Re: Source of cancer data

[RuthWeiner@AOL.COM]

The remarks about epidemiology remind me that epidemiology used to be 


1. OBSERVATION and recording of a disease or disease complex and then

2.  Correlation of common factors with the disease.


AIDS offers an excellent example.  AIDS and particularly secondary infections were observed first in the homosexual population and almost concurrently in people who had received blood transfusions (e.g., hip replacement patients).  The initial epidemiological studies of AIDS  (see Randy Shilts' book And the Band Played On for a good description)  led to the isolation of the causative factor, HIV.  But please note -- the observation came first.


Examples of proper epidemiology involving ionizing radiation are thestudy of radium watch dial painters and the study of ankylosing spondylitis patients.  In both cases, cancers were observed and a correlation identified.  So there can be good epidemiology of ionizing radiation effects.


However, what many people seem to want to do currently,  in the case of ionizing radiation and some hazardous chemical agents (and, for that matter, items of the diet like coffee and sugar), is to identify a potentially or putatively causative factor and then look for the disease.  It is sort of "backwards epidemiology."  Incidentally, the recent rash of papers in Risk Analysis on the supposed "epidemiology" of vehicle exhaust is a case in point.  OK inhaling lots of vehicle exhaust is not exactly good for you, but there seems to be a general scrambling around to correlate ambient vehicle exhaust concentration with deaths.


I suggest we quit doing this kind of "identify a substance that could be a possible cause of disease and then look for the disease and the correlation" kind of epidemiology.   Of course that won't happen, but I don't mind suggesting it anyway.  Let's concentrate on the radiation protection and environmental protection that is necessary.    

     

Ruth Weiner, Ph. D.

ruthweiner@aol.com