The Lord has told you what is good. He has told you what he wants from you: Do what is right to other people. Love being kind to others. And live humbly, trusting your God. - Micah 6:8 - The International Children's Bible
After years of pressure from the mother of a child diagnosed with leukemia, the Alabama Department of Public Health has initiated a "pilot investigation of Baldwin County cancer cases."
State epidemiologists are visiting families touched by cancer in Fairhope, Daphne and other Eastern Shore communities this week as they try to figure out whether an unusually high number of people in Baldwin County -- from infants to the elderly -- are suffering from several rare cancers and neurological diseases.
The state investigators are focusing on cancers of the blood, bones, nervous system and brain. They are also looking for neurological diseases such as muscular dystrophy and ALS, commonly known as Lou Gehrig's disease. More common illnesses, such as cancer of the breast, prostate, lung and skin, are not being considered in this investigation as there are common risk factors for them, including family history and exposure to sunlight or cigarettes.
After her 4-year-old daughter's diagnosis in 2004, Lesley Pacey, who lives in Point Clear, compiled a list of dozens of people that she knew of with leukemia, lymphoma, neuroblastoma, brain cancer, ALS and muscular dystrophy. Several of the children on the list were playmates of her daughter's.
She first asked state health officials for help in 2005, but said little happened at the time, although a town meeting was held. During that meeting, state toxicologist Neil Sass said he would conduct an investigation, including issuing questionnaires to the families involved. But Pacey and others at the 2005 meeting said there was no follow-up and no questionnaire.
"The state kind of dropped it after the meeting. They quit calling me back," Pacey said Wednesday.
Since then, Pacey, who serves as a Press-Register correspondent, has discovered several dozen additional cases of the various illnesses, including a large number affecting children from 18 months old to about 10. Pacey's list includes 47 people with rare cancers, and 40 people with ALS, all living between Satsuma and Weeks Bay.
The number of ALS cases in particular -- which appears to be much higher than would be expected given the number of people living in the area -- has attracted attention from research scientists in other states.
Several out-of-state universities have expressed interest in conducting health assessments along the Eastern Shore, citing apparently elevated incidences of multiple kinds of rare but deadly diseases and cancers.
About a month ago, during a conference call with Pacey and scientists from a university and several federal agencies, Sass said he would reopen his agency's investigation. The state effort began this week with two-hour interviews with about 10 of the families on Pacey's list. More interviews will follow in the next few weeks, according to state officials.
"Lesley has done a lot of leg work, and all of it has been high quality as far as I'm concerned," Sass said. "We're trying to look at people and their cancers and see if they have the same sources and types of exposure. The Centers for Disease Control says there is like an 85 percent failure rate in finding a link, but that doesn't mean it's not worth looking into."
Sass said his department wants to document anyone in the area with soft tissue cancers and rare neurological conditions, including people who may have died in the last few years.
"The more people we talk to, the better chance we have of finding out if there is any connection. If people know of cases that Lesley doesn't know of, or that we don't know of, get in touch with us. The broader the database, the easier it will be to find a link," Sass said.
Pacey said she was amazed at how quickly her daughter deteriorated in the weeks before she was diagnosed.
"She was pale and cried a lot for about two weeks, just real whiny," Pacey said. "But she was only 4. I didn't know what was going on. Then she started turning gray."
Pacey made a doctor's appointment for the next day. By the next morning, her daughter's eye had swollen shut, in response to some unknown infection. She was diagnosed with leukemia within 24 hours.
"It turns out she was really close to death. They said her organs would have started shutting down within 24 hours," Pacey said. "We wouldn't have had time to do chemo or anything. That was the amazing thing, she had only been sick for two weeks."
Pacey, whose daughter is now in remission, said her list began after news of her child's diagnosis spread through Fairhope.
"So many families called and said they had been through this. It just didn't seem right."
CONTACT INFORMATION
People with illnesses on the list can e-mail Lesley Pacey at baldwinclusters@..., or contact state health officer Neil Sass at 334-206-5973. Please provide a name, address, phone number, diagnosis and diagnosis date, if possible.%%ehead%% %%bodybegin%%
jill
MICAH's Mission Ministry to Improve Childhood & Adolescent Health P.O. Box 275 Winterville, GA 30683 706.742.7826 (phone) 706.543.1799 (fax) website: http://www.micahsmission.org/
The Lord has told you what is good. He has told you what he wants from you: Do what is right to other people. Love being kind to others. And live humbly, trusting your God. - Micah 6:8 - The International Children's Bible
A precedent-setting Alabama Supreme Court ruling will make it easier for people to seek compensation for medical problems caused by exposure to toxic chemicals at work, lawyers said Monday.
The court's 5-4 decision overturned a 29-year-old precedent known as the Garrett case, which said people have two years after their last exposure to a toxic chemical to seek money damages for resulting medical problems.
Now people will have two years to file suit after the medical problem becomes apparent, such as after a doctor's diagnosis, the court majority ruled in Griffin vs. Unocal.
The decision applies only to new cases and will not be applied retroactively, the court ruled.
"In some ways it is monumental; in some ways it is not enough," said Robert Palmer, lawyer for Brenda Griffin, whose lawsuit contends her husband David Griffin's exposure to benzene on the job led to his death of acute myelogenous leukemia a decade after he stopped working.
"Now it's justice for some," Palmer said. "Under Garrett, it was justice for none. I want to work until it is justice for everyone."
George Walker, a Mobile lawyer defending the companies Griffin sued, predicted the ruling would result in a flood of what he called bogus lawsuits from lawyers and workers seeking easy money.
"Some plaintiff lawyers will attempt to use this ruling to try to do with chemical exposure cases what they did in asbestos cases, and sue everybody they can seeking settlements," Walker said.
The state high court's ruling came a year after a court majority upheld the dismissal of a suit filed by Jack Cline over leukemia he developed after exposure to benzene at work in Bessemer.
Five justices voted to dismiss Cline's suit because he filed it six years after his final exposure but less than two years after he was diagnosed with cancer. He died nine days after the decision.
A change in the makeup of the Supreme Court after the 2006 elections led to the new rule announced Friday, lawyers said. Sue Bell Cobb beat Drayton Nabers Jr. in the chief justice race, becoming the court's lone Democrat.
In Friday's decision, Cobb joined three justices who had dissented in the Cline case, Champ Lyons Jr., Tom Woodall and Tom Parker. Rounding out the majority was Justice Glenn Murdock, a Republican elected in 2006 to fill the seat of retiring Justice Bernard Harwood.
A legal Catch-22:
The court in Friday's decision adopted the dissent Harwood wrote in the Cline ruling, which was announced a week before Cobb and Murdock took office.
"The two new justices turned the tide," Walker said.
Justices Harold See, Lyn Stuart, Mike Bolin and Patricia Smith voted to retain the old standard.
Harwood's dissent in the Cline case said the precedent the court had been using created a legal Catch-22.
Symptoms of health problems created by exposure to toxic chemicals often don't appear for years after the final exposure. People could not sue before the symptoms developed, but by the time the symptoms did develop, too much time had passed for a valid lawsuit.
David Griffin, for example, worked at the B.F. Goodrich tire plant from 1973 to 1993, when his lawyer contends he was exposed to benzene. But his cancer wasn't diagnosed until Sept. 9, 2003. His widow filed suit soon after he died in February 2004.
Cline was exposed to benzene during the 28 years he worked at Griffin Wheel Co. in Bessemer until he retired for health reasons. His cancer was diagnosed in 1999, six years after he stopped working. He sued less than two years after his diagnosis.
Palmer, who also helped represent Cline in his appeals, said Friday's ruling was vindication. He has championed attempts to change the strict limitations on lawsuits in the Legislature, and he has written several opinion pieces in state newspapers.
Palmer said he doesn't think Cline would be upset that he did not get the benefit of Friday's ruling. "He told me many times before he died that he wasn't in it for the money; he was in it to change the law," Palmer said.
Griffin's lawsuit now returns to Tuscaloosa County Circuit Court.
"We'll go back before Judge (John) England and conduct discovery and see if they can prove their case," said Walker, the defense lawyer fighting the suit. "My guess is they can't."
Probe: FEMA manipulated trailer formaldehyde research
By Eileen Sullivan Associated Press Published on: 01/29/08
Washington —- The Federal Emergency Management Agency manipulated scientific research to play down the danger posed by formaldehyde in trailers issued to hurricane victims, according to an investigation by congressional Democrats released Monday.
FEMA "ignored, hid and manipulated government research on the potential impact of long-term exposure" on Katrina and Rita victims now living in FEMA trailers, Democrats on a House Science and Technology subcommittee wrote in a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff.
In a separate letter, lawmakers said the federal health agency that provided guidance to FEMA was "complicit in giving FEMA precisely what they wanted."
Victims living in FEMA trailers have complained of health problems related to formaldehyde, but initial FEMA tests revealed the air quality in the trailers was safe if the trailers were properly ventilated. Formaldehyde, a common preservative found in building materials used in manufactured homes, has been classified as a carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer and as a probable carcinogen by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
FEMA said the health agency's Feb. 1, 2007, advice didn't address long-term health effects.
The lawmakers are questioning the integrity of research done by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, which they said ignored research from one of its own experts, Christopher De Rosa.
"Any level of exposure to formaldehyde may pose a cancer risk, regardless of duration," De Rosa wrote in a February 27, 2007, letter to a FEMA attorney. "Failure to communicate this issue is possibly misleading and a threat to public health."
In its initial round of testing, FEMA took samples from unoccupied trailers that had been aired out for days and compared them with federal standards for short-term exposure, according to the lawmakers. FEMA officials instructed scientists at the health agency to leave out details about long-term exposure, lawmakers said.
FEMA currently is testing 500 of the 40,000 trailers, but the lawmakers said they have no confidence in the new testing.
The Lord has told you what is good. He has told you what he wants from you: Do what is right to other people. Love being kind to others. And live humbly, trusting your God. - Micah 6:8 - The International Children's Bible
Double help. Twins Olivia (left) and Isabella helped scientists decipher how the leukemia Olivia suffers from started.
Credit: Courtesy of the Murphy family
Tracking Leukemia's Starting Point
By Jennifer Couzin ScienceNOW Daily News 17 January 2008
Like all cancers, childhood leukemia starts silently, and how it begins is a perennial puzzle. Some leukemias have been tied to cancer "stem cells" that may drive the early stages of illness and possibly induce relapses. Now researchers in the U.K., Italy, and Japan say they've discovered a stem cell for the most common form of childhood leukemia. Helping them were twin girls, one of whom has the disease and one of whom is healthy.
A barrage of mutations sets the stage for acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). In about a quarter of childhood ALL patients, the genetic alteration that puts cells on the road to cancer is the fusion of the genes TEL and AML1. Earlier studies of children with leukemia found that blood samples taken at birth had the fusion, suggesting that it occurs in utero. But the sequence of events leading to ALL, and whether "preleukemic" stem cells existed, wasn't known.
Tariq Enver, a stem cell biologist at the University of Oxford in the U.K., and his colleagues set out to find these stem cells. They injected different combinations of TEL-AML1-positive leukemia cells from ALL patients into immunodeficient mice. Cells that, when injected in relatively small numbers, could self-renew and establish leukemia in an animal--and do the same when transplanted from that animal into a second--would be considered cancer stem cells. After several tries, the researchers found a subset of cells that qualified.
