[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: UV-B ecologic studies





On Sun, 28 Apr 2002 epirad@mchsi.com wrote:



> Two recent ecologic studies by Bill Grant bgrant@infi.net

>

> Dr. Cohen has recently stated he would be glad to

> explain how any other ecologic studies could produce an

> erroneous inverse assocation.  Dr. Cohen would you be

> willing to show how these studies could produce the

> inverse associations they found?



	--The abstracts do not give enough info for me to make a

judgement. If I could get copies of the papers, I would be glad to look

further. Our medical library is not close by. How would I present the

results of my efforts?





>

> If not, pehaps this is a "treatment" worth adding to

> your ecologic studies?  Bill could likely send you his

> ecologic data files for sun exposure.

>

> Regards, Bill

>

>

> Cancer 2002 Mar 15;94(6):1867-75

>

>

> An estimate of premature cancer mortality in the U.S.

> due to inadequate doses of solar ultraviolet-B radiation.

>

> Grant WB.

>

> BACKGROUND: There are large geographic gradients in

> mortality rates for a number of cancers in the U.S.

> (e.g., rates are approximately twice as high in the

> northeast compared with the southwest). Risk factors

> such as diet fail to explain this variation. Previous

> studies have demonstrated that the geographic

> distributions for five types of cancer are related

> inversely to solar radiation. The purpose of the current

> study was to determine how many types of cancer are

> affected by solar radiation and how many premature

> deaths from cancer occur due to insufficient ultraviolet

> (UV)-B radiation. METHODS: UV-B data for July 1992 and

> cancer mortality rates in the U.S. for between 1970-1994

> were analyzed in an ecologic study. RESULTS: The

> findings of the current study confirm previous results

> that solar UV-B radiation is associated with reduced

> risk of cancer of the breast, colon, ovary, and prostate

> as well as non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Eight additional

> malignancies were found to exhibit an inverse

> correlation between mortality rates and UV-B radiation:

> bladder, esophageal, kidney, lung, pancreatic, rectal,

> stomach, and corpus uteri. The annual number of

> premature deaths from cancer due to lower UV-B exposures

> was 21,700 (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 20,400-

> 23,400) for white Americans, 1400 (95% CI, 1100-1600)

> for black Americans, and 500 (95% CI, 400-600) for Asian

> Americans and other minorities. CONCLUSIONS: The results

> of the current study demonstrate that much of the

> geographic variation in cancer mortality rates in the

> U.S. can be attributed to variations in solar UV-B

> radiation exposure. Thus, many lives could be extended

> through increased careful exposure to solar UV-B

> radiation and more safely, vitamin D3 supplementation,

> especially in nonsummer months. Copyright 2002 American

> Cancer Society.

>

> Cancer 2002 Jan 1;94(1):272-81

>

>

> An ecologic study of dietary and solar ultraviolet-B

> links to breast carcinoma mortality rates.

>

> Grant WB.

>

> Newport News, Virginia, USA.

> BACKGROUND: The role of diet in the etiology of breast

> carcinoma has been debated for decades. The ecologic

> approach generally finds that dietary fat is highly

> associated with breast carcinoma mortality, with fish

> intake and solar ultraviolet-B (UV-B) radiation, a

> source of vitamin D, inversely associated. Case-control

> and cohort studies generally find a variety of chemical,

> nonfat dietary, environmental, genetic, lifestyle, and

> reproductive factors to be important. METHODS: An

> ecologic study was conducted using breast carcinoma

> mortality rates (1989-1996), dietary supply data, and

> latitude (an index of solar UV-B radiation) from 35

> countries. RESULTS: The fraction of energy derived from

> animal products (risk) combined with that from vegetable

> products (risk reduction), followed by solar UV-B

> radiation and, to a lesser extent, energy derived from

> alcohol (risk) and fish intake (risk reduction), were

> found to explain 80% of the variance of breast carcinoma

> mortality rates. Dietary fat contributed insignificantly

> in regressions involving the other factors. CONCLUSIONS:

> It is hypothesized that animal products are associated

> with risk for breast carcinoma because they are

> associated with greater amounts of insulin-like growth

> factor-1 and lifetime doses of estrogen. Vegetable

> products contain several risk reduction components

> including antioxidants and phytoestrogens. The

> association with latitude is very likely because of

> solar UV-B radiation and vitamin D. Alcohol modulates

> estrogen's effects on breasts. Fish intake is associated

> with risk reduction through vitamin D and n-3 oils.

> These results are consistent with those of many case-

> control and cohort studies but should be assessed in

> well designed cohort studies. Copyright 2002 American

> Cancer Society.

>

> >  From: "Jacobus, John (OD/ORS)" <jacobusj@ors.od.nih.gov>

> >

> > > Jim,

> > > Actually, they did address a number of the studies that you cited to the

> > > NCRP.  In fact, you are listed twice in the list of references.  The issue

> >

> > John,  What crap!  Grow up.

> > You know nothing (or do you?) but defend dishonesty.  You reject the

> > report's own statements.  I reported our 5 years of up-close SC1-6 / NRC

> > experience. You can get/read NRC transcripts and letters. At their HPS 136

> > report release we got strong applause by those who actually know what's

> > going on!  Meinhold and Upton were, as always, dismal and unable to respond.

> > (They ALSO lamely said: "We referred to your document." That was in the '98

> > draft! But when pushed, they told NRC in Mar '99 they'd do more than make a

> > ref, they'd review the data. They didn't. It's plain in the text.

> >  -Jim  (Can't imagine this gets any better)

> >

> >

> > ************************************************************************

> > You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

> > send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

> > radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.

> > You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/

> >

> ************************************************************************

> You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

> send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

> radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.

> You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/

>

>



************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.

You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/