On inquiring ideas of epidemic proportions...

Add To Favorites for IE, Otherwise CTRL-D Print this Page Blog This!
 
Epidemiologic.org site

Recent Posts



Useful Links


Wednesday, March 19, 2008

Nominations for Society for Epidemiology Research (SER)-Student Caucus 2008-2009

Dear students, post-docs, fellows, trainees and interns:

The Society for Epidemiology Research (SER)-Student Caucus is a student organization and student-initiated program focused on opening new possibilities for addressing student members' professional needs.

The SER-Student Caucus is gearing up to begin its fifth year and is now accepting nominations for officers and chair/co-chair positions for the Executive Council of 2008-2009 year. If you are a student member of SER or interested in becoming a member and would like to nominate yourself for a leadership position in the SER-Student Caucus, please visit http://www.epiresearch.org/students/08nominations.html for position descriptions, procedures for self-nomination and election timeline. The self-nomination involves a brief personal statement (250 words) and will be accepted until *next Sunday, March 23, 2008*

The SER-Student Caucus is currently accepting nominations for the following positions:
• President Elect
• Secretary
• Membership/Nominations Committee Chair(s)
• Program Committee Chair(s)
• Abstracts Committee Chair/Treasurer

Holders of these positions, officers and chairs, will constitute the SER-SC Executive Council. These positions will be in effect for the June 2008-June 2009.

We hope you will consider serving in the SER-Student Caucus executive council this upcoming year! If you have any questions, please email Simone at spinheir@hsph.harvard.edu.

With our best regards,

SER-Student Caucus Executive Council

If you are interested in learning more about SER-SC, please visit http://www.epiresearch.org/students/index.html

If you would like to receive email notifications about SER-SC programs, opportunities and events, please sign up for our listserv at http://www.epiresearch.org/students/listserv.html

If you would like to become a student member of SER, please visit http://www.epiresearch.org/renew/memberform.html

Discuss this article in Epidemiology Forum


 
Web Search 'Epidemiologic Inquiry' Archives

Bookmark webpage:
Add to Technorati Favorites google google | yahoo yahoo | del.icio.us Digg!digg reddit



Thursday, February 14, 2008

New public health certification credentialing exam offered in August 2008 by National Board of Public Health Examiners

For several years, the APHA (American Public Health Association) and the ASPH (Association of Schools of Public Health) have considered the issue of credentialing the public health workforce. The goal of those involved in this effort is to set a standard for those in the practice of public health.

A National Board of Public Health Examiners (NBPHE), an independent entity governed by a board of representatives from a diverse range of public health practice and academic organizations, has been working for the past two years to develop a certification exam for public health professionals. This examination will be offered for the first time in August 2008. The examination, which will consist of 200 multiple choice questions, is based on testing your knowledge of core and cross-cutting competencies in public health that were developed by the ASPH. A copy of those competencies can be found on the ASPH website at http://asph.org/document.cfm?page=851. Individuals who pass the examination will receive the new public health credential of CPH (Certified in Public Health).

Registration for the first examination is occurring right now, and will continue until April 30, 2008. Registration for the exam is open now through April 30, 2008. The registration fee is $400. Please visit the NBPHE website http://www.publichealthexam.org to learn more about the exam and http://www.asph.org/cphstudyguide to learn more about the study guide.

However, since the examination is new, it is unclear at this time how public health employers will value the CPH credential. The examination is still in the process of being developed. There are no plans to beta test the examination before it is offered for the first time, so those taking it in August 2008 will be the first group to experience the test. If you are considering taking the examination, we strongly encourage you to learn more from the websites above.

Reader thoughts and comments are welcome.

