Breaking News
News & Analysis

Report finds no increased cancer risk at Greenock fab

Follow-on research
8/24/2010 01:03 PM EDT
5 comments
NO RATINGS
< Previous Page 2 / 2
More Related Links
View Comments: Newest First | Oldest First | Threaded View
Analog_Layout
User Rank
Author
re: Report finds no increased cancer risk at Greenock fab
Analog_Layout   9/1/2011 12:33:43 AM
NO RATINGS
Funny how the HSE found more cases of cancer than expected, but concluded there was no link to the work place...I must have missed something. I worked in the fabs in the past and we definitely had a number of people below 40 years of age contract and in some cases, die of cancer. I somehow fail to see the disassociation of the fab work environment and the high number of cancers in young people that work there. If you are not aware, many of the chemicals used in Semiconductor manufacturing are carcinogenic and/or toxic. There is a lot of safety equipment and monitoring, but I'm convinced from my experience that folks are still exposed to those chemicals in small amounts. The Semiconductor Industry Association was supposed to to a study on this, but I don't know that they ever did. I can almost guarantee that anecdotal evidence from former fab workers would indicate higher that expected cancer rates.

KB3001
User Rank
Author
re: Report finds no increased cancer risk at Greenock fab
KB3001   8/25/2010 9:15:51 PM
NO RATINGS
Yes, people working in the same place are also more likely to share a similar lifestyle. A new wider study which should not get too fixated on the workplace needs to be conducted.

_hm
User Rank
Author
re: Report finds no increased cancer risk at Greenock fab
_hm   8/25/2010 5:06:16 AM
NO RATINGS
I do feel sympathetic with the people suffering cancer from some potential cause at work. However, if I have to choose profession to work, there is always some risk involved that affects my long term health in many different aspects. Is not this risk of getting cancer or other similar deadly disease relative? When they publish some likely correlation like this, should they put some relative index of misery as compare to other risk encountered by other professionals? Take for various examples like healthcare – pathology, nursing, RF design/test - high power amplifier, military work or working in many other industrial environments like mines and other. How significant is this findings as compare to misery faced by many other professional in their daily duty? Should we take this as integral part of modern technology and society?

Sheetal.Pandey
User Rank
Author
re: Report finds no increased cancer risk at Greenock fab
Sheetal.Pandey   8/25/2010 2:33:49 AM
NO RATINGS
This is strange, according to this report many different kinds of cancers occur due to working in that facility. Can that really happen? I think more investigation need to be done to support this.

Luis Sanchez
User Rank
Author
re: Report finds no increased cancer risk at Greenock fab
Luis Sanchez   8/24/2010 8:45:04 PM
NO RATINGS
The studies should be considered concluded. The root cause can be anywhere, not only in the nature of the work they do in the factory but perhaps there is a relation with some other common thing among them, like the water they drink or where do they live. I do hope the source is soon identified for the health of others.

Most Recent Comments
michigan0
 
SteveHarris0
 
realjjj
 
SteveHarris0
 
SteveHarris0
 
VicVat
 
Les_Slater
 
SSDWEM
 
witeken
Most Recent Messages
9/25/2016
4:48:30 PM
michigan0 Sang Kim First, 28nm bulk is in volume manufacturing for several years by the major semiconductor companies but not 28nm FDSOI today yet. Why not? Simply because unlike 28nm bulk the LDD(Lightly Doped Drain) to minimize hot carrier generation can't be implemented in 28nm FDSOI. Furthermore, hot carrier reliability becomes worse with scaling, That is the major reason why 28nm FDSOI is not manufacturable today and will not be. Second, how can you suppress the leakage currents from such ultra short 7nm due to the short channel effects? How thin SOI thickness is required to prevent punch-through of un-dopped 7nm FDSOI? Possibly less than 4nm. Depositing such an ultra thin film less then 4nm filum uniformly and reliably over 12" wafers at the manufacturing line is extremely difficult or not even manufacturable. If not manufacturable, the 7nm FDSOI debate is over!Third, what happens when hot carriers are generated near the drain at normal operation of 7nm FDSOI? Electrons go to the positively biased drain with no harm but where the holes to go? The holes can't go to the substrate because of the thin BOX layer. Some holes may become trapped at the BOX layer causing Vt shift. However, the vast majority of holes drift through the the un-dopped SOI channel toward the N+Source,...
Navigate to Related Links

Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)
Like Us on Facebook
EE Times on Twitter
EE Times Twitter Feed