Global, regional and national burdens of non-melanoma skin cancer attributable to occupational exposure to solar ultraviolet radiation for 183 countries, 2000-2019: A systematic analysis from the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury.

A World Health Organization (WHO) and International Labour Organization (ILO) systematic review reported sufficient evidence for higher risk of non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC) amongst people occupationally exposed to solar ultraviolet radiation (UVR). This article presents WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of global, regional, national and subnational occupational exposures to UVR for 195 countries/areas and the global, regional and national attributable burdens of NMSC for 183 countries, by sex and age group, for the years 2000, 2010 and 2019. We calculated population-attributable fractions (PAFs) from estimates of the population occupationally exposed to UVR and the risk ratio for NMSC from the WHO/ILO systematic review. Occupational exposure to UVR was modelled via proxy of occupation with outdoor work, using 166 million observations from 763 cross-sectional surveys for 96 countries/areas. Attributable NMSC burden was estimated by applying the PAFs to WHO's estimates of the total NMSC burden. Measures of inequality were calculated. Globally in 2019, 1.6 billion workers (95 % uncertainty range [UR] 1.6-1.6) were occupationally exposed to UVR, or 28.4 % (UR 27.9-28.8) of the working-age population. The PAFs were 29.0 % (UR 24.7-35.0) for NMSC deaths and 30.4 % (UR 29.0-31.7) for disability-adjusted life years (DALYs). Attributable NMSC burdens were 18,960 deaths (UR 18,180-19,740) and 0.5 million DALYs (UR 0.4-0.5). Men and older age groups carried larger burden. Over 2000-2019, attributable deaths and DALYs almost doubled. WHO and the ILO estimate that occupational exposure to UVR is common and causes substantial, inequitable and growing attributable burden of NMSC. Governments must protect outdoor workers from hazardous exposure to UVR and attributable NMSC burden and inequalities

Carbon nanotube dosimetry: from workplace exposure assessment to inhalation toxicology

BACKGROUND: Dosimetry for toxicology studies involving carbon nanotubes (CNT) is challenging because of a lack of detailed occupational exposure assessments. Therefore, exposure assessment findings, measuring the mass concentration of elemental carbon from personal breathing zone (PBZ) samples, from 8 U.S.-based multi-walled CNT (MWCNT) manufacturers and users were extrapolated to results of an inhalation study in mice. RESULTS: Upon analysis, an inhalable elemental carbon mass concentration arithmetic mean of 10.6 μg/m(3) (geometric mean 4.21 μg/m(3)) was found among workers exposed to MWCNT. The concentration equates to a deposited dose of approximately 4.07 μg/d in a human, equivalent to 2 ng/d in the mouse. For MWCNT inhalation, mice were exposed for 19 d with daily depositions of 1970 ng (equivalent to 1000 d of a human exposure; cumulative 76 yr), 197 ng (100 d; 7.6 yr), and 19.7 ng (10 d; 0.76 yr) and harvested at 0, 3, 28, and 84 d post-exposure to assess pulmonary toxicity. The high dose showed cytotoxicity and inflammation that persisted through 84 d after exposure. The middle dose had no polymorphonuclear cell influx with transient cytotoxicity. The low dose was associated with a low grade inflammatory response measured by changes in mRNA expression. Increased inflammatory proteins were present in the lavage fluid at the high and middle dose through 28 d post-exposure. Pathology, including epithelial hyperplasia and peribronchiolar inflammation, was only noted at the high dose. CONCLUSION: These findings showed a limited pulmonary inflammatory potential of MWCNT at levels corresponding to the average inhalable elemental carbon concentrations observed in U.S.-based CNT facilities and estimates suggest considerable years of exposure are necessary for significant pathology to occur at that level

A collaboratively derived international research agenda on legislative science advice