Were these cells present before leukemia struck? To find out, the team turned to young identical twin girls, Olivia and Isabella Murphy. Olivia had ALL, but the team was most interested in Isabella, who wasn't sick. Because the twins had shared a placenta and a blood supply in utero, studying Isabella's blood could offer a snapshot of what Olivia's blood looked like before she got sick. In Isabella's blood, the researchers found a tiny number of preleukemic stem cells--about 0.002% of all cells drawn--and some of those had the TEL-AML1 gene fusion. These were the same type of cell that had established leukemia in the mice, although they lacked all the abnormal gene mutations of a true leukemic cell. Still, the cells in Isabella didn't show up in other healthy children, suggesting they might be a first step on the road to leukemia but needed additional genetic mutations before disease became inevitable. Over 18 months of observation of Isabella, this cell population didn't progress to leukemia. The scientists theorize that the preleukemic stem cells had passed from one girl to the other in utero. Olivia had then sustained additional genetic hits and developed ALL.
Finally, the researchers report in the 18 January issue of Science, they recreated Isabella's preleukemic stem cells by inserting a TEL-AML1 fusion gene into cord blood stem cells with the same surface markers as those that were seen in Isabella. When these cells were injected into mice, the animals developed a form of preleukemia but didn't progress to cancer. "What does it take to get that to turn into leukemia?" asks Enver. No one knows the answer.
A preleukemic stem cell "had never really been identified," says Carol Stocking, a cancer biologist at the Heinrich Pette Institute in Hamburg, Germany, who's now convinced that it has. Still, there remains much controversy about cancer stem cells generally, including how important they'll be for treatment, says Charles Mullighan, a leukemia researcher at St. Jude Children's Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee. But showing that this population of cells "persists over time [and is] not present in normal individuals ... is an important first step" in understanding how ALL starts, he says.
The Lord has told you what is good. He has told you what he wants from you: Do what is right to other people. Love being kind to others. And live humbly, trusting your God. - Micah 6:8 - The International Children's Bible
Are you still on this well water? Perhaps a scientist or mathematician on this list can respond to your conversion questions. I am concerned though even if the chemicals were found in low levels that the combination of them are more toxic than being found alone, especially benzene + radiation. This is called synergistics. The combination at low levels can be potentially harmful to the offspring of pregnant women so if you were expecting your daughter while being exposed to this H20, then that exposure could had set off a reaction which led to her AML. I believe this is somewhat what happened in my son's ALL case. He had chronic anemia for several months before he was diagnosed with a high SED rate.
Ethylene dibromide (EDB) was a lead scavenger and its presence could be an indicator of a leaking underground storage tank. EDB is being found all over the place and is a serious threat to groundwater and human health.
Here are the health effects of EDB from EPA website:
What are the Health Effects?
Short-term: EPA has found EDB to potentially cause the following health effects when people are exposed to it at levels above the MCL for relatively short periods of time: damage to the liver, stomach, and adrenal glands, along with significant reproductive system toxicity, particularly the testes.
Long-term: EDB has the potential to cause the following effects from a lifetime exposure at levels above the MCL: damage to the respiratory system, nervous system, liver, heart, and kidneys; cancer.
Hope this helps, and will be praying for your 3 1/2 year old daughter's recovery.
jill
In a message dated 12/15/2007 4:59:41 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, ChildhoodCancerTheCause@yahoogroups.com writes:
I wanted to ask a question... I was looking back through our well testing after 2 1.2 years since my daughter's sudden onset and passing of AML *5 days total symptoms, then diagnosis, then passing the next night with a 283000 wbc - she was 4 yrs old; I think I found something interesting, but not exactly sure...
I had already received confirmation 10 days after her death by a private lab I hired that there indeed was Tetrachlorethylene, Radiation and Benzene found in our well, but the county's labs never confirmed any number higher than the EPA norm, which by the way is based on a 35 year old healthy male. Regardless, the CDC told me that yes, while those contaminants were indeed found in our well and 2 of 3 were directly related and known to cause her type of Adult Form Leukemia, that they did not feel they were at a high enough level. The Tetrachloretyhelene had come from a spill a few years earlier which was only 2/3 of a mile away and had effected 90 private wells and was 60x greater than the safe drinking water level. Regardless, I was going through the labs from the county again and saw something strange.
They never gave me ranges for the tests. They simply said every thing had been tested at ug/l and against MDL standards.
The odd thing is that out of all of the volitile organic compouns on the test, 1/2 of them are scored at PPB - Parts per Billion. the other half at PPM - Parts per MIllion.
To convert ug/l to mg/l you would divide by 1000 and multiply for the opposite result.
Now, 1 mg/l = 1 ppm and 1 ug/l = 1 ppb
If that is the case, how can they properly give me data not converted to match the EPA's scale for each toxin. Instead they put a U or an E, pretty much saying it is there, but at a lower level or between the level.
When I pulled the data myself, those that scored for example, Ethylene Dibromide which scored a .25 ug/l. The EPA says anything over a .05 ppb is too high.
If 1 ug/l = 1 ppb, isn't that 5x the safe amount? or am I missing something. If it is, this is the same fuel based product associated with some cases in Fresno recently and knowing that Benzene can also be a fuel product, really does not surprise me. I am terribly concerned as my youngest child, now 3 1/2 was just found to have consistent chronic, non iron deficient anemia. She is actually having a Colonoscopy and an Endoscopy on the 26th, but frankly they have thrown about 7 possible things at me and she is having other symptoms now.
I wanted to ask a question... I was looking back through our well testing after 2 1.2 years since my daughter's sudden onset and passing of AML *5 days total symptoms, then diagnosis, then passing the next night with a 283000 wbc - she was 4 yrs old; I think I found something interesting, but not exactly sure...
I had already received confirmation 10 days after her death by a private lab I hired that there indeed was Tetrachlorethylene, Radiation and Benzene found in our well, but the county's labs never confirmed any number higher than the EPA norm, which by the way is based on a 35 year old healthy male. Regardless, the CDC told me that yes, while those contaminants were indeed found in our well and 2 of 3 were directly related and known to cause her type of Adult Form Leukemia, that they did not feel they were at a high enough level. The Tetrachloretyhelene had come from a spill a few years earlier which was only 2/3 of a mile away and had effected 90 private wells and was 60x greater than the safe drinking water level. Regardless, I was going through the labs from the county again and saw something strange.
They never gave me ranges for the tests. They simply said every thing had been tested at ug/l and against MDL standards.
The odd thing is that out of all of the volitile organic compouns on the test, 1/2 of them are scored at PPB - Parts per Billion. the other half at PPM - Parts per MIllion.
To convert ug/l to mg/l you would divide by 1000 and multiply for the opposite result.
Now, 1 mg/l = 1 ppm and 1 ug/l = 1 ppb
If that is the case, how can they properly give me data not converted to match the EPA's scale for each toxin. Instead they put a U or an E, pretty much saying it is there, but at a lower level or between the level.
When I pulled the data myself, those that scored for example, Ethylene Dibromide which scored a .25 ug/l. The EPA says anything over a .05 ppb is too high.
If 1 ug/l = 1 ppb, isn't that 5x the safe amount? or am I missing something. If it is, this is the same fuel based product associated with some cases in Fresno recently and knowing that Benzene can also be a fuel product, really does not surprise me. I am terribly concerned as my youngest child, now 3 1/2 was just found to have consistent chronic, non iron deficient anemia.
She is actually having a Colonoscopy and an Endoscopy on the 26th, but frankly they have thrown about 7 possible things at me and she is having other symptoms now.
I am in need of some definite help.
Thank you.
Dawn
> To: ChildhoodCancerTheCause@yahoogroups.com > From: hope4kids2usa@... > Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 18:39:23 +0000 > Subject: [ChildhoodCancerTheCause] Update on Mercer Rubber plant, Trenton Times > > http://www.nj.com/news/times/index.ssf?/base/news-2/1158898101284820.xml&coll=5Hopewell > told cleanup to start next year > Friday, September 22, 2006 > BY DARRYL R. ISHERWOOD > > HOPEWELL BOROUGH -- As state officials scramble to determine if > contamination from Hamilton's former Mercer Rubber plant caused cancer > in hundreds of residents, another case of contaminated groundwater has > quietly simmered in nearby Hopewell Borough. > > Residents of Somerset and La fayette streets in this placid borough > have been living with the knowledge that groundwater run ning under > their homes has been contaminated with Trichloroe thene (TCE) from the > former Rockwell Industries plant on Hamilton Avenue. > Advertisement > > > > > According to state Department of Environmental Protection officials, > TCE levels as high as 400,000 parts per billion were found in the > groundwater near the former plant. The state cleanup standard for TCE > in drinking water is 1 part per billion. > > To clean the water, beginning in 2007, consultants will pump millions > of gallons of groundwater from the underground aquifer and treat it in > a treatment plant before discharging it into a nearby stream. There is > no timetable for the completion of the cleanup, but an official form > the DEP said it will likely take years before the groundwater is clean. > > Rockwell, which was involved in various machining operation that > included manufacturing taxi me ters, operated in Hopewell form the > early 1900s until 1975, before vacat ing the Hamilton Avenue site. > Kooltronic Inc. purchased the site and operated it until 2001, when > Rockwell repurchased the factory to begin the cleanup. It has since > been turned into an office complex called Hopewell Center. > > As a result of the contamination, officials have also warned residents > that their homes may poten tially be contaminated by gas formed by the > TCE. > > Consultants for the former manufacturer have begun testing the homes > on the roads bordering the former plant, including Somerset, Lafayette > and Elm streets for the gas, which may have seeped into their homes > through a process known as vapor intrusion. > > As many as 18 homes have either been tested or will be tested, said > John Persico of Blasland Bouck and Lee, a private Cranbury > environmental consulting firm. So far, vapor removal systems have been > installed in three homes and the company has purchased two homes on > Somerset Street, rather than attempt to remediate them. Those lots, at > 19 and 21 Somerset St., will be the site of a filtration plant > designed to clean the groundwater. > > Levels of TCE in the vapor ranged from about 8 micrograms per cubic > meter to 50. The state standard for a safe amount of TCE in the air is > 3 micrograms per cubic meter. > > Last night, officials from the state Department of Environmental > Protection, state health department and Blasland held a pub lic > information session to inform residents of the cleanup of the area. > > CONTINUED 1 | 2 Next > Hopewell told cleanup to start next year > Page 2 of 2 > > State health officials assured residents that there is not a risk form > short-term exposure to TCE. Whether long-term risks exist, the > officials said, has yet to be determined. A study is under way, they > said. Officials did not give a timetable for the completion of the study. > > About 50 residents and borough officials attended the meeting and many > had questions about how the cleanup will affect their lives. The > meeting became heated as some residents expressed concern about > property values in the area and how the cleanup would affect home > sales. Many came to demand that Rockwell purchase all homes on the > block rather than take years to remediate the area. > Advertisement > > > > > "I put my house on the market in April and I had three buyers right > off the bat," said Brenda Goeke, a Somerset Street resident. "But once > they asked for my disclo sure, they didn't want it anymore. Are you > going to come to bat for me to help me sell my home? You're telling me > my property is all right, but it's not all right, it's going to take > 50 years to clean up." > > Harry Agin, who also lives on Somerset Street said he has TCE levels > of 73 parts per billion in a shallow well in his basement. > > "I have lived here for 21 years and I have been breathing this for 21 > years," he said. "Why would anyone want to buy my house? There is a > plan to get rid of the TCE down the street, there is a system to get > rid of the TCE in my basement and someone is going to want my house?" > > The problem came to light in the late 1990s. Soil contaminated with > TCE and other chemicals and metals was discovered and removed from the > factory site and a vacant lot across the street. According to Persico, > removing the soil eliminates the potential for future TCE > contamination once the groundwater cleanup is complete. > > The issue picked up steam in 2000 after residents on The Kings Path, > in nearby Hopewell Township discovered the water contamination. That > year the township connected the 14 homes on the road to the borough's > public water supply, which draws from wells outside the plume of TCE. > > According to the federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease > Registry, there is little indication that TCE causes cancer in humans. > But exposure to the chemical can cause respiratory and heart diffi > culty as well as central nervous system and liver problems. > > State environmental and health officials have been dealing with po > tential contamination of air and water from the former Mercer Rubber > site in Hamilton. That site operated for more than 130 years in the > township and residents fear that what they perceive as high levels of > cancer in the neighborhoods around the plant are a result of the > contamination. > > Previous | 1 | > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ChildhoodCancerTheCause/ > > <*> Your email settings: > Individual Email | Traditional > > <*> To change settings online go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ChildhoodCancerTheCause/join > (Yahoo! ID required) > > <*> To change settings via email: > mailto:ChildhoodCancerTheCause-digest@yahoogroups.com > mailto:ChildhoodCancerTheCause-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com > > <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > ChildhoodCancerTheCause-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com > > <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > > >
Don't get caught with egg on your face. Play Chicktionary! Check it out!