Discuss this article in Epidemiology Forum


 
Web Search 'Epidemiologic Inquiry' Archives

Bookmark webpage:
Add to Technorati Favorites google google | yahoo yahoo | del.icio.us Digg!digg reddit



Abstract Submission 2008: American College of Epidemiology annual meeting. "Dawn of Evolutionary Epidemiology"

The American College of Epidemiology is pleased to announce the launching of a web portal for electronic submission of abstracts for the 2008 annual meeting. The annual meeting will be held at The Westin LaPaloma Resort & Spa, Tucson, AZ from September 14-16, 2008. This year's meeting theme is "Dawn of Evolutionary Epidemiology: Applying evolutionary theory in an epidemiologic context."

The Publications Committee of the American College of Epidemiology is sponsoring five student travel awards, and four general poster awards, that will be selected based on scientific merit of the abstracts submitted for presentation at the annual meeting.

So hurry up! log on to http://ees.elsevier.com/ace/ and submit your abstracts ELECTRONICALLY now. You can submit as many as TWO abstracts as a FIRST AUTHOR. There is no limit on submitting number of abstracts as a second or higher author. Be a part of an exciting gathering of epidemiologists.

Abstracts must be received online by April 1, 2008.

Form more information email info@acepidemiology.org or visit www.acepidemiology2.org

Discuss this article in Epidemiology Forum


 
Web Search 'Epidemiologic Inquiry' Archives

Bookmark webpage:
Add to Technorati Favorites google google | yahoo yahoo | del.icio.us Digg!digg reddit



Monday, January 28, 2008

Science Education in America: NIH Director Elias Zerhouni

The following is profound essay by NIH Director Elias Zerhouni on addressing science education in America... its worth 2 minutes to read...





===============================================



"You may have read the recent news stories about the disappointing performance of U.S. students on an international science and math exam.1 The future of biomedical research and the health of this nation both hinge on getting young people excited about science and health. Unfortunately, too many of them are leaving school without the analytical skills they need to be successful in today’s economy, much less to become competitive researchers. Here at NIH, we are taking a multifaceted approach to engaging students from diverse populations in science and inspiring some of them to choose careers in research. However, there is only so much that we can do from Bethesda. Our best hope for making a broad impact on the children of this nation would be to have a grassroots movement of scientists across the country, rallying for improved science education in their own communities.



At the end of this Desk-to-Desk, I will suggest ways that you might use the tools developed at NIH to partner with local teachers and officials, and help revitalize American science education. I hope that many of you rise to this challenge. If those of us already passionate about science don’t carry the torch, who will?



Our Children's Science Education: What You Should Know
Science education has been a concern in this country since the launch of Sputnik in 1957. Seeing our biggest adversary beat us into space lit a fire under American policy makers, educators, and the public. However, as detailed in books such as Thomas Friedman's The World Is Flat and the National Academy of Science's Rising Above the Gathering Storm, that fire desperately needs to be rekindled. 2, 3 American leadership in science and technology is once again at risk.



The performance of U.S. students is behind most other rich nations in the world—and quite a few that aren't rich. A 2003 study by the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) compared the problem-solving abilities of 15-year-old students from 40 nations around the world. (See the graph below.) The U.S. placed 29th. More than half of our children scored in the range that suggests they will have serious difficulties as they enter the workforce or even try to face the normal challenges of adulthood. American students were less than half as likely as students in the top-performing nations to achieve the highest level of problem-solving performance. (For more about the PISA and other education assessments, please see Appendix I in the new guide Scientists in Science Education. (PDF - 308 KB)

I believe that we scientists can agree that this is not what we want for our children, for our nation, or for the future of our field.





Figure from Problem Solving for Tomorrow's World. Countries are ranked in descending order of percentage of 15-year-olds at the two highest levels of proficiency (Levels 2 and 3, above the 0 line). Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) member nations are depicted with a black font and non-members with a colored font. A larger version of this graph is available at the Web site http://science.education.nih.gov/pisa. The entire report can be downloaded at the Web site http://www.oecd.org/document/54/0,3343,en_32252351_32236173_34002550_1_1_1_1,00.html.