The quantity and complexity of scientific and technological information provided to policymakers have been on the rise for decades. Yet little is known about how to provide science advice to legislatures, even though scientific information is widely acknowledged as valuable for decision-making in many policy domains. We asked academics, science advisers, and policymakers from both developed and developing nations to identify, review and refine, and then rank the most pressing research questions on legislative science advice (LSA). Experts generally agree that the state of evidence is poor, especially regarding developing and lower-middle income countries. Many fundamental questions about science advice processes remain unanswered and are of great interest: whether legislative use of scientific evidence improves the implementation and outcome of social programs and policies; under what conditions legislators and staff seek out scientific information or use what is presented to them; and how different communication channels affect informational trust and use. Environment and health are the highest priority policy domains for the field. The context-specific nature of many of the submitted questions—whether to policy issues, institutions, or locations—suggests one of the significant challenges is aggregating generalizable evidence on LSA practices. Understanding these research needs represents a first step in advancing a global agenda for LSA research.Fil: Akerlof, Karen. George Mason University; Estados UnidosFil: Tyler, Chris. University College London;Fil: Foxen, Sarah Elizabeth. University College London;Fil: Heath, Erin. American Association for the Advancement of Science; Estados UnidosFil: Gual Soler, Marga. American Association for the Advancement of Science; Estados UnidosFil: Allegra, Alessandro. University College London;Fil: Cloyd, Emily T.. American Association for the Advancement of Science; Estados UnidosFil: Hird, John A.. University of Massachussets; Estados UnidosFil: Nelson, Selena M.. George Mason University; Estados UnidosFil: Nguyen, Christina T.. George Mason University; Estados UnidosFil: Gonnella, Cameryn J.. Herndon; Estados UnidosFil: Berigan, Liam A.. Kansas State University; Estados UnidosFil: Abeledo, Carlos R.. Universidad de Buenos Aires; ArgentinaFil: Al Yakoub, Tamara Adel. Yarmouk University; JordaniaFil: Andoh, Harris Francis. Tshwane University Of Technology; Sudáfrica. Tshwane University of Technology; GhanaFil: dos Santos Boeira, Laura. Veredas Institute; BrasilFil: van Boheemen, Pieter. Rathenau Instituut; Países BajosFil: Cairney, Paul. University of Stirling; Reino UnidoFil: Cook Deegan, Robert. Arizona State University; Estados UnidosFil: Costigan, Gavin. Foundation For Science And Technology; Reino UnidoFil: Dhimal, Meghnath. Nepal Health Research Council; NepalFil: Di Marco, Martín Hernán. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Ciencias Sociales. Instituto de Investigaciones "Gino Germani"; ArgentinaFil: Dube, Donatus. National University of Science and Technology; Zimbabu

Diagnosis of Partial Body Radiation Exposure in Mice Using Peripheral Blood Gene Expression Profiles

In the event of a terrorist-mediated attack in the United States using radiological or improvised nuclear weapons, it is expected that hundreds of thousands of people could be exposed to life-threatening levels of ionizing radiation. We have recently shown that genome-wide expression analysis of the peripheral blood (PB) can generate gene expression profiles that can predict radiation exposure and distinguish the dose level of exposure following total body irradiation (TBI). However, in the event a radiation-mass casualty scenario, many victims will have heterogeneous exposure due to partial shielding and it is unknown whether PB gene expression profiles would be useful in predicting the status of partially irradiated individuals. Here, we identified gene expression profiles in the PB that were characteristic of anterior hemibody-, posterior hemibody- and single limb-irradiation at 0.5 Gy, 2 Gy and 10 Gy in C57Bl6 mice. These PB signatures predicted the radiation status of partially irradiated mice with a high level of accuracy (range 79–100%) compared to non-irradiated mice. Interestingly, PB signatures of partial body irradiation were poorly predictive of radiation status by site of injury (range 16–43%), suggesting that the PB molecular response to partial body irradiation was anatomic site specific. Importantly, PB gene signatures generated from TBI-treated mice failed completely to predict the radiation status of partially irradiated animals or non-irradiated controls. These data demonstrate that partial body irradiation, even to a single limb, generates a characteristic PB signature of radiation injury and thus may necessitate the use of multiple signatures, both partial body and total body, to accurately assess the status of an individual exposed to radiation