Lingering toxins continue to cause cancer. In the largest study of its kind ever done, researchers report that banned pesticides and other toxic chemicals lingering in the environment put people at an increased risk of developing non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Vancouver Sun, Canada.
MICAH's Mission Ministry to Improve Childhood & Adolescent Health P.O. Box 275 Winterville, GA 30683 706.742.7826 (phone) 706.543.1799 (fax) website: http://www.micahsmission.org/
<°))))>< <°))))>< <°))))>< <°))))><
The Lord has told you what is good. He has told you what he wants from you: Do what is right to other people. Love being kind to others. And live humbly, trusting your God. - Micah 6:8 - The International Children's Bible
Checked by AVG anti-virus system. (http://www.grisoft.com) Â Version
6.0.772/Virus Database 519,540 Release Date.. Auto updater.10/14/04
-----Original Message-----
From: FLOYD SANDS <sands20012002@...>
To: NationalDiseaseClustersAlliance@yahoogroups.com;
clusteradvocates@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, Oct 23 9:00 AM
Subject: [NationalDiseaseClustersAlliance] CNN AND CANCER CLUSTERS
Friends, Â CNN wants to hear from those affected by cancer clusters:
Â
http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/blogs/paging.dr.gupta/2007/10/cancer-clusters.html
 Floyd
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
#AOLMsgPart_2_a96cb280-6f8b-429e-b1de-bec1916b63e0
#AOLMsgPart_2_a96cb280-6f8b-429e-b1de-bec1916b63e0
#AOLMsgPart_2_a96cb280-6f8b-429e-b1de-bec1916b63e0
________________________________________________________________________
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! -
http://mail.aol.com
************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
From the NCI statements below, the following definition of a cancer
cluster emerges: a cancer cluster may be suspected when cases of
the "same or related cancer(s)" are reported in numbers that
are "greater than expected"...within a group of people, a geographic
area, or a period of time." There are several issues that arise from
this statement.
First, what do we mean by the "same or related cancer"? For example,
what is the "same cancer"? Do we mean a specific cell type within a
cancer grouping, e.g., B-cell acute lymphocytic leukemia, or do we
mean all acute lymphocytic leukemias? Is childhood non-Hodgkin's
lymphoma a cancer that is "related" to childhood ALL? Do we mean
by "related cancers" cancers that have a similar etiology? For
example, if we suspect a situation where a population is exposed to
ionizing radiation, would it make sense to include in a cluster all
the cancers that can be caused by ionizing radiation exposure? The
answer to all these questions depends on the investigator's or
community's hypothesis concerning the cluster and the exposure
situation. This hypothesis can be stated up front and transparently,
or it can be hidden and unconscious (or somewhere in-between). But
the key point I want to make is that the decision as to what cancers
to include in or exclude from a cluster involves an hypothesis -
whether it is stated explicitly or not, whether it is conscious or
not (or whether it is a rote or knee-jerk hypothesis or not). If you
have an hypothesis that a particular exposure (e.g., contaminated
drinking water) may be behind the cluster, then it makes sense to
include in the cluster those cancers that could be caused by that
exposure. (Or, if you know or suspect that the exposure causes a
specific cell type within a cancer grouping, then you might restrict
the cluster to that cell type.) Alternatively, if you think there is
no unique exposures happening in the community and that any cluster
would be due to a bias (e.g., confounding by age) or chance, then you
might take the easy route and define the cluster in terms of the
organ/tissue affected (e.g., all leukemias, or all childhood
leukemias) since your hypothesis denies that there is an exposure
etiology.
The next issue is what do we mean by "greater than expected"? Do we
mean that the rate ratio or odds ratio is greater than 1.0 (or the
SMR is greater than 100)? Does it have to be "statistically
significant"? Should we equate "statistical significance"
with "public health significance"? What type 1 error and type 2
error are we assuming when we do statistical significance testing and
why? (For example, why should we set the type 1 error at .05 and the
type 2 error at .20 - in other words, why are we more worried about a
false positive than a false negative?) These are decisions that I
believe require full community involvement in the deliberation, and
that require justification. Of course, what virtually always happens
is that the investigator (or health agency) alone arbitrarily makes
these decisions and hides behind an unexamined and false notion
of "scientific tradition" or "good science".
Next, there is the issue of deciding how to define the "group of
people", "geographic area", and "period of time". As with the
definition of the cluster (i.e., what to include in or exclude from
the cluster), these decisions are based on an implicit or explicit
hypothesis concerning the cluster and the exposure situation. These
decisions are also strongly influenced by what data are available and
how much resources the investigator is willing to spend in the
investigation.
So to answer your question, how a cluster is defined is a decision
that is based on an explicit or implicit (conscious or unconscious or
rote) hypothesis concerning the disease and exposure situation in the
community (or occupational cohort). The best way to define a cluster
is to have a clear exposure hypothesis that is developed with the
full participation of the affected community. The other decisions
that are involved in such an investigation should likewise be
deliberated and determined with the full participation of the
affected community. I believe that the Woburn childhood cancer
cluster investigation came the closest to fitting these requirements
and that is why it was successful.
Frank J. Bove, Sc.D
Senior Epidemiologist
Division of Health Studies
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)/CDC
Mailstop E-31
1600 Clifton Rd NE
Atlanta, GA 30333
(404) 498-0557
(404) 498-0077 fax fbove@...
--- In NationalDiseaseClustersAlliance@yahoogroups.com, Agnes
Reynolds <merbenzrn@...> wrote:
>
> Just a thought.... I understand the disease cluster protocols are
being worked on...(YAY!!)
> As usual, I have a question...this is regard to cancer clusters.
> It is a common understanding that only one type of cancer should
be investigated as part of a cluster.... (as stated in this
document). I have understood this concept to be the norm, but do our
NDCA epidemiologists truly agree with this statement? I have heard
debate on this topic in the past and am wondering about whether or
not this will be the case in our own community investigations?
>
> Just curious...Comments welcome from all.
>
> Agnes
>
>
>
>
> Send to
Printer Reviewed:
10/05/2006
> Cancer Clusters
> Key Points
> Cancer clusters may be suspected when people report that several
family members, friends, neighbors, or coworkers have been diagnosed
with the same or related cancer(s) (see Defining Disease Clusters
section).
> Epidemiologists (scientists who study the frequency,
distribution, causes, and control of diseases in populations)
investigate suspected cancer clusters (see Facts About Cancer
Clusters section).
> Some amount of clustering may occur simply by chance (see Facts
About Cancer Clusters section).
> A suspected cancer cluster may be reported to a state or local
health department or state cancer registry (see Reporting Suspected
Cancer Clusters section).
> Other resources may provide additional information about cancer
clusters, cancer incidence and mortality, and environmental risk
factors for cancer (see Resources section).
>
> Defining Disease Clusters A disease cluster is the occurrence
of a greater than expected number of cases of a particular disease
within a group of people, a geographic area, or a period of time.
Clusters of diseases have concerned scientists for centuries. Some
recent disease clusters include the initial cases of a rare type of
pneumonia among homosexual men in the early 1980s that led to the
identification of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and acquired
immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS); the outbreak in 2003 of a
respiratory illness, later identified as severe acute respiratory
syndrome (SARS), caused by a previously unrecognized virus; and
periodic outbreaks of food poisoning caused by eating food
contaminated with bacteria.
> Cancer clusters may be suspected when people report that several
family members, friends, neighbors, or coworkers have been diagnosed
with the same or related cancer(s). In the 1960s, one of the best
known cancer clusters emerged, involving many cases of mesothelioma
(a rare cancer of the lining of the chest and abdomen). Researchers
traced the development of mesothelioma to exposure to asbestos, a
fibrous mineral that was used heavily in shipbuilding during World
War II and has also been used in manufacturing industrial and
consumer products. Working with asbestos is the major risk factor
(something that may increase the chance of developing a disease) for
mesothelioma.
> Facts About Cancer Some concepts about cancer can be helpful
when trying to understand suspected cancer clusters:
>
> Cancer is the uncontrolled growth and spread of abnormal cells
anywhere in the body. However, cancer is not just one disease; it is
actually an umbrella term for at least 100 different but related
diseases.
>
> Each type of cancer has certain known and/or suspected risk
factors associated with it.
>
> Cancer is not caused by injuries, nor is it contagious. It
cannot be passed from one person to another like a cold or flu
virus.
>
> Cancer is almost always caused by a combination of factors
that interact in ways that are not yet fully understood.
>
>
> Carcinogenesis (the process by which normal cells are
transformed into cancer cells) involves a series of changes within
cells that usually occur over many years. More than 10 years can go
by between the exposure to a carcinogen (any substance that causes
cancer) and a diagnosis of cancer, which makes it difficult to
pinpoint the cause of that cancer.
>
>
> Cancer is more likely to occur as people get older; because
people are living longer, more cases of cancer can be expected in the
future. This increased life expectancy may create the impression that
cancer is becoming much more common, even though an increase in the
number of cases of cancer is related in large part to the growing
number of elderly people in the population.
>
>
> Some racial and ethnic groups have higher rates of cancer than
other racial and ethnic groups. Such differences may be due to
multiple factors, such as late stage of disease at diagnosis,
barriers to health care access, history of other diseases, biologic
and genetic differences, health behaviors, and other risk factors.
>
> Cancer, in general, is common. More than 17 million new cases
of cancer have been diagnosed since 1990.
>
> Facts About Cancer Clusters
> Reported disease clusters of any kind, including suspected cancer
clusters, are investigated by epidemiologists (scientists who study
the frequency, distribution, causes, and control of diseases in
populations). Epidemiologists use their knowledge of diseases,
environmental science, lifestyle factors, and biostatistics to try to
determine whether a suspected cluster represents a true excess of
cancer cases. Epidemiologists have identified certain circumstances
that may lead them to suspect a potential common source or cause of
cancer among people thought to be part of a cancer cluster. A
suspected cancer cluster is more likely to be a true cluster, rather
than a coincidence, if it involves one or more of the following
factors:
>
> A large number of cases of one type of cancer, rather than
several different types.
>
> A rare type of cancer, rather than common types.
>
> An increased number of cases of a certain type of cancer in an
age group that is not usually affected by that type of cancer.
>
> Before epidemiologists can assess a suspected cancer cluster
accurately, they must determine whether the type of cancer involved
is a primary (original) cancer or a cancer that has metastasized
(spread from another organ). This is important to know because
scientists consider only the primary cancer when they investigate a
possible cancer cluster. Epidemiologists also try to establish
whether the suspected exposure has the potential to cause the
reported cancer, based on what is known about that cancer's likely
causes and about the cancer-causing potential of the exposure.
