Book Reviews

Reviews of the following books: Mainers in the Civil War by Harry Gratwick; The 22nd Maine Volunteer Infantry in the Civil War: A History and Roster by Ned Smith; Write Quick: War and a Woman\u27s Life in Letters 1835-1867 Edited by Ann Fox Chandonnet and Robert Gibson Pevear; Civil War Senator: William Pitt Fessenden and the Fight to Save the American Republic by Robert J. Cook; Lincoln\u27s Friend: Leonard Swett by Robert S. Eckley; We Are in His Hands Whether We Live or Die: The Letters of Brevet Brigadier General Charles Henry Howard edited by David K. Thomson; Fanny & Joshua: The Enigmatic Lives of Frances Caroline Adams and Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain by Diane Monroe Smith; This Birth Place of Souls:The Civil War Nursing Diary of Harriet Eaton edited with an Introduction by Jane E. Schultz; Army at Home: Women and the Civil War on the Northern Home Front by Judith Giesberg; A Visitation of God: Northern Civilians Interpret the Civil War by Sean A. Scott; Freedom National: The Destruction of Slavery in the United States, 1861-1865 by James Oakes; War Upon the Land: Military Strategy and the Transformation of Southern Landscapes during the American Civil War by Lisa M. Brady; Remembering the Civil War: Reunion and the Limits of Reconciliation by Caroline E. Janne

Atrazine and cancer incidence among pesticide applicators in the agricultural health study (1994-2007).

Atrazine is a triazine herbicide used widely in the United States. Although it is an animal carcinogen, the mechanism in rodents does not appear to operate in humans. Few epidemiologic studies have provided evidence for an association

Letter to the editor from Jay S. Hoar, a professor of American Studies at the Un

Letter to the editor from Jay S. Hoar, a professor of American Studies at the University of Maine at Farmington, suggesting that the new Portland-South Portland Bridge be named after John E. Anglin. Anglin, born in Portland in 1850, was the youngest recipient ever of the Navy (Congressional) Medal of Honor, which he was awarded on June 22, 1865

A Quantitative Approach for Estimating Exposure to Pesticides in the Agricultural Health Study

We developed a quantitative method to estimate long-term chemical-specific pesticide exposures in a large prospective cohort study of more than 58000 pesticide applicators in North Carolina and Iowa. An enrollment questionnaire was administered to applicators to collect basic time- and intensity-related information on pesticide exposure such as mixing condition, duration and frequency of application, application methods and personal protective equipment used. In addition, a detailed take-home questionnaire was administered to collect further intensity- related exposure information such as maintenance or repair of mixing and application equipment, work practices and personal hygiene. More than 40% of the enrolled applicators responded to this detailed take-home questionnaire. Two algorithms were developed to identify applicators’ exposure scenarios using information from the enrollment and take-home questionnaires separately in the calculation of subject-specific intensity of exposure score to individual pesticides. The ‘general algorithm’ used four basic variables (i.e. mixing status, application method, equipment repair status and personal protective equipment use) from the enrollment questionnaire and measurement data from the published pesticide exposure literature to calculate estimated intensity of exposure to individual pesticides for each applicator. The ‘detailed’ algorithm was based on variables in the general algorithm plus additional exposure information from the take-home questionnaire, including types of mixing system used (i.e. enclosed or open), having a tractor with enclosed cab and/or charcoal filter, frequency of washing equipment after application, frequency of replacing old gloves, personal hygiene and changing clothes after a spill. Weighting factors applied in both algorithms were estimated using measurement data from the published pesticide exposure literature and professional judgment. For each study subject, chemical-specific lifetime cumulative pesