[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: UV-B ecologic studies
You can obtain reprints of the articles from Bill Grant
at: bgrant@infi.net If you like, I would be willing to
contact Bill and ask him to send you reprints?
Your results could be sent to the jounal as a letter to
the editor and posted on Radsafe.
Regards, Bill Field
>
> 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/