After developing a case definition (the guidelines that determine
whether the cases being investigated are related to the cluster),
epidemiologists must identify the time period of concern and the
population at risk. They then calculate the expected number of cases
and compare that number with the observed number of cases.
Epidemiologists must show that the number of cancer cases that have
occurred is
> significantly greater than the expected number of cases, given the
age, gender, and racial distribution of the group of people at risk
of developing the disease.
> Epidemiologists must also determine if the cancer cases could
have occurred by chance. They often test for "statistical
significance," which is a mathematical measure of the difference
between groups. The difference is said to be statistically
significant if it is greater than what would be expected to happen by
chance alone. In common practice, a statistically significant finding
means that the probability that the observed number of cases could
have happened by chance alone is 5 percent or less. For instance, if
one examines the number of cancer cases in 100 neighborhoods, and
cancer cases are occurring by chance alone, one should expect to find
about five neighborhoods with a statistically significant elevation
in the number of cancer cases. In other words, some amount of
clustering within the same family or neighborhood may occur simply by
chance.
> Accurately defining the group of people who should be
considered "at risk" is important when investigating a possible
cancer cluster. One of the greatest problems in defining clusters is
the tendency to expand the geographic borders of the cluster to
include additional cases of the suspected disease as they are
discovered. The tendency to define the borders of a cluster on the
basis of where known cases are located, rather than to first define
the population and geographic area and then determine if the number
of cancers is excessive, creates many "clusters" that are not real.
> Epidemiologists must also consider that a confirmed cancer
cluster may not be the result of any single, external cause or
hazard. A cancer cluster could be the result of chance, an error in
the calculation of the expected number of cancer cases, or
differences in the case definition between observed and expected
cases. Moreover, because people change where they live from time to
time, it can be difficult for epidemiologists to identify previous
exposures and find the medical records that are needed to determine
the kind of cancer a person had—or if it was cancer at all.
> Because a variety of factors often work together to create the
appearance of a cluster where nothing abnormal is occurring, most
reports of suspected cancer clusters are not shown to be true
clusters. Many reported clusters do not include enough cases for
epidemiologists to arrive at any conclusions. Sometimes, even when a
suspected cluster has enough cases for study, a greater than expected
number of cases cannot be demonstrated. Other times, epidemiologists
find a true excess of cases, but they cannot find an explanation for
it. For example, a suspected carcinogen may cause cancer only under
certain circumstances, making its impact difficult to detect.
> Genetics and Environment
> Because most cancers are thought to be caused by a combination of
factors related to genetics and environment (including behavior and
lifestyle), studies of suspected cancer clusters usually focus on
these two issues. Genetic factors are inherited, that is, passed from
parents to children. However, establishing a genetic-environmental
interaction (significant and valid evidence that a specific genetic
factor leads to an increased chance that a particular environmental
exposure will result in cancer) requires studies of large populations
over long periods of time. Researchers are just beginning to learn
about the roles genetics and environmental exposures play in
carcinogenesis. Some of their discoveries are outlined below:
> Genetics
>
> All cancers develop because of genetic alterations of one kind
or another. An alteration is a change or mutation in the physical
structure of a gene that interferes with the gene's normal
functions.
>
> Some genetic alterations that increase the risk of cancer are
present at birth in the genes of all cells in the body, including
reproductive cells. These changes, which are called germline
mutations, can be passed from parent to child. This type of
alteration is known as an inherited susceptibility; most cancers are
not due to an inherited susceptibility.
>
>
> Most cancers result from genetic changes that occur after birth
during one's lifetime. Genetic changes can occur in any cell that
divides. These genetic changes are called somatic alterations.
>
>
> Familial cancer clusters (cancer that occurs in families more
often than would be expected by chance) have been reported for many
types of cancer. Because cancer is a common disease, it is not
unusual for several cases to occur within a family. Familial cancer
clusters are sometimes linked to inherited susceptibility, but
environmental factors and chance may also be involved.
>
>
> Having an inherited susceptibility for a type of cancer does not
necessarily mean that the individual will be diagnosed with the
cancer; it means the chance of developing cancer increases if other
factors that promote the development of cancer are present or are
encountered later.
>
> Environment
>
> The term environment includes not only air, water, and soil, but
also substances and conditions in the home and workplace. It also
includes diet; the use of tobacco, alcohol, or drugs; exposure to
chemicals; and exposure to sunlight and other forms of radiation.
>
>
> People are exposed to a variety of environmental factors for
varying lengths of time, and these factors interact in ways that are
still not fully understood. Further, individuals have varying levels
of susceptibility to these factors.
>
>
> Hazardous substances are often found in higher levels in the
workplace than in the general environment. For this reason, some
workers may have greater and longer exposures to such substances than
the general population. Findings of higher than expected numbers of
cancer cases among workers in particular occupations or industries
provide important leads regarding causes of cancer among the general
public. In fact, occupational studies (studies of specific groups of
workers) have identified many specific cancer-causing substances and
have provided the motivation to find ways to reduce or eliminate
exposures in the workplace and elsewhere.
> Reporting Suspected Cancer Clusters
> A suspected cancer cluster may be reported to a state or local
health department or state cancer registry. State and local health
departments and cancer registries use established criteria to
investigate reports of cancer clusters. When a suspected cancer
cluster is first reported, the investigating department or agency
gathers information and gives the inquirer general information about
cancer clusters. Although investigators may use different processes,
most follow a basic procedure in which increasingly specific
information is obtained and analyzed in stages. Investigators are
likely to request the following:
> Information about the potential cluster: type(s) of cancer,
number of cases, suspected exposure(s), and geographic area/time
period of concern.
>
> Information about each person with cancer in the potential
cluster: name, address, telephone number, gender, race, age,
occupation(s), as well as area(s) lived in/length of time.
>
> Information about each case of cancer: type of cancer, date of
diagnosis, age at diagnosis, possible causes, metastatic sites, and
physician contact.
> Most reports of suspected cancer clusters are resolved at this
initial contact because concerned individuals realize that what
seemed like a cancer cluster is not a true cluster. If further
evaluation is needed, epidemiologists will take the following steps
to investigate a possible cancer cluster:
> Attempt to verify the reported cases by contacting patients and
relatives and obtaining medical records.
>
> Compare the number of cases in the suspected cancer cluster with
information in census data and cancer registries to determine if
there is a higher than expected number of cases.
>
> Review the scientific literature to establish whether the
reported cancer(s) has been linked to the suspected exposure.
>
> Work with Federal agencies, if necessary, to gather additional
information to help decide whether to conduct a comprehensive
epidemiological study.
> Resources
> The following resources may provide additional information about
cancer clusters, cancer incidence (the number of new cases) and
mortality (the number of deaths), and environmental risk factors for
cancer:
> Local and state health departments are listed under such
headings as "health department" and "public health commission" in the
blue pages of Government listings in telephone books. In addition,
links to state and selected local health department Web sites can be
found at http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/clusters/statelocal.htm on the
Internet.
>
> State cancer registries collect data on cancer incidence and
mortality. The data in these registries can be used to compare
expected cancer rates in certain categories, such as geographic area,
gender, age, or racial group, with rates reported in a suspected
cancer cluster to determine whether there is a true excess of cases.
State cancer registries are listed under such headings as "health
department" and "public health commission" in the blue pages of
Government listings in telephone books. Contact information for state
cancer registries can also be found at http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/cancercontacts/npcr/contacts.asp on the
Internet.
>
> The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC)
National Center for Environmental Health (NCEH) cancer clusters Web
site provides links to cancer cluster resources, answers to
frequently asked questions, and an online inquiry form. NCEH can be
contacted at:
> Address: Division of Environmental Hazards and Health
Effects
> National Center for Environmental Health
> Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
> Re: Cancer Clusters
> Mail Stop F–52
> 4770 Buford Highway
> Atlanta, GA 30341
> Telephone: 1–800–232–4636 (1–888–CDC–INFO) (toll-free) E-
mail: cdcinfo@...
> Internet Web site: http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/clusters/
>
> The CDC's National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
(NIOSH) conducts research and makes recommendations for the
prevention of work-related disease and injury. Information about
possible workplace cancer clusters and how they are evaluated is
available on NIOSH's Occupational Cancer Web page at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/cancer/ on the Internet. NIOSH's
Health Hazard Evaluation (HHE) Program investigates potentially
hazardous working conditions, including suspected cancer clusters,
when employers, authorized employee representatives, or employees
request it. The HHE Program can be contacted at:
Address: Hazard Evaluation and Technical Assistance Branch
> NIOSH
> Mail Stop R–9
> 4676 Columbia Parkway
> Cincinnati, OH 45226
> Telephone: 1–800–356–4674 (1–800–35–NIOSH) (toll-free)
> Internet Web site: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe
>
> The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), an
agency of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS),
conducts public health assessments of waste sites, performs health
consultations concerning specific hazardous substances, maintains
health surveillance and registries, responds to emergency releases of
hazardous substances, and provides education and training concerning
hazardous substances. Contact information for ATSDR regional offices
can be found at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/DRO/dro_contact.html on the
Internet. The ATSDR can be contacted at: Telephone: 1–
800–232–4636 (1–800–CDC–INFO)
> 1–888–232–6348
> Internet Web site: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov
>
> The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS),
a part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), studies how
environmental exposures, genetic susceptibility, and age interact to
affect an individual's health. The NIEHS can be contacted
at: Address: The National Institute of Environmental
Health Sciences
> Post Office Box 12233
> Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
> Telephone: 919–541–3345
> Internet Web site: http://www.niehs.nih.gov
>
> The Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA)
Office of Occupational Medicine performs workplace-related case
evaluations and cluster investigations, including medical record
review, employee interviews, and medical screening activities. OSHA
can be contacted at:
> Address: Office of Occupational Medicine
> Occupational Safety and Health Administration
> U.S. Department of Labor
> Room N3457
> 200 Constitution Avenue, NW.
> Washington, D.C. 20210
> Telephone: 202–693–2323
> Internet Web site: http://www.osha.gov/dts/oom/index.html
>
> The Where You Live Web page, which is managed by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), allows users to enter a ZIP
Code and choose from four databases to retrieve environmental
information about a community or to locate a regional office. This
resource is available at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/whereyoulive.htm
on the Internet.
>
>
> The National Cancer Institute (NCI), another component of the
NIH, has the Cancer Mortality Maps and Graphs Web site, which
provides interactive maps, graphs, text, tables, and figures showing
geographic patterns and time trends of cancer death rates for the
time period 1950–94 for more than 40 cancers. It also provides
interactive mortality charts and graphs, customizable mortality maps,
and links to related domestic and international Web sites, including
a link to the online publication of NCI's Atlas of Cancer Mortality
in the United States: 1950–94. The NCI's Cancer Mortality Maps and
Graphs Web site can be accessed at http://www3.cancer.gov/atlasplus/new.html on the Internet.
> # # #
> Related Resources
> Publications (available at http://www.cancer.gov/publications)
> National Cancer Institute Fact Sheet 6.7, Cancer: Questions and
Answers 1
> Cancer and the Environment: What You Need To Know, What You Can
Do 2
> What You Need To Know About™ Cancer 3
>
>
> National Cancer Institute (NCI) Resources
>
> Cancer Information Service (toll-free)
> Telephone: 1–800–4–CANCER (1–800–422–6237)
> TTY: 1–800–332–8615
>
>
> Online
> NCI's Web site: http://www.cancer.gov
> LiveHelp, NCI's live online assistance:
> https://cissecure.nci.nih.gov/livehelp/welcome.asp
>
>
> Glossary Termsabdomen (AB-doh-men) The area of the body that
contains the pancreas, stomach, intestines, liver, gallbladder, and
other organs. abnormal Not normal. An abnormal lesion or growth may
be cancerous, premalignant (likely to become cancer), or benign.
acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (uh-KWY-erd IH-myoo-noh-dih-FIH-
shun-see SIN-drome) AIDS. A disease caused by human
immunodeficiency virus (HIV). People with acquired immunodeficiency
syndrome are at an increased risk for developing certain cancers and
for infections that usually occur only in individuals with a weak
immune system. Also called AIDS. alteration A change resulting in
something that is different from the original. asbestos (as-BES-
tus) A natural material that is made of tiny fibers. Asbestos can
cause several serious diseases, including cancer. bacteria (bak-TEER-
ee-uh) A large group of single-cell microorganisms. Some cause
infections and disease in animals and humans. The singular of
> bacteria is bacterium. cancer (KAN-ser) A term for diseases in
which abnormal cells divide without control. Cancer cells can invade
nearby tissues and can spread to other parts of the body through the
blood and lymph systems. There are several main types of cancer.
Carcinoma is cancer that begins in the skin or in tissues that line
or cover internal organs. Sarcoma is cancer that begins in bone,
cartilage, fat, muscle, blood vessels, or other connective or
supportive tissue. Leukemia is cancer that starts in blood-forming
tissue such as the bone marrow, and causes large numbers of abnormal
blood cells to be produced and enter the blood. Lymphoma and multiple
myeloma are cancers that begin in the cells of the immune system.
Central nervous system cancers are cancers that begin in the tissues
of the brain and spinal cord. cancer cluster (KAN-ser KLUS-ter) The
occurrence of a larger-than-expected number of cases of cancer within
a group of people in a geographic area over
> a period of time. carcinogen (kar-SIN-o-jin) Any substance that
causes cancer. carcinogenesis The process by which normal cells are
transformed into cancer cells. cell (sel) The individual unit that
makes up the tissues of the body. All living things are made up of
one or more cells. diagnosis The process of identifying a disease
by the signs and symptoms. diet The things a person eats and
drinks. drug Any substance, other than food, that is used to
prevent, diagnose, treat or relieve symptoms of a disease or abnormal
condition. Also refers to a substance that alters mood or body
function, or that can be habit-forming or addictive, especially a
narcotic. familial cancer Cancer that occurs in families more often
than would be expected by chance. These cancers often occur at an
early age, and may indicate the presence of a gene mutation that
increases the risk of cancer. They may also be a sign of shared
environmental or lifestyle factors. fibrous Containing
> or resembling fibers. gene The functional and physical unit of
heredity passed from parent to offspring. Genes are pieces of DNA,
and most genes contain the information for making a specific protein.
genetic (jeh-NEH-tik) Inherited; having to do with information that
is passed from parents to offspring through genes in sperm and egg
cells. genetic susceptibility An inherited increase in the risk of
developing a disease. Also called genetic predisposition. germline
mutation (...myoo-TAY-shun) A gene change in the body's
reproductive cells (egg or sperm) that becomes incorporated into the
DNA of every cell in the body of offspring; germline mutations are
passed on from parents to offspring. Also called hereditary mutation.
human immunodeficiency virus (HYOO-mun ih-MYOO-noh-dih-FIH-shun-see
VY-rus) HIV. The cause of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome
(AIDS). Also called HIV. incidence The number of new cases of a
disease diagnosed each year. inherited
> (in-HAYR-it-ed) Transmitted through genes that have been passed
from parents to their offspring (children). mesothelioma (meh-zuh-
thee-lee-OH-muh) A benign (noncancerous) or malignant (cancerous)
tumor affecting the lining of the chest or abdomen. Exposure to
asbestos particles in the air increases the risk of developing
malignant mesothelioma. metastasize (meh-TAS-tuh-size) To spread
from one part of the body to another. When cancer cells metastasize
and form secondary tumors, the cells in the metastatic tumor are like
those in the original (primary) tumor. metastatic (meh-tuh-STA-tik)
Having to do with metastasis, which is the spread of cancer from one
part of the body to another. mineral A nutrient required to
maintain health. mutation (myoo-TAY-shun) Any change in the DNA of
a cell. Mutations may be caused by mistakes during cell division, or
they may be caused by exposure to DNA-damaging agents in the
environment. Mutations can be harmful, beneficial, or
> have no effect. If they occur in cells that make eggs or sperm,
they can be inherited; if mutations occur in other types of cells,
they are not inherited. Certain mutations may lead to cancer or other
diseases. National Cancer Institute NCI. The National Cancer
Institute, part of the National Institutes of Health of the United
States Department of Health and Human Services, is the Federal
Government's principal agency for cancer research. NCI conducts,
coordinates, and funds cancer research, training, health information
dissemination, and other programs with respect to the cause,
diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of cancer. Access the NCI Web
site at http://www.cancer.gov. Also called NCI. National Institutes
of Health NIH. A federal agency in the U.S. that conducts
biomedical research in its own laboratories; supports the research of
non-Federal scientists in universities, medical schools, hospitals,
and research institutions throughout the country and abroad;
> helps in the training of research investigators; and fosters
communication of medical information. Access the National Institutes
of Health Web site at http://www.nih.gov. Also called NIH. organ A
part of the body that performs a specific function. For example, the
heart is an organ. physician Medical doctor. pneumonia (noo-MONE-
ya) An inflammatory infection that occurs in the lung. primary
tumor The original tumor. radiation (RAY-dee-AY-shun) Energy
released in the form of particles or electromagnetic waves. Common
sources of radiation include radon gas, cosmic rays from outer space,
and medical x-rays. reproductive cell An egg or sperm cell. Each
mature reproductive cell carries a single set of 23 chromosomes. risk
factor Something that may increase the chance of developing a
disease. Some examples of risk factors for cancer include age, a
family history of certain cancers, use of tobacco products, certain
eating habits, obesity, lack of exercise, exposure
> to radiation or other cancer-causing agents, and certain genetic
changes. screening Checking for disease when there are no symptoms.
significant In statistics, describes a mathematical measure of
difference between groups. The difference is said to be significant
if it is greater than what might be expected to happen by chance
alone. Also called statistically significant. stage The extent of a
cancer in the body. Staging is usually based on the size of the
tumor, whether lymph nodes contain cancer, and whether the cancer has
spread from the original site to other parts of the body.
statistically significant Describes a mathematical measure of
difference between groups. The difference is said to be statistically
significant if it is greater than what might be expected to happen by
chance alone. Also called significant. tobacco (tuh-BA-koh) A plant
with leaves that have high levels of the addictive chemical nicotine.
The leaves may be smoked (in cigarettes, cigars,
> and pipes), applied to the gums (as dipping and chewing tobacco),
or inhaled (as snuff). Tobacco leaves also contain many cancer-
causing chemicals, and tobacco use and exposure to secondhand tobacco
smoke have been linked to many types of cancer and other diseases.
The scientific name is Nicotiana tabacum. virus (VY-rus) A
microorganism that can infect cells and cause disease.
>
> Table of Links 1 http://cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Sites-Types/general 2 http://cancer.gov/images/Documents/5d17e03e-b39f-4b40-a214-
e9e9099c4220/Cancer%
> 20and%20the%20Environment.pdf 3 http://cancer.gov/cancerinfo/wyntk/overview
>
In Toxic Trespass, intrepid filmmaker Barri Cohen launches an investigation into the effects of the chemical soup around us. She starts with her 10-year-old daughter, whose blood carries carcinogens like benzene and the long-banned DDT. Then, Cohen heads out to Windsor and Sarnia: Canadian toxic hotspots, with startling clusters of deadly diseases.
Here, everyone seems to know children who have suffered respiratory illnesses, leukemia, brain tumours and other illnesses. And on the Native reserve of Aamjiwnaang, ringed by Sarnia's "chemical valley," the film reveals a startling birth rate problem that officials just can't ignore.
Cohen journeys into toxic nightmares all too common in industrialized countries. She meets passionate activists working for positive change, along with doctors and scientists who see evidence of links between environmental pollution and health problems. And she learns how quickly barriers can go up when anyone tries to even ask questions about the connection betweeen toxins and serious health problems.
Perhaps most appalling - and funny, in their own twisted way - are the roadblocks Cohen encounters when she tries to get information from federal officials. One tells her his department is "planning to discuss the plans."
This moving documentary is empowering and leavened with wry humour. Carried by Cohen's passion for truth and her disarming openness, it is essential viewing for anyone concerned about the effects of pollutants on our - and our children's - very DNA. Toxic Trespass is accompanied by a comprehensive guidebook for educators, activists and concerned citizens, produced by the Women's Healthy Environment Network.
2007, 80 min
Directed by
Barri Cohen
Produced by
Dorothy Goldin Rosenberg
Mehernaz Lentin
Anita Lee
Production Agency
If You Love Our Children Inc.
National Film Board of Canada
Screenings
130 9th Avenue SE Calgary, , Canada September 29 2007 at 11:00 AM
Calgary International Film Festival, Beyond Borders Programme. Tickets at www.calgaryfilm.com
Windsor, , Canada October 11 2007 at 07:00 PM
515 Portage Avenue Winnipeg, , Canada October 29 2007 at 07:00 PM
University of Winnipeg Winnipeg, , Canada November 3 2007 at 09:00 AM
Leila Love enjoys a nighttime bath. (Photo: Victoria Love)
A recent study finds levels of dioxane, a chemical that causes cancer in mice and rats, in several name brand soaps and shampoos for kids. Dioxane is banned from cosmetics in the European Union but the U.S. federal government has not set limits for dioxane in consumer products.
The Lord has told you what is good. He has told you what he wants from you: Do what is right to other people. Love being kind to others. And live humbly, trusting your God. - Micah 6:8 - The International Children's Bible
Cancer among children on the rise. Incidents of cancer among children have assumed alarming proportions as data collected from hospital sources revealed that an increase of more than 700 cases were reported in last two years. Karachi News International, Pakistan. 9 September 2007.
The Lord has told you what is good. He has told you what he wants from you: Do what is right to other people. Love being kind to others. And live humbly, trusting your God. - Micah 6:8 - The International Children's Bible
Aspartame is an artificial sweetener used in more than 6,000 diet products, beverages, and pharmaceuticals. In March 2006, EHP published the first compelling experimental evidence for the carcinogenic effects of aspartame at a dose level within range of human daily intake [EHP 14:379–385; Soffritti et al.]. A second animal study by the same research team now indicates that the carcinogenic effects of aspartame are magnified when exposure begins during fetal life [EHP 115:1293–1297; Soffritti et al.].
The first study involved a much larger sample size than had been used in previous experiments. It showed a dose-related increase in the incidence of various malignant tumors in female rats fed aspartame from 8 weeks of age until natural death. The experiment was impressive for its long observation period and comprehensive assessment of aspartame's carcinogenic potential. Nevertheless, as the researchers acknowledged, the study did not take into account prenatal or perinatal exposures.
In the new study, the investigators added aspartame to the standard diets of male and female Sprague-Dawley rats from the twelfth day of fetal life until natural death. Rats were fed in groups of 70 to 95 each at aspartame concentrations of 2,000, 400, and 0 ppm—approximately equivalent to a daily intake of 100, 20, or 0 mg/kg body weight. The current limits for acceptable daily intake are set at 50 mg/kg body weight in the United States and 40 mg/kg body weight in Europe.