Science Isn't Just for Scientists!
Obviously, the next generation of biomedical researchers needs to be taught science, but why worry about everyone else? There are a few good reasons. Economists have estimated that as much as half of the post-World War II growth in GDP in the U.S. is attributable to technological progress that resulted from research and development. The world economy is changing, and with it, the skills that will be demanded in the promising jobs and the productive workforce of tomorrow. The international competition for a greater share of the wealth is heating up.4 It is important for our citizens to understand more math and science than they ever have in the past, if we dream of continuing the American tradition of leadership.

Labor economists are now warning that more than half of our children may leave school without the skills they need to enter the middle class.5 Business reports such as Building a Nation of Learners and Tapping America's Potential are suggesting that many companies are having increasingly difficult times finding the employees with the critical-thinking, problem-solving, and communications skills they need to do their jobs. 6, 7 A rigorous education in math and science can help prepare all students for good jobs, even those who will never wear a white lab coat. I encourage each of you to familiarize yourself with the National Academy of Science's recent report Rising Above the Gathering Storm, which discusses many of these issues.3

Science Literacy and the Burden of Illness
Improving science education may improve not only a child's economic prospects, but his or her health status as well. Children who learn about health and the science that underpins it will be better equipped to make smart choices—about diets and exercise, about smoking and drugs, and about choosing lifestyles that will help keep them mentally and physically fit. They will grow into adults better able to pick the insurance plans and choose the treatment plans that best suit their needs and the needs of their families. Better science education is one key to a more participatory style of healthcare, which will engage individuals and communities in building a healthier society, understanding and minimizing health disparities, and reducing the suffering and costs associated with chronic disease for all Americans. We are working on this with our sister agencies in HHS and will be announcing some bold, new initiatives soon.


Promoting Science, Health, and Science Education: NIH Curriculum Supplements
To many laypeople, science and technology are essentially one and the same. Many don't understand that science isn't about the high-tech devices we use or even what we choose to study. It is a way of knowing. It is a method of making sense of our world and of our universe. Science builds models of what is and tests hypotheses about what will be. At NIH, we use the tools of science to investigate human health and disease, and to improve the human condition. But we also recognize that the same thought processes we use can also propel our society, culture, and economy, making a brighter future for our children and our children's children.
Therefore, although we focus our primary efforts on efficiently finding and funding the best research today and work to ensure the health of the scientific enterprise of tomorrow, we also make strategic investments in broader K-12 science education. An excellent example is the NIH Curriculum Supplement Series-16 free, interactive modules for elementary, middle, and high schools that combine the latest science from our institutes and centers with state-of-the-art instructional approaches. The supplements are available free to educators at the Web site http://science.education.nih.gov/supplements. The supplements have been aligned to state and national science education standards so that teachers can fulfill their requirements, as they introduce students to the science surrounding important human health problems. More than 300,000 supplements have been distributed to date, each in response to a request from an educator. (Take a look at a map illustrating how the NIH curriculum supplement requests correspond to population density across the U.S. at this Web site http://science.education.nih.gov/map.) While we are thrilled by the broad interest, we would love to see them in even wider use. There is always an "activation energy" required when trying something new, and even good teachers can be intimidated by working state-of-the-art science into their curriculum for the first time—especially in urban and rural environments where the appropriate tools and support may not be as readily available. That is where we hope you can help!

What Can You Do to Help?
Take a few minutes to explore the demonstration page we created for the NIH Curriculum Supplements, http://science.education.nih.gov/demos. It features one supplement for elementary school, one for middle school, and two for high school. Each will take you no more than 5 to 10 minutes and will show you how different the approach of the supplements is from what you probably experienced in grades K-12. If you like the samples, tell your child's science teacher or school principal about the free NIH Curriculum Supplements Series and how well the lessons portray the scientific process. Better yet, find the supplement that is closest to your research. Offer to assist the teacher with that supplement by giving a demonstration related to one of the activities or serving as the teacher's "personal science resource" while he/she works through the lesson plans.

Read over the new guide Scientists in Science Education. The guide was written by scientists and educators to help you—whether you are considering devoting an hour to a local "career day" or a hundred hours to reviewing your state's science education standards. It has some simple suggestions for making the most of your time. It includes some references if you would like a deeper understanding of the performance of U.S. students, the importance of "inquiry" in modern science education, the roles of national and state science education standards, and the No Child Left Behind Act.

Thank you for all you are doing to advance medical science today and to ensure the vitality of the American scientific enterprise in the years to come. Please let me know if you have any comments on this Desk-to-Desk or on NIH's science education efforts. I am especially interested in hearing about your own experiences in promoting science education in your community—using the NIH curriculum supplements or however else you choose to get involved.
Please contact Bruce Fuchs, director of the NIH Office of Science Education, if you have questions about our science education efforts or if you need help with the science education projects you are considering (bruce.fuchs@nih.gov).


We look forward to hearing from you soon.

I invite you to share any comments you have with me, directly, at zerhounidirect@nih.gov.
Elias A. Zerhouni, M.D., Director National Institutes of Health For information about NIH programs, useful health information, and additional resources, see the NIH web site at http://www.nih.gov/. "



An archive of the Director's Newsletter is available at http://www.nih.gov/about/director/newsletter/archive.htm.

1. Gold, M. U.S. Teens Trail Peers Around World on Math-Science Test. Washington Post, Dec. 5, 2007: A07.2. Friedman, T.L. The World Is Flat. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2006.3. National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine. Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, 2007. Available at http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11463.html#orgs.4. Domestic Policy Council (White House Office of Science and Technology Policy). American Competitiveness Initiative. February 2006. Available at http://www.ostp.gov/html/ACIBooklet.pdf.(PDF - 7.53 MB)5. Murnane, R.J., and F. Levy. Teaching the New Basic Skills: Principles for Educating Children to Thrive in a Changing Economy. New York: The Free Press, 1996.6. Business-Higher Education Forum. Building a Nation of Learners: The Need for Changes in Teaching and Learning to Meet Global Challenges, 2003. Available at http://www.bhef.com/publications/2003_build_nation.pdf.(PDF - 546 KB)7. Business Roundtable (and 14 others). Tapping America's Potential: The Education for Innovation Initiative, 2005. Available at http://www.tap2015.org/about/TAP_report2.pdf (PDF - 136 KB).

Discuss this article in Epidemiology Forum


 
Web Search 'Epidemiologic Inquiry' Archives

Bookmark webpage:
Add to Technorati Favorites google google | yahoo yahoo | del.icio.us Digg!digg reddit



Friday, January 11, 2008

New Open-Access Publishing Rules by the NIH: Required PubMed Central Submission for All NIH-Funded Research

another victory today for open-access science and free information for mankind...

======================================
Enhancing Public Access to Archived Publications Resulting from NIH-Funded Research

Notice Number: NOT-OD-08-033

Key Dates
Release Date: January 11, 2008
Effective Date: April 7, 2008

Issued by
National Institutes of Health (NIH), (http://www.nih.gov/)
Department of Health and Human Services

Action
Notice; Revised Policy Statement

Summary

In accordance with Division G, Title II, Section 218 of PL 110-161 (Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 ), the NIH voluntary Public Access Policy (NOT-OD-05-022) is now mandatory. The law states:

The Director of the National Institutes of Health shall require that all investigators funded by the NIH submit or have submitted for them to the National Library of Medicine’s PubMed Central an electronic version of their final, peer-reviewed manuscripts upon acceptance for publication, to be made publicly available no later than 12 months after the official date of publication: Provided, That the NIH shall implement the public access policy in a manner consistent with copyright law.

Specifics

1. The NIH Public Access Policy applies to all peer-reviewed articles that arise, in whole or in part, from direct costs 1 funded by NIH, or from NIH staff, that are accepted for publication on or after April 7, 2008.

2. Institutions and investigators are responsible for ensuring that any publishing or copyright agreements concerning submitted articles fully comply with this Policy.

3. PubMed Central (PMC) is the NIH digital archive of full-text, peer-reviewed journal articles. Its content is publicly accessible and integrated with other databases (see: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/).