Carcinogenicity of cobalt, antimony compounds, and weapons-grade tungsten alloy

The complete evaluation of the carcinogenicity of cobalt, antimony compounds, and weapons-grade tungsten alloy will be published in Volume 131 of the IARC Monographs.[Excerpt] In March, 2022, a Working Group of 31 scientists from 13 countries met remotely at the invitation of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) to finalise their evaluation of the carcinogenicity of nine agents: cobalt metal (without tungsten carbide or other metal alloys), soluble cobalt(II) salts, cobalt(II) oxide, cobalt(II,III) oxide, cobalt(II) sulfide, other cobalt(II) compounds, trivalent antimony, pentavalent antimony, and weapons-grade tungsten (with nickel and cobalt) alloy. For cobalt metal and the cobalt compounds, particles of all sizes were included in the evaluation. These assessments will be published in Volume 131 of the IARC Monographs.1 Cobalt metal and soluble cobalt(II) salts were classified as “probably carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2A) based on “sufficient” evidence for cancer in experimental animals and “strong” mechanistic evidence in human primary cells. Cobalt(II) oxide and weapons-grade tungsten alloy were classified as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2B) based on “sufficient” evidence in experimental animals. Trivalent antimony was classified as “probably carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2A), based on “limited” evidence for cancer in humans, “sufficient” evidence for cancer in experimental animals, and “strong” mechanistic evidence in human primary cells and in experimental systems. Cobalt(II,III) oxide, cobalt(II) sulfide, other cobalt(II) compounds, and pentavalent antimony were each evaluated as “not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans” (Group 3).[...

A collaboratively derived international research agenda on legislative science advice

© 2019, The Author(s). The quantity and complexity of scientific and technological information provided to policymakers have been on the rise for decades. Yet little is known about how to provide science advice to legislatures, even though scientific information is widely acknowledged as valuable for decision-making in many policy domains. We asked academics, science advisers, and policymakers from both developed and developing nations to identify, review and refine, and then rank the most pressing research questions on legislative science advice (LSA). Experts generally agree that the state of evidence is poor, especially regarding developing and lower-middle income countries. Many fundamental questions about science advice processes remain unanswered and are of great interest: whether legislative use of scientific evidence improves the implementation and outcome of social programs and policies; under what conditions legislators and staff seek out scientific information or use what is presented to them; and how different communication channels affect informational trust and use. Environment and health are the highest priority policy domains for the field. The context-specific nature of many of the submitted questions—whether to policy issues, institutions, or locations—suggests one of the significant challenges is aggregating generalizable evidence on LSA practices. Understanding these research needs represents a first step in advancing a global agenda for LSA research

Valproate in the treatment of PTSD: systematic review and meta analysis

Objective: Anticonvulsants are used in clinical practice for the treatment of PTSD. However, a systematic investigation of their effects in the treatment of PTSD is currently lacking from the literature. Our aim is to review and appraise the evidence for the use of the anticonvulsant valproate for the treatment of PTSD. Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature where valproate was used for the treatment of PTSD. Studies of treatment of PTSD with valproate were located using a search protocol which was applied to the electronic databases CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE and PSYCHINFO. A search of the National PTSD Centre Pilots Database and of the Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Controlled Trials Register (CCDANCTR) were also conducted. Findings: We only found one single-blinded study, four open-label studies and three case reports. These data do not allow for robust conclusions because of the design of the studies which are of limited patient number and open to bias. However, the studies reported that valproate was generally effective for the treatment of symptoms of PTSD by reducing hyperarousal, improving irritability and anger outbursts and improving mood. Conclusions: The limited evidence base suggests that valproate can be effective as a monotherapy for the treatment of both PTSD and mood symptoms, A double blind controlled study should be the next step to robustly study the efficacy of valproate on the treatment of PTSD