The researchers report that rats fed at the 400 ppm level showed nonsignificant increases in malignancies. For animals fed at the 2,000 ppm level, there was a significant increase in the incidence of lymphomas/leukemias and malignant mammary tumors. Furthermore, compared with the team's earlier study in which animals were dosed postnatally only, the incidence of animals bearing lymphomas/leukemias increased from 18.7% to 31.4%. The 2,000 ppm level corresponds to an assumed daily intake of 100 mg/kg body weight—approximately the equivalent of a 45-pound child drinking 5 cans of diet soda or a 150-pound adult consuming 14 packets of sweetener per day.
Although recent epidemiologic studies have not found an association between aspartame and human cancers, those studies were not designed to measure cancer risks associated with fetal exposures. The public health implications of the new findings are considerable. Currently, more than 200 million people regularly consume aspartame, and children and women of childbearing age (which presumably includes many who are pregnant and breastfeeding) are among the major consumers. If the U.S. FDA were to conclude that exposure to aspartame causes cancer in rodents, the agency would be required by law to revoke its approval for the popular sweetener.
Fetal Growth and Acute Childhood Leukemia: Looking Beyond Birth Weight
Posted 08/07/2007
Authors: Elizabeth Milne; Crystal L. Laurvick; Eve Blair; Carol Bower; Nicholas de Klerk
Abstract
The authors examined the relation between birth weight, intrauterine growth, and risk of childhood leukemia using population-based linked health data from Western Australia. A cohort of 576,593 infants born in 1980–2004 were followed from birth to diagnosis of acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) (n = 243) or acute myeloid leukemia (AML) (n = 36) before their 15th birthday, death, or the end of follow-up (December 31, 2005). Data were analyzed using Cox regression. Risk of ALL was positively associated with the proportion of optimal birth weight—a measure of the appropriateness of fetal growth—particularly among children younger than 5 years; the hazard ratio for a 1-standard-deviation increase in proportion of optimal birth weight was 1.25 (95% confidence interval: 1.07, 1.47). Among children younger than 5 years not classified as having high birth weight (defined as > 3,500 g, > 3,800 g, and > 4,000 g), a 1-unit increase in proportion of optimal birth weight was associated with an approximately 40% increase in ALL risk. This suggests that accelerated growth, rather than high birth weight per se, is involved in the etiology of ALL. These findings are consistent with a role for insulin-like growth factor I in the causal pathway. Findings for AML were inconclusive, probably because of small numbers.
Introduction
Leukemia is the most common childhood malignancy, accounting for 35 percent of childhood cancer cases diagnosed in Australia each year (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, unpublished data). Despite extensive research, little is known about the etiology of childhood leukemia. Its early age of onset has focused attention on in-utero and perinatal factors. There is now growing evidence that some childhood leukemias, particularly those diagnosed after infancy, may be explained by a "two-hit model"[1,2]—the first "hit" occurring in utero and often causing a chromosomal translocation and formation of a fusion gene. A number of studies have shown that specific translocations such as t(12;21) and t(8;21) are present at birth in children who later develop leukemia.[3-5] Any subsequent necessary "hits" are thought to occur postnatally, causing proliferation of the leukemic clone. Putative etiologic factors include exposure to environmental toxins and infections and aberrant host responses to them.[1]
Birth weight is one of the few perinatal factors reported to be related to risk of childhood leukemia. A 2003 meta-analysis by Hjalgrim et al.[6] included 18 studies of this association; they reported a pooled odds ratio of 1.26 (95 percent confidence interval (CI): 1.17, 1.37) for birth weight over 4,000 g. Most of the studies published since[7-13] have found a positive association. Some of the variation in reported findings may be due to differences in: 1) case definition (incident cases vs. deaths only); 2) type of leukemia examined (all leukemia vs. acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) vs. acute myeloid leukemia (AML)); 3) categorization of birth weight (continuous variable vs. categorical variable); 4) definition of high birth weight (> 3,500 g, > 3,800 g, > 4,000 g, or > 4,500 g); 5) source of data on birth weight; 6) ages of the subjects at diagnosis; 7) nature of the comparison group used (e.g., population registers, hospital controls, random digit dialing); and 8) study design.
Despite such inconsistencies, most investigators have reported an increasing risk of ALL with increasing birth weight. However, few studies have taken account of gestational age in the analysis of birth weight. Since birth weight is a function of both intrauterine growth and length of gestation, it is not possible to differentiate between an association with high birth weight per se and an association with accelerated intrauterine growth, without accounting for gestational age. If there were an association with accelerated growth, the risk would extend to infants born at any gestation who had a higher-than-expected birth weight for their length of gestation, but who might not reach a particular definition of high birth weight. Such an association would suggest that factors such as exposure to high levels of growth hormone might be etiologically important. On the other hand, a different causal mechanism would be likely if the association were with high birth weight per se. For example, because birth weight is positively associated with bone marrow volume,[14,15] heavier children may simply have more cells at risk of malignant transformation.[16] Either of these proposed mechanisms—or a combination—could represent the first "hit" in the development of childhood ALL or could be involved in a subsequent "hit" by promoting proliferation of a leukemic clone. The relation between birth weight and AML has been even less well characterized. Clarifying the nature of these relations would assist in elucidating the causal pathways.
Our aims in this study were to use data from a population-based data linkage system to characterize the relations of birth weight and intrauterine growth with risk of childhood leukemia and to consider these findings in relation to possible causal pathways.
Health agency's ethics, finances to be reviewed Research group at federal level faces questions about conflicts of interest, mismanagement.
By Jeff Nesmith Cox Washington Bureau Published on: 08/22/07
Washington —- Buffeted by charges of mismanagement and conflicts of interest, the agency responsible for federal research on environmental causes of disease will be subjected to a "comprehensive" review of financial and ethical issues, the National Institutes of Health announced Tuesday.
NIH Director Elias Zerhouni said in a news release that he was ordering the review of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the National Toxicology Program in order to "help clarify the issues that have recently surfaced."
He said Dr. David Schwartz, who was appointed to head NIEHS in 2005, had agreed to temporarily step aside.
The announcement follows by less than two weeks a report by a NIEHS-appointed panel of 12 outside experts who declared they had found little cause for concern about the health effects of the hormone-mimicking chemical bisphenol A. The chemical is used to line soft drink cans and make plastic food containers.
The panel reviewed scientific studies selected by Sciences International, a consulting firm with a $5 million contract with NIEHS.
The firm was fired after an environmental advocacy organization, the Environmental Working Group, reported it had ties to Dow Chemical Corp., one of the world's largest producers of bisphenol A.
A different panel with no connection to NIEHS had earlier found "great cause for concern" that exposure of fetuses and newborns to the chemical may be responsible for a wide range of developmental problems.
In addition to the bisphenol A issue, NIEHS has come under criticism in the past several months over spending policies and Schwartz's management practices.
"Congress and others have raised important questions and concerns over the past few months, and we will be fully responsive," Zerhouni said.
In an e-mail, Schwartz told NIEHS employees that "although this development is personally painful, I am committed to a full and comprehensive review" and urged them to cooperate.
NIEHS is one of 27 institutes and centers that make up NIH.
In addition to biomedical research done by its own scientists on how environmental factors affect disease, the agency funds studies by independent researchers.
Although housed at NIEHS, the National Toxicology Program is a multi-agency office funded by NIH, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration.
The Lord has told you what is good. He has told you what he wants from you: Do what is right to other people. Love being kind to others. And live humbly, trusting your God. - Micah 6:8 - The International Children's Bible
***Below are two letters published in the current August issue of Environmental Health Perspectives referencing an article published in January written by the CDC that reviewed the risk factors for acute leukemia in children. Here is the link to the original article, and the two letters follow in this e-mail back to back. Please note the retraction on benzene also in the review of risk factors. jill
In their otherwise informative and concise review of the current state of evidence concerning risk factors for acute childhood leukemia, Belson et al. (2007) did not correctly address nonionizing radiation and, in particular, power frequency magnetic fields as a possible risk factor for childhood leukemia. This failure may be due to a widespread misconception about the evidence concerning nonionizing electromagnetic fields (EMFs) as a health hazard. It is also apparent in the Churchill County leukemia cluster study published in the same issue, in which Rubin et al. (2007) investigated a multitude of factors, many with sparse or ambiguous previous evidence of an association with childhood leukemia. Although power frequency magnetic fields have been classified as a possible human carcinogen (group 2B) by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC 2002) and by a National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) working group (NIEHS 1998), based on the evidence of an association with childhood leukemia, these were apparently not considered by Rubin et al. (2007).
In their review of nonionizing radiation, Belson et al. (2007) inappropriately mixed original research and pooled analyses, further contributing to the prevailing confusion. Both Ahlbom et al. (2000) and Greenland et al. (2000) presented pooled analyses that included the important study of Linet et al. (1997). Hence, it is inappropriate to present results of the latter as an independent source. Almost all epidemiologic studies of residential exposure to power frequency magnetic fields published before 1999 are included in either the pooled analyses of Ahlbom et al. (2000) or Greenland et al. (2000). Only the study of Myers et al. (1990) was not included because authors refused to provide requested data. Although the study of Linet et al. (1997) is often cited as failing to support the hypothesis of an association between residential exposure to magnetic fields and childhood leukemia [it was also cited by Belson et al. (2007)], it actually was one of the most important supporters of an association in the pooled analyses and contributed the greatest number of highly exposed children. Two large and well-conducted studies published after the pooled analyses (Kabuto et al. 2006; SchĂĽz et al. 2001) lend further support to the results of the pooled analyses of an increased risk from high average levels of magnetic field exposure.
It is also incorrect to characterize the evidence as "some have found a small association . . . while others have not . . . ." First of all, the association is not small, but is comparable or larger than that for all other factors considered by Belson et al. (2007). Second, the evidence is consistent across different continents, study types, measurement methods, and other factors. Of course, there are potential sources of bias, in particular selection bias. However, thorough investigations of these potential biases have rendered it unlikely that they can completely explain the association. Up to now, there is no other risk factor of childhood leukemia that has been as comprehensively studied concerning possible biases and confounding factors.
It is high time that exposure to power frequency EMFs is recognized as a potential risk factor for childhood leukemia and is properly included in the protocols of cluster studies and in epidemiologic studies of other risk factors as a potential confounder.
The author declares he has no competing financial interests.
Ahlbom A, Day N, Feychting M, Roman E, Skinner, J, Dockerty J, et al. 2000. A pooled analysis of magnetic fields and childhood leukaemia. Br J Cancer 83: 692–698.
Belson M, Kingsley B, Holmes A. 2007. Risk factors for acute leukemia in children: a review. Environ Health Perspect 115:138–145; doi:10.1289/ehp.9023 [Online 30 November 2006].
Greenland S, Sheppard AR, Kaune WT, Poole C, Kelsh MA. 2000. A pooled analysis of magnetic fields, wire codes, and childhood leukemia, Childhood-EMF Study Group. Epidemiology 11:624–634.
IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer). 2002. Non-ionizing radiation, part 1: Static and extremely low-frequency (ELF) electric and magnetic fields. IARC Monogr Eval Carcinog Risks Hum 80:1–395.
Kabuto M, Nitta H, Yamamoto S, Yamaguchi N, Akiba S, Honda Y, et al. 2006. Childhood leukemia and magnetic fields in Japan: a case-control study of childhood leukemia and residential power-frequency magnetic fields in Japan. Int J Cancer 119: 643–650.
Linet MS, Hatch EE, Kleinerman RA, Robison LL, Kaune WT, Friedman DR, et al. 1997. Residential exposure to magnetic fields and acute lymphoblastic leukemia in children. N Engl J Med 337:1–7.