4. The final, peer-reviewed manuscript includes all graphics and supplemental materials that are associated with the article.

5. Beginning May 25, 2008, anyone submitting an application, proposal or progress report to the NIH must include the PMC or NIH Manuscript Submission reference number when citing applicable articles that arise from their NIH funded research. This policy includes applications submitted to the NIH for the May 25, 2008 due date and subsequent due dates.

Discuss this article in Epidemiology Forum


 
Web Search 'Epidemiologic Inquiry' Archives

Bookmark webpage:
Add to Technorati Favorites google google | yahoo yahoo | del.icio.us Digg!digg reddit



Sunday, December 09, 2007

Obituary of Epidemiology Legend: Brian MacMahon


Passing of Brian MacMahon, MD, MBChB, DPH, PhD

Brian MacMahon, chair of the Department of Epidemiology at Harvard School of Public Health for 31 years, passed away on December 5th, 2007 at the age of 84.

Brian was a giant in the field of cancer epidemiology and became particularly recognized for his work on breast cancer etiology. In 1970, he was the lead author on a renowned international collaborative study that detailed an association between risk of breast cancer and the age at which women gave birth to their first child. The findings provided new insight into the protective mechanisms of pregnancy and prompted broader thinking about the causes of breast cancer.

In 1960, Brian co-authored Epidemiologic Methods with Tom Pugh. This textbook became Epidemiology: Principles and Methods, which is widely recognized as a landmark epidemiology textbook in the U.S.

In addition to his cancer studies, Brian was well-known for his papers on pyloric stenosis in infants. This condition interferes with the ability to digest food. At a time when genes were the primary focus of research underlying pyloric stenosis, Brian’s research shed light on associated environmental factors.

In the 1940s, Brian attended the University of Birmingham, England, earning diplomas of the Royal Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons, as well as an MB, ChB, and DPH. From 1946 to 1948, he worked as a ship’s doctor in the English Merchant Navy. In 1952, he earned a PhD in social medicine from the University of Birmingham. The following year, he came to HSPH, achieving a master’s degree in epidemiology in 1953. Two years later, he obtained an MD with honors from the University of Birmingham.

Brian held appointments at the University of Birmingham and at the State University of New York, Downstate Medical Center, before accepting the position as head of the HSPH Department of Epidemiology in 1958. He served as the department’s leader until 1989, passing the mantle to Professor Dimitrios Trichopoulos.

In 1974, he was appointed Professor of Public Health at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, School of Public Health. In 1976, he was appointed Henry Pickering Walcott Professor of Epidemiology at HSPH. From 1977 to 1978, he served as Associate Dean for Academic Affairs at the School.

Brian received the National Divisional Distinguished Service Award from the American Cancer Society in 1971 and was elected to the Institute of Medicine in 1973. He was conferred the John Snow Award from the American Public Health Association in 1980, and he received the Charles S. Mott Prize from the General Motors Cancer Research Foundation in 1992. He received honorary doctorates from the University of Athens, the State University of New York, and the University of Birmingham, England.

A native of England, Brian became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 1962.

Discuss this article in Epidemiology Forum


 
Web Search 'Epidemiologic Inquiry' Archives

Bookmark webpage:
Add to Technorati Favorites google google | yahoo yahoo | del.icio.us Digg!digg reddit



Saturday, December 08, 2007

WHO- International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classifications of carcinogens (cancer causing agents)

Definitions of IARC classifications of carcinogens:


Group 1: The agent is carcinogenic to humans.
This category is used when there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in humans. Exceptionally, an agent may be placed in this category when evidence of carcinogenicity in humans is less than sufficient but there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals and strong evidence in exposed humans that the agent acts through a relevant mechanism of carcinogenicity.


