Hormone disrupting chemicals web pages

Paul Whitehead p.whitehead at dial.pipex.com
Mon May 13 06:12:02 EST 1996

"Cold Mountain, Cold Rivers" <cmcr at ism.net> wrote:

>Lawrence Boul wrote:

>> With regard to DDT/DDE effects the Wolfe et al study on breast cancer was
>> unsupported by follow up studies, and the Kelce et al paper was critiqued in a
>> subsequent issue of 'Nature' because the levels of DDE used were very unlikely
>> to be encountered in the environment.
>> This is not to say that the papers are without value, but their real relevance
>> cannot be understood without access to all (or at least a representative
>> sample) of the available information.
>> Lawrence  (boull at agresearch.cri.nz)
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Disclaimer: The above is a personal opinion and does not reflect the
>>             official view of AgResearch Ltd.
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------

>i'd have agreed with this until a couple weeks ago when, looking into the data for the 1st 
>time in several months, i saw there has been a newer large study with largely positive 
>results.  speaking of ambiguity, the follow-up to the wolfe study found positive 
>correleations in some racial subsets, eg asian women if i recall.  as usual, i have no 
>references handy.  sorry
>Tony Tweedale                               || "I'm not going to get involved in any       
>Bx 7941                                        ||  of that peer-reviewed mumbo-jumbo."
>Missoula, Montana 59807                ||      -Rep. John Doo<-->little (R-CA)
>406-542-1709, fax 728-0867               -------------------------------------
>cmcr at ism.net (Cold Mountain, Cold Rivers @ Internet Services of MT)

I realise that this is a little late to continue this thread, but I
have just come back from a significant conference in London on
Oestrogenic Chemicals in the Environment.  One of the papers was
presented by Professor John Baron from Dartmouth Medical School USA.
He has reviewed the epidemiological evidence on the association of
organochlorine compounds and oestrogen-related cancers in women.

In essence, he believes the following:

1   The overall increased incidence of breast cancer is related
significantly to the increase in early stage 1 cancer, detected as a
resulted of improved screening.  The importance of such tumours, inc
carcinoma in situ, is not clear in terms of their 'threat' to well
being, but are included in the incidence data as breast cancer.

2   Examination of existing data following standard epidemiological
principles, indicates that there is no relationship between
organochlorines and breast cancer prevalence/incidence.

3   Breast cancer does not appear to be a highly oestrogen-related
disease.  Endometrial tissue is much more oestrogen-sensitive, but
there are no analytic epidemiologic studies of endometrial cancer to

Reference: Adami H-O, et al. Cancer Causes and Control 1995 vol 6

Much other interesting information was presented at the conference,
and at last the toxicologists are becoming involved and bringing some
sanity to the situation!

Paul Whitehead BSc CBiol MIBiol DABT
United Kingdom
e-mail p.whitehead at dial.pipex.com

More information about the Toxicol mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net