Myers A, Clayden A, Cartwright RA, Cartwright SC. 1990. Childhood cancer and overhead powerlines: a case-control study. Br J Cancer 62:1008–1014.
NIEHS. 1998. Assessment of Health Effects from Exposure to Power-Line Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields (Portier C, Wolfe M, eds). NIH publication no. 98-3981. Available: http://www.niehs.nih.gov/emfrapid/html/WGReport/WorkingGroup.html [accessed 9 July 2007].
Rubin CS, Holmes AK, Belson MG, Jones RL, Flanders WD, Kieszak SM, et al. 2007. Investigating childhood leukemia in Churchill County, Nevada. Environ Health Perspect 115:151–157; doi:10.1289/ehp.9022 [Online 30 November 2006].
Schüz J, Grigat J-P, Brinkmann K, Michaelis J. 2001. Residential magnetic fields as a risk factor for childhood acute leukaemia: results from a German population-based case-control study. Int J Cancer 91: 728–735.
Editor's note: In accordance with journal policy, Belson et al. were asked whether they wanted to respond to this letter, but they chose not to do so.
I read with interest the recent review by Belson et al. (2007) on childhood leukemia, particularly the sections dealing with radiation exposure. Like the authors, I believe that ionizing radiation is strongly associated with childhood acute leukemia. I would like to point out that several critical pieces of information were overlooked; these support stronger and more meaningful conclusions.
Although atomic bomb survivors offer the clearest evidence of leukemia risk after childhood exposures to ionizing radiation, studies of children exposed to fallout in other contexts should not be downplayed. Belson et al. (2007) stated that "radiation exposure secondary to the Chernobyl accident has not been shown to increase the risk of leukemia in children who were exposed after birth . . . ," but they failed to mention the case–control study of Noshchenko et al. (2002), which found significant increases in childhood and acute leukemias in association with estimated childhood exposures. Children living downwind of the Nevada Test Site have also shown a significant increase in leukemia related to estimated fallout exposure (Stevens et al. 1990).
In utero exposure to ionizing radiation has been a known causal factor for childhood cancer for > 50 years. Although Belson et al. (2007) stated that the lack of evidence for a childhood leukemia risk among atomic bomb survivors constitutes the "most notable reason for doubt of a true association," they overlooked the reviews of Wakeford and Little (2002, 2003); these authors demonstrated that the highly uncertain atomic bomb survivor data are statistically compatible with the robust set of data found in the Oxford Survey of Childhood Cancers and related X-ray exposure cohorts. There is no valid reason to doubt this association at present.
The association between preconception paternal irradiation (PPI) and childhood leukemia has always been controversial. Two of the major objections to the "Gardner hypothesis," as Belson et al. (2007) pointed out, have been mixed evidence from studies of radiation-exposed fathers and a lack of positive evidence in the children of the atomic bomb survivors. Regarding the first objection, Belson et al. overlooked the two largest studies of the children of radiation workers. Draper et al. (1997) conducted a UK-wide case–control study of childhood cancers in relation to paternal radiation exposure. This study showed, based on > 13,000 cases not included in the study of Gardner et al. (1990), that children with leukemia or non-Hodgkin lymphoma were significantly more likely than controls to have fathers who were radiation workers. Dickinson and Parker (2002) conducted a cohort study of > 250,000 births in Cumbria, England, including the cases of Gardner et al. (1990), and found a significant 2-fold increase in the risk of leukemia and non-Hodgkin lymphoma among the children of radiation workers. These and other studies, taken together, give statistical support to the idea that paternal radiation work is a risk factor for childhood leukemia.
When interpreting the evidence for a PPI effect in atomic bomb survivors, it is important to consider what is known about potential mechanisms. As reviewed by Niwa (2003), Nomura (2003), and others, animal studies have consistently demonstrated that PPI can cause or increase the susceptibility to leukemia in offspring. In addition to fascinating evidence of postconception genomic instability after preconception exposure, many studies suggest that there may a window of sensitivity corresponding to postmeiotic stages of spermatogenesis; in humans, this would mean the few months leading up to conception (Adler 1996). Of the roughly 30,000 children of atomic bomb survivors, only about 2% were conceived in the 6 months after the bombings. Based on the spontaneous leukemia rate reported by Yoshimoto (1990), the expected number of spontaneous cases in this subcohort would be < 1, and an excess on the order suggested by the radiation worker studies would not be statistically apparent. For this and other reasons, the atomic bomb survivors may not be an appropriate comparison group.
To summarize, it is not unreasonable to observe that the weight of evidence generated to date supports the idea that preconception, prenatal, and postnatal exposures to ionizing radiation are all risk factors for childhood leukemia.
The author declares he has no competing financial interests.
Adler ID. 1996. Comparison of the duration of spermatogenesis between male rodents and humans. Mutat Res 352(1-2):169–172.
Belson M, Kingsley B, Holmes A. 2007. Risk factors for acute leukemia in children: a review. Environ Health Perspect 115:138–145.
Dickinson HO, Parker L. 2002. Leukemia and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in children of male Sellafield radiation workers. Int J Cancer 99:437–444.
Draper GJ, Little MP, Sorahan T, Kinlen LJ, Bunch KJ, Conquest AJ, et al. 1997. Cancer in the offspring of radiation workers: a record linkage study. BMJ 315(7117): 1181–1188.
Gardner MJ, Snee MP, Hall AJ, Powell CA, Downes S, Terrell JD. 1990. Results of case-control study of leukemia and lymphoma among young people near Sellafield nuclear plant in West Cumbria. BMJ 300:423–429.
Niwa O. 2003. Induced genomic instability in irradiated germ cells and in the offspring: reconciling discrepancies among the human and animal studies. Oncogene 22: 7078–7086.
Nomura T. 2003. Transgenerational carcinogenesis: induction and transmission of genetic alterations and mechanisms of carcinogenesis. Mutat Res 544(2-3):425–432.
Noshchenko AG, Zamostyan PV, Bondar OY, Drozdova VD. 2002. Radiation-induced leukemia risk among those aged 0-20 at the time of the Chernobyl accident: a case-control study in the Ukraine. Int J Cancer 99(4):609–618.
Stevens W, Thomas DC, Lyon JL, Till JE, Kerber RA, Simon SL, et al. 1990. Leukemia in Utah and radioactive fallout from the Nevada test site. A case-control study. JAMA 264(5):585–591.
Wakeford R, Little MP. 2002. Childhood cancer after low-level intrauterine exposure to radiation. J Radiol Prot 22(3A):A123–A127.
Wakeford R, Little MP. 2003. Risk coefficients for childhood cancer after intrauterine irradiation: a review. Int J Radiat Biol 79(5):293–309.
Yoshimoto Y, Neel JV, Schull WJ, Kato H, Soda M, Eto R, et al. 1990. Malignant tumors during the first 2 decades of life in the offspring of atomic bomb survivors. Am J Hum Genet 46(6):1041–1052.
Editor's note: In accordance with journal policy, Belson et al. were asked whether they wanted to respond to this letter, but they chose not to do so.
Air pollution from smoke and various chemicals kills 3 million people a year. In the United States alone about 3 million tons of toxic chemicals are released into the environment -- contributing to cancer, birth defects, immune system defects and many other serious health problems.
by Susan Lang Cornell NY (SPX) Aug 16, 2007
About 40 percent of deaths worldwide are caused by water, air and soil pollution, concludes a Cornell researcher. Such environmental degradation, coupled with the growth in world population, are major causes behind the rapid increase in human diseases, which the World Health Organization has recently reported. Both factors contribute to the malnourishment and disease susceptibility of 3.7 billion people, he says.
David Pimentel, Cornell professor of ecology and agricultural sciences, and a team of Cornell graduate students examined data from more than 120 published papers on the effects of population growth, malnutrition and various kinds of environmental degradation on human diseases. Their report is published in the online version of the journal Human Ecology (available here to be published in the December print issue).
"We have serious environmental resource problems of water, land and energy, and these are now coming to bear on food production, malnutrition and the incidence of diseases," said Pimentel.
Of the world population of about 6.5 billion, 57 percent is malnourished, compared with 20 percent of a world population of 2.5 billion in 1950, said Pimentel. Malnutrition is not only the direct cause of 6 million children's deaths each year but also makes millions of people much more susceptible to such killers as acute respiratory infections, malaria and a host of other life-threatening diseases, according to the research.
Among the study's other main points:
- Nearly half the world's people are crowded into urban areas, often without adequate sanitation, and are exposed to epidemics of such diseases as measles and flu.
- With 1.2 billion people lacking clean water, waterborne infections account for 80 percent of all infectious diseases. Increased water pollution creates breeding grounds for malaria-carrying mosquitoes, killing 1.2 million to 2.7 million people a year, and air pollution kills about 3 million people a year. Unsanitary living conditions account for more than 5 million deaths each year, of which more than half are children.
- Air pollution from smoke and various chemicals kills 3 million people a year. In the United States alone about 3 million tons of toxic chemicals are released into the environment -- contributing to cancer, birth defects, immune system defects and many other serious health problems.
- Soil is contaminated by many chemicals and pathogens, which are passed on to humans through direct contact or via food and water. Increased soil erosion worldwide not only results in more soil being blown but spreading of disease microbes and various toxins.
- At the same time, more microbes are becoming increasingly drug-resistant. And global warming, together with changes in biological diversity, influence parasite evolution and the ability of exotic species to invade new areas. As a result, such diseases as tuberculosis and influenza are re-emerging as major threats, while new threats -- including West Nile virus and Lyme disease -- have developed.
"A growing number of people lack basic needs, like pure water and ample food. They become more susceptible to diseases driven by malnourishment, and air, water and soil pollutants," Pimentel concludes. He and his co-authors call for comprehensive and fair population policies and more conservation of environmental resources that support human life.
"Relying on increasing diseases and malnutrition to limit human numbers in the world diminishes the quality of life for all humans and is a high-risk policy," the researchers conclude.
Subject: [ChildhoodCancerTheCause] Looking for someone who wants to talk - Documentary Film
Hello,
I work for a non-profit documentary group that is currently producing a film, which in part examines how people's health is effected by campaign contributions to our politicians. We are looking at how regulatory policy (such as pesticide regulation) is effected by campaign contributions to our elected representatives. We believe that the current regulatory policy in place is not sufficient to protect our loved ones from the onslaught of environmental contaminants that are present in our lives. Our film is exploring why it is so hard for our politicians to respond to the latest science. We have been speaking with a number of renowned scientist who believe that there is a very strong connection between home, garden, and agricultural pesticides and many forms of childhood cancer including leukemia, brain tumors, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, Wilms tumor, Ewing's sarcoma and soft tissue sarcoma. Our staff has all been touched by this serious disease and we are hoping to meet with others that have been effected and have something to say about the experience. Please let us know if you would be interested in talking with us.
Hello,
I work for a non-profit documentary group that is currently
producing a film, which in part examines how people's health is
effected by campaign contributions to our politicians. We are looking
at how regulatory policy (such as pesticide regulation) is effected by
campaign contributions to our elected representatives. We believe that
the current regulatory policy in place is not sufficient to protect
our loved ones from the onslaught of environmental contaminants that
are present in our lives. Our film is exploring why it is so hard for
our politicians to respond to the latest science. We have been
speaking with a number of renowned scientist who believe that there is
a very strong connection between home, garden, and agricultural
pesticides and many forms of childhood cancer including leukemia,
brain tumors, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, Wilms tumor, Ewing's sarcoma and
soft tissue sarcoma. Our staff has all been touched by this serious
disease and we are hoping to meet with others that have been effected
and have something to say about the experience. Please let us know if
you would be interested in talking with us.
Thanks,
Byron Palmer
I could not see the attached template. I change my membership to get
individual messages but could you send it to me? I live in Long
Beach, CA and my son is currently in treatment for Embryonal
Rhabdomyosarcoma that was in his right forearm and there is also a
boy who lives about 10 blocks from me being treated for Aveolar
Rhabdomyosarcoma of the right forearm.
Michelle
--- In ChildhoodCancerTheCause@yahoogroups.com, Hope4Kids2@... wrote:
>
> Members Please welcome our newest member from India
> reachsharma2000@...
> Thanks for joining us, Bill Heavens,
Hope4Kids2,Childhoodcancerthecause
> Owner
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> **************************************
> See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
>
>
> Hello,
>
> The following person would like to join the ChildhoodCancerTheCause
group:
> Email address: reachsharma2000 <reachsharma2000@...>
>
> Comment from user:
> My father was operated for brain cancer last year
>
> This membership request requires your approval because the
> ChildhoodCancerTheCause group is restricted, which means you must
> approve each new member.
>
> To approve or reject this pending membership using the web,
> please go here:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ChildhoodCancerTheCause/members?
group=pending
>
> To approve this membership using email, reply to this message.
>
> To reject this membership using email, forward this message to
>
> ChildhoodCancerTheCause-rejectsub-
dWC68pR441rPlK4LtudoPTE@yahoogroups.com
>
> NOTE: This membership request will expire after 14 days. If you do
> not take action within that time, this membership request will be
> automatically rejected. Yahoo! Groups does this to maintain a high
> quality of service for our users.
>
> Thank you for choosing Yahoo! Groups.
>
> Regards,
>
> Yahoo! Groups Customer Care
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
Hi All,
Hope this early summertime finds you all well and wonderful!
I would like to introduce my friend Deirdre she has been working to help our efforts, she is a Physicians Assistant and works at a clinic in Folsom CA. She is compiling a list of all clusters dating back to Love Canal-she gathered some good information on the Wikapediaweb site. Paul and I were talking yesterday and he recalled about 4 months ago on the cluster advocate site there was a list can you give us the date it. The clusters we are including are not just termed "bona fide" from the agency perspective we are also gathering data on all anomalies where health concerns have been raised. I don't know of a database in existence but that is not saying there is not one. I figured when you have a question take it to the expert! The question is there such a compilation of cluster  that any of you know of? If so could you contact Deirdre via email with any and all information regarding the anomalies that you know of including your own. I have attached the beginning template and would really appreciate any input on other important aspects you all feel would be useful to add to the list. Deirdre's email address is deirdrebodenhamer@sbcglobal.net
On another note; I just had a trip to DC where I participated in The Healthier America Summit it had an incredible group of participants who I was able to network with. I also met Boxer, Feinstein and Reids offices. Then I participated in a pre-scheduled meeting with Trust for America's Health and with Clinton's staff re: health tracking. I had recently put together a brochure when I gave it to her aid I was explaining the urgent need to respond to disease clusters in communities she said" Great! there is such a need for your organization and we will help in any way we can!"Â
Â
I have also been working with Charlie Smith which Floyd had connected us and we are getting together mid next month to discuss doing hearings in DC on childhood cancer clusters and clusters in general. She has a good relationship with Boxer's office. More info to come on this as it develops and would love to have you all participate if your interested :)
Â
Take good care and have a great summer!
Peace Blessings,
Dee
A small group of thoughtful people could change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.
Margaret Mead
You can make anything happen, just dream it!
Dee Lewis
916-956-7653
Peace Blessings,
Dee
A small group of thoughtful people could change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.
Margaret Mead
You can make anything happen, just dream it!
Dee Lewis
916-956-7653
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.
Members Please welcome our newest member from India reachsharma2000@...
Thanks for joining us, Bill Heavens, Hope4Kids2,Childhoodcancerthecause Owner
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
Hello,
The following person would like to join the ChildhoodCancerTheCause group:
Email address: reachsharma2000 <reachsharma2000@...>
Comment from user:
My father was operated for brain cancer last year
This membership request requires your approval because the
ChildhoodCancerTheCause group is restricted, which means you must
approve each new member.
To approve or reject this pending membership using the web,
please go here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ChildhoodCancerTheCause/members?group=pending
To approve this membership using email, reply to this message.
To reject this membership using email, forward this message to
ChildhoodCancerTheCause-rejectsub-dWC68pR441rPlK4LtudoPTE@yahoogroups.com
NOTE: This membership request will expire after 14 days. If you do
not take action within that time, this membership request will be
automatically rejected. Yahoo! Groups does this to maintain a high
quality of service for our users.
Thank you for choosing Yahoo! Groups.
Regards,
Yahoo! Groups Customer Care
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Members Please Welcome New Member Byron@...
Bill Heavens
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
Hello,
The following person would like to join the ChildhoodCancerTheCause group:
Email address: byrondavidpalmer <byron@...>
Comment from user:
I work for a documentary group that is producing a film, which is
looking into causes of cancer. We hope to place a post for your group
and readership about our project? Thank you! Habitatmedia.org
This membership request requires your approval because the
ChildhoodCancerTheCause group is restricted, which means you must
approve each new member.
To approve or reject this pending membership using the web,
please go here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ChildhoodCancerTheCause/members?group=pending
To approve this membership using email, reply to this message.
To reject this membership using email, forward this message to
ChildhoodCancerTheCause-rejectsub-yRt0LSnDW9Yz6pFk=mxeL1g@yahoogroups.com
NOTE: This membership request will expire after 14 days. If you do
not take action within that time, this membership request will be
automatically rejected. Yahoo! Groups does this to maintain a high
quality of service for our users.
Thank you for choosing Yahoo! Groups.
Regards,
Yahoo! Groups Customer Care
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
PennFuture, Sierra Club, Earthjustice Sue Feds to Eliminate Loophole Allowing Cancer-Causing Chemical to be Released Unchecked
Pennsylvania DEP Urged to Take Immediate Action
July 2, 2007
COLLEGEVILLE, Pa.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Citizens for Pennsylvania’s Future (PennFuture) and the Sierra Club, represented by Earthjustice, filed a lawsuit today in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit challenging the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) refusal to reduce cancer risks in Collegeville and throughout the nation resulting from the use of highly toxic industrial solvents, including perchloroethylene (perc) and trichloroethylene (TCE).
According to the EPA, TCE exposure is associated with several types of cancer in humans. Breathing TCE can also cause non-cancer health effects ranging from headaches to liver damage. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) found that TCE levels in the air in the Collegeville area are significantly higher than elsewhere in the state and put Collegeville and other Montgomery County residents at a higher risk of cancer. DEP has identified the sources of the TCE as Superior Tube and Accellent, the fourth and fifth biggest TCE polluters in the nation.
The Lord has told you what is good. He has told you what he wants from you: Do what is right to other people. Love being kind to others. And live humbly, trusting your God. - Micah 6:8 - The International Children's Bible
State studies radioactivity questions. In December, when Orange County Register reporter John Gittelsohn asked for documents detailing plans to clean up radioactive waste at a pharmaceutical lab, the state Department of Health Services refused. Orange County Register, California. 29 June 2007.
Scientists urge action against prenatal and early infancy exposures
A scientific consensus statement targets pervasive chemicals.
Faced with a cumulative body of evidence that links serious health problems with prenatal and early infancy exposures to various chemicals, an international assembly of scientists, doctors, and researchers says it’s time to take action.
The public proclamation came at the end of a conference held May 20–24 in the Faroe Islands located in northern Europe between the Norwegian Sea and the North Atlantic Ocean. The multidisciplinary support of the “Faroes Statement” from nearly 200 people from five continents—including toxicologists, biologists, chemists, epidemiologists, nutritionists, pediatricians, and environmental health specialists—adds considerable weight to several decades of diverse science on the effect of pollutants at these early stages of development.
Dolinoy et al.
Fetal exposure of mice to nutrient supplements (genistein or various combinations of vitamin B12, folic acid, choline, and betaine) contributed to epigenetically induced changes, such as obesity in the larger mice and variable fur color. Image from Dolinoy et al. (Environ. Health Perspect.2006, 114 [4], 567–572).
The statement refers to the growing number of substances that affect developing embryos and infants, including the pesticides DDT, atrazine, methoxychlor, and vinclozolin. Other suspects include the plastics and epoxy resin ingredient bisphenol A, plasticizing agents called phthalates, and the drug diethylstilbestrol, once used to prevent miscarriages and other pregnancy problems, as well as mercury, lead, arsenic, organotins, PCBs, carbon monoxide, fine particulates, tobacco smoke, and alcohol.
“Until now, it’s been difficult to know if there’s a consensus on the issue,” says Bruce Lanphear, a pediatrics professor at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center who attended the conference.
The declaration highlights the results of many studies of humans, laboratory animals, or both. Public-health officials are concerned about early exposures, even at very low concentrations, to certain chemicals that might be linked to major health problems later in life. These afflictions include cancer; diabetes; obesity; and impaired immune, reproductive, cardiovascular, neurological, endocrine, and respiratory systems.
The statement also shines a light on the relatively new field of epigenetics, which finds that numerous heritable changes occur through alterations of a gene’s function and not just changes in its structure. Research in epigenetics by Michael Skinner, director of the Center for Reproductive Biology at Washington State University, and his colleagues has found that disorders—for example, breast tumors, kidney disease, and immune abnormalities—caused by prenatal exposure in rats to the fungicide vinclozolin can extend through at least four generations even without direct exposure to the fungicide by subsequent generations (Endocrinology2006, 147 [12], 5515–5523; 5524–5541).
Skinner and his team have also found in a published study (Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.2007, 104 [14], 5942–5946) that females at least three generations removed from the brief initial exposure preferred males who were not exposed, suggesting implications for mate selection and evolution.
The declaration calls for governments to make changes in policies and regulations to help prevent exposures; improve and expand baseline testing to assess human exposures and environmental occurrences; and conduct more research on topics such as disease processes, mechanisms, exposure timing, effects of chemical mixtures, and nonchemical influences, such as socioeconomic factors.
The statement was developed by a 28-person international committee before the conference, but it wasn’t officially signed by any group. Still, the sponsors of the meeting included the World Health Organization (WHO); the European Environment Agency; the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); and the National Institutes of Health and two of its members, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) and the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD).
WHO already has begun to circulate the declaration among organizations it works with, says Philippe Grandjean, co-chair of the conference, who holds positions at the University of Southern Denmark and the Harvard School of Public Health.
The architects of the U.S. National Children’s Study (NCS) say they will consider the statement. The study, scheduled to begin in mid-2008 and funded by NICHD, NIEHS, CDC, and the U.S. EPA, is being designed to provide long-term and case-control studies of 100,000 children from preconception to age 21 for a wide range of health issues. Sarah Keim, NCS coordinator, says, “We will always update our plans to reflect the latest thinking and hope to answer a lot of the questions that were raised.”
Yet, incorporating the information addressed by the proclamation into policies and regulations is likely to be a slow, incremental process, Lanphear says. In Europe, new chemical regulations known as REACH (the Registration, Evaluation, and Authorisation of Chemicals), which went into effect on June 1, address prenatal and early infancy exposures in only a limited way, Grandjean says. However, he says it’s possible that the European Parliament may consider this issue as it works through its reauthorization of pesticides.
The Lord has told you what is good. He has told you what he wants from you: Do what is right to other people. Love being kind to others. And live humbly, trusting your God. - Micah 6:8 - The International Children's Bible