4.7 Article

Temporal variability of tungsten and cobalt in Fallon, Nevada

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVES
卷 115, 期 5, 页码 715-719

出版社

US DEPT HEALTH HUMAN SCIENCES PUBLIC HEALTH SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1289/ehp.9451

关键词

childhood leukemia; cobalt; dendrochemistry; Fallon; Nevada; tungsten

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Since 1997, Fallon, Nevada, has experienced a duster of childhood leukemia that has been declared '' one of the most unique clusters of childhood cancer ever reported.'' Multiple environmental studies have shown airborne tungsten and cobalt to be elevated within Fallon, but the question remains: Have these metals changed through time in correspondence with the onset of the leukemia cluster? METHODS: We used dendrochemistry, the study of element concentrations through time in tree rings, in Fallon to assess temporal variability of airborne tungsten and cobalt since the late 1980s. The techniques used in Fallon were also tested in a different town (Sweet Home, OR) that has airborne tungsten from a known source. RESULTS: The Sweet Home test case confirms the accuracy of dendrochemistry for showing temporal variability of environmental tungsten. Given that dendrochemistry works for tungsten, tree-ring chemistry shows that tungsten increased in Fallon relative to nearby comparison towns beginning by the mid-1990s, slightly before the onset of the cluster, and cobalt has been high throughout the last similar to 15 years. Other metals do not show trends through time in Fallon. DISCUSSION: Results in Fallon suggest a temporal correspondence between the onset of excessive childhood leukemia and elevated levels of tungsten and cobalt. Although environmental data alone cannot directly link childhood leukemia with exposure to metals, research by others has shown that combined exposure to tungsten and cobalt can be carcinogenic to humans. CONCLUSION: Continued biomedical research is warranted to directly test for linkage between childhood leukemia and tungsten and cobalt.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据