Group 2.
This category includes agents for which, at one extreme, the degree of evidence of carcinogenicity in humans is almost sufficient, as well as those for which, at the other extreme, there are no human data but for which there is evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals. Agents are assigned to either Group 2A (probably carcinogenic to humans) or Group 2B (possibly carcinogenic to humans) on the basis of epidemiological and experimental evidence of carcinogenicity and mechanistic and other relevant data. The terms probably carcinogenic and possibly carcinogenic have no quantitative significance and are used simply as descriptors of different levels of evidence of human carcinogenicity, with probably carcinogenic signifying a higher level of evidence than possibly carcinogenic.


Group 2A: The agent is probably carcinogenic to humans.
This category is used when there is limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals. In some cases, an agent may be classified in this category when there is inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals and strong evidence that the carcinogenesis is mediated by a mechanism that also operates in humans. Exceptionally, an agent may be classified in this category solely on the basis of limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans. An agent may be assigned to this category if it clearly belongs, based on mechanistic considerations, to a class of agents for which one or more members have been classified in Group 1 or Group 2A.


Group 2B: The agent is possibly carcinogenic to humans.
This category is used for agents for which there is limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and less than sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals. It may also be used when there is inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity in humans but there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals. In some instances, an agent for which there is inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and less than sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals together with supporting evidence from mechanistic and other relevant data may be placed in this group. An agent may be classified in this category solely on the basis of strong evidence from mechanistic and other relevant data.


Group 3: The agent is not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans.
This category is used most commonly for agents for which the evidence of carcinogenicity is inadequate in humans and inadequate or limited in experimental animals.
Exceptionally, agents for which the evidence of carcinogenicity is inadequate in humans but sufficient in experimental animals may be placed in this category when there is strong evidence that the mechanism of carcinogenicity in experimental animals does not operate in humans.
Agents that do not fall into any other group are also placed in this category.
An evaluation in Group 3 is not a determination of non-carcinogenicity or overall safety. It often means that further research is needed, especially when exposures are widespread or the cancer data are consistent with differing interpretations.


Group 4: The agent is probably not carcinogenic to humans.
This category is used for agents for which there is evidence suggesting lack of carcinogenicity in humans and in experimental animals. In some instances, agents for which there is inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity in humans but evidence suggesting lack of carcinogenicity in experimental animals, consistently and strongly supported by a broad range of mechanistic and other relevant data, may be classified in this group.

Discuss this article in Epidemiology Forum


 
Web Search 'Epidemiologic Inquiry' Archives

Bookmark webpage:
Add to Technorati Favorites google google | yahoo yahoo | del.icio.us Digg!digg reddit



IARC: cancer hazards associated with shiftwork, painting and firefighting

IARC Monographs Programme finds cancer hazards associated with shiftwork, painting and firefighting

After a thorough review and discussion of the published scientific evidence, an expert Working Group convened by the IARC Monographs programme has concluded that
· Shiftwork that involves circadian disruption is probably carcinogenic to humans (Group 2A).
· Occupational exposure as a painter is carcinogenic to humans (Group 1).
· Occupational exposure as a firefighter is possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B).
These three occupations involve complex exposure patterns that make it difficult to attribute risk to specific factors. The Working Group, comprising 24 scientists from 10 countries, met at the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the cancer research agency of the World Health Organization.
A summary of these conclusions is being published in the December issue of The Lancet Oncology. Full results will be published next year as volume 98 of the IARC Monographs.



Shiftwork that involves circadian disruption is “probably carcinogenic to humans”

Epidemiological studies have found that long-term nightworkers have a higher risk of breast cancer risk than women who do not work at night. These studies have involved mainly nurses and flight attendants. The studies are consistent with animal studies that demonstrate that constant light, dim light at night, or simulated chronic jet lag can substantially increase tumour development. Other experimental studies show that reducing melatonin levels at night increases the incidence or growth of tumours.

These results may be explained by the disruption of the circadian system that is caused by exposure to light at night. This can alter sleep-activity patterns, suppress melatonin production, and disregulate genes involved in tumour development. Among the many different patterns of shiftwork, those that include nightwork are most disruptive to the circadian system.
"Nearly 20% of the working population in Europe and North America is engaged in shiftwork, which is most prevalent in the health-care, industrial, transportation, communications, and hospitality sectors: To date, most studies have focussed on breast cancer in nurses and flight attendants. Now more studies are needed to examine this potential risk in other professions and for other cancers," noted Dr Cogliano, Head of the IARC Monographs Programme.


Occupational exposure as a painter is “carcinogenic to humans”

Epidemiological studies of painters have consistently found small but significant increases in the risk of lung cancer and bladder cancer. In addition, several studies of painters have found increased levels of genetic damage.
Four of five case-control studies found significant increases in childhood leukaemia associated with maternal exposure before or during pregnancy, although findings were inconsistent for lymphatic and haematopoietic cancers in the painters themselves.
Painters are exposed to numerous chemical solvents, pigments, and additives. They can also be exposed to other workplace hazards such as asbestos and crystalline silica. The available information is not specific enough to identify particular agents as the cause of the excess lung or bladder cancers. It also cannot be determined whether the cancer risks have increased or decreased with changes in the solvents, pigments, and additives used in paints.


Occupational exposure as a firefighter is “possibly carcinogenic to humans”

Epidemiologic studies of firefighters have noted excess cancer risks compared with the general population. Consistent patterns are difficult to discern due to the large variations in exposure across different types of fires and different groups of firefighters. Relative risks were consistently increased, however, for three types of cancer: testicular cancer, prostate cancer, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

Acute and chronic inflammatory respiratory effects have been noted in firefighters, and this would provide a plausible mechanism for respiratory carcinogenesis. Firefighters are exposed to numerous toxic chemicals, including many known or suspected carcinogens. These intermittent exposures can be intense, and short-term exposure levels can be high for respirable particulate matter and for several carcinogens, notably benzene, benzo[a]pyrene, 1,3-butadiene, and formaldehyde.



What is new, and what do these results mean to me?
"These are IARC’s first evaluations of shiftwork and firefighting. Because there is credible evidence linking these occupations with increased risks of cancer, it is important that further studies be conducted to better identify what it is about such occupations that may increase the risk of cancer so that preventive measures can be implemented to avoid such risks", concluded Dr Peter Boyle, Director of the International Agency for Research on Cancer.

Occupational exposure as a painter has been classified since 1989 as carcinogenic to humans, and this new evaluation has linked painting to lung cancer and bladder cancer. The new evaluation also suggests that maternal exposure may be associated with childhood leukaemia. It is important that further studies be conducted in this area to confirm whether this risk is real and to identify precautionary measures that are appropriate to consider.


(from IARC press release 180a)

Discuss this article in Epidemiology Forum


 
Web Search 'Epidemiologic Inquiry' Archives

Bookmark webpage:
Add to Technorati Favorites google google | yahoo yahoo | del.icio.us Digg!digg reddit



Tuesday, December 04, 2007

Abstract Submission: 2008 SER Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL

Abstract submission is now open for the 2008 Society for Epidemiologic Research (SER) Annual Meeting, June 24(eve) - 27 in Chicago, IL.

http://www.epiresearch.org/abstracts/

For more information, contact:

Jacqueline C Brakey
for the SER Executive Committee
PH: 801-525-0231
meeting@epiresearch.org

Discuss this article in Epidemiology Forum


 
Web Search 'Epidemiologic Inquiry' Archives

Bookmark webpage:
Add to Technorati Favorites google google | yahoo yahoo | del.icio.us Digg!digg reddit



Sunday, November 25, 2007

Covert sleuthing on tobacco smoke levels by a graduate student

We epidemiologists should all occassionally roll up our sleeves, leave our computers running SAS and STATA programs behind, and get down and dirty in the field once in a while following this student's example...

A resourceful doctoral student conducts his thesis research on tobacco smoke air pollution by covertly descending upon a cigar/tobacco convention and secretly taking air quality samples.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/22/nyregion/22cigar.html

Feel demoralized as a professional SAS programmer yet?