Disregard - Re: testicular cancer paper by Davis and Mostofl

["Drew Thatcher" <Thatcher.Drew@home.com>]

This message was intended for Dr. Moulder only.  My apologies to those on
RADSAFE.

Drew Thatcher
thatcher.drew@home.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Drew Thatcher <Thatcher.Drew@home.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Monday, May 03, 1999 6:24 PM
Subject: Re: testicular cancer paper by Davis and Mostofl


>Dr. Moulder:
>
>I'd like to ask you a follow up question regarding your paper.  You mention
>that Davis and Mostofl generally did not follow the major steps in
>evaluating cancer clusters, in this case testicular cancer.  Could you
>expand on this for me.  I've reviewed their short paper and based upon the
>major steps you outlined for studying cancer clusters, it appears to me
that
>perhaps they were lacking in not identifying the exposure adequately.  Is
>this interpretation correct?  Any additional insight/information on this
>paper would be appreciated as I'm clearly not an epidemiologist not am I
>familiar with these types of studies.
>
>This issue has resurfaced in the state again and an epidemiologist and
>myself are meeting with Dr. Davis to discuss his methodology prior to
>meeting with interested parties to discuss those findings (and
limitations).
>
>Thanks again,
>Drew Thatcher
>thatcher.drew@home.com
>360.236.3255
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: John Moulder <jmoulder@mcw.edu>
>To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
>Date: Sunday, May 02, 1999 4:21 PM
>Subject: Cell Phones and Cancer
>
>
>>Cell Phones and Cancer:  What Is the Evidence for a Connection?
>>
>>JE Moulder, LS Erdreich, RS Malyapa, J Merritt, WF Pickard, and
Vijayalaxmi
>>
>>Radiation Research 151:513-531, 1999
>>
>>ABSTRACT
>>There have been allegations in the media and in the courts that cell
phones
>>and other types of hand-held transceivers are a cause of cancer.  There
>>have also been numerous public objections to the siting of TV, radio and
>>cell phone transmission facilities because of a fear of cancer induction.
>>A recent publication in Radiation Research by Repacholi et al., 9147,
>>631-640, 1997), which suggests that exposure to radio-frequency (RF)
>>radiation may increase lymphoma incidence in mice has contributed to this
>>controversy.  The goal of this review is to provide biomedical researchers
>>with a brief overview of the existing RF radiation-cancer studies.  This
>>article begins with a brief review of the physics and technology of cell
>>phones.  It then reviews the existing epidemiological studies of RF
>>radiation, identifying gaps in our knowledge.  Finally, the review
>>discusses the cytogenetics literature on RF radiation and the whole-animal
>>RF-radiation carcinogenesis studies.  The epidemiological evidence for an
>>association between RF radiation and cancer is found to be weak and
>>inconsistent, the laboratory studies generally do not suggest that cell
>>phone RF radiation has genotoxic or epigenetic activity, and a cell phone
>>RF radiation-cancer connection is found to be physically implausible.
>>Overall, the existing evidence for a causal relationship between RF
>>radiation from cell phones and cancer is found to be weak to non-existent.
>>
>>John Moulder (jmoulder@mcw.edu)
>>Electromagnetic Fields and Human Health FAQs
>>http://www.mcw.edu/gcrc/cop.html
>>************************************************************************
>>The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
>>information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
>************************************************************************
>The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
>information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html

************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html