith, Allan H, Claudia Hopenhayn-Rich, Michael Bates, Helen M Goeden, Irva Hertz-
Picciotto, Heather M Duggan, Rose Wood, Michael J Kosnett, and Martyn T Smith. 1992.
“Cancer Risks from Arsenic in Drinking Water.” Environmental Health Perspectives 97: 259-
267.
10
Bates, Michael, Allan H Smith, and Claudia Hopenhayn-Rich. 1992. “Arsenic Ingestion and
Internal Cancers: A Review.” American Journal of Epidemiology 135(5): 462-475.
11
Basu, A, J Mahata, S Gupta, and AK Giri. 2001. “Genetic Toxicology of a Paradoxical Human
Carcinogen, Arsenic: A Review.” Mutation Research 488:171-194.
12
For more details about arsenic impacts, see these peer-reviewed articles:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3546776/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3781005/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4575137/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3621177/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4143819/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3621177/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4522704/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4314243/
13
Infate Rivard, C. Olson E., Jacques L., Ayotte P. 2001. “Drinking water contaminants and
childhood leukemia.” Epidemiology 12(1): 13-9. Accessed January 29, 2018
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11138808/.
14
For more details, see the following peer-reviewed articles:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4492068/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4702494/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3174260/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3521879/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3171169/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4565614/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3554682/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2527472/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4928498/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3678847/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5306137/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3554682/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4313599/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5129340/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4273518/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3443608/
40
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3348351/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4632802/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3443608/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3572204/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3554682/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4170195/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4962211/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3572204/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4286269/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5429819/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3003946/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3554682/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4702494/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5201388/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4801991/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4636966/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3554682/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3443608/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5384040/
15
Department of Health and Human Services. Agency for Toxic substances and Disease
Registry. 2007. “Public Health Statement Barium.” CAS#7440-39-3.
16
Celia Byrne, Shailaja D. Divekar, Geoffrey B. Storchan, Daniela A. Parodi, and Mary Beth
Martin. 2009. “Cadmium – a metallohormone?” Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 238(3):
266-271. Accessed January 29, 2018 from
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2709711/
17
Department of Health and Human Services. Agency for Toxic substances and Disease
Registry. “Case Studies in Environmental Medicine (CSEM) Cadmium Toxicity.” Accessed
January 29, 2018 from https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/csem/cadmium/docs/cadmium.pdf.
18
Aquino, Natalie B., Mary B. Sevigny, Jackielyn Sabangan, and Maggie C. Louie. 2012. “Role
of Cadmium and Nickel in Estrogen Receptor Signaling and Breast Cancer: Metalloestrogens or
Not?” Journal of Environmental Science and Health. Part C, Environmental Carcinogenesis &
Ecotoxicology Reviews 30(3): 189-224.
Natalie B. Aquino, Mary B. Sevigny, Jackielyn Sabangan, and Maggie C. Louie. “Role of
19
Cadmium and Nickel in Estrogen Receptor Signaling and Breast Cancer: Metalloestrogens or
Not?” Accessed January 29, 2018 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3476837/
41
B Julin, A Wolk, J-E Johansson, S-O Andersson, O Andrén, and A Åkesson. “Dietary
20
Cadmium exposure and prostate cancer incidence: a population-based prospective cohort study.”
Accessed January 29, 2018 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3425979/
21
Brian G. Luckett, L. Joseph Su, Jennifer C. Rood, and Elizabeth T. H. Fontham. “Cadmium
Exposure and Pancreatic Cancer in South Louisiana.”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3540786/
Natalie B. Aquino, Mary B. Sevigny, Jackielyn Sabangan, and Maggie C. Louie. “Role of
22
Cadmium and Nickel in Estrogen Receptor Signaling and Breast Cancer: Metalloestrogens or
Not?” Accessed January 29, 2018 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3476837/
23
Department of Health and Human Services. Agency for Toxic substances and Disease
Registry. 2012. “Public Health Statement Chromium.” CAS#7440-47-3. Accessed January 29,
2018 from https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/tp7-c1-b.pdf.
24
Athena Linos, Athanassios Petralias, Costas A Christophi, Eleni Christoforidou, Paraskevi
Kouroutou, Melina Stoltidis, Afroditi Veloudaki, Evangelia Tzala, Konstantinos C. Makris, and
Margaret R. Karagas. 2011. “Oral ingestion of hexavalent chromium through drinking water and
cancer mortality in an industrial area of Greece – An ecological study.” Environmental Health
10:50. Accessed January 29, 2018 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3123268/.
25
Zhitkovich, Anatoly. 2011. “Chromium in Drinking Water: Sources, Metabolism, and Cancer
Risks.” Chemical Research in Toxicology 24(10): 1617-1629; and Sun, Hong, Jason Brocato,
and Max Costa. 2015. “Oral Chromium Exposure and Toxicity.” Current Environmental Health
Reproduction 2(3): 295-303.
26
Department of Health and Human Services. Agency for Toxic substances and Disease
Registry. “Case Studies in Environmental Medicine (CSEM) Lead Toxicity.” Accessed January
29, 2018 https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/csem/lead/docs/CSEM-Lead_toxicity_508.pdf
27
André F. S. Amaral, Miquel Porta, Debra T. Silverman, Roger L. Milne, Manolis
Kogevinas, Nathaniel Rothman, Kenneth P. Cantor, Brian P. Jackson, José A. Pumarega,2 Tomàs
López, Alfredo Carrato, Luisa Guarner, Francisco X. Real, and Núria Malats. “Pancreatic cancer
risk and levels of trave elementas.” Accessed January 29, 2018.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3310963/
28
Linda M. Liao, Melissa C. Friesen, Yong-Bing Xiang, Hui Cai, Dong-Hee Koh, Bu-Tian
Ji, Gong Yang, Hong-Lan Li, Sarah J. Locke, Nathaniel Rothman, Wei Zheng, Yu-Tang
Gao, Xiao-Ou Shu, and Mark P. Purdue. “Occupational Lead Exposure and Associations with
Selected Cancer: The Shanghai Men’s and Women’s Health Study Cohorts.” Accessed January
29, 2018 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4710592/
42
29
Department of Health and Human Services. Agency for Toxic substances and Disease
Registry. 2005. “Public Health Statement Naphthalene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, and 2-Methyl-
naphthalene..” CAS# 91-20-3, 90-12-0, 91-57-6.
30
Department of Health and Human Services. Agency for Toxic substances and Disease
Registry. 2005. “Public Health Statement Nickel.” CAS#7440-02-0. Accessed January 29, 2018
from https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/tp15-c1-b.pdf.
Keyuna S. Cameron,1 Virginia Buchner,2 and Paul B. Tchounwou1,* “Exploring the Molecular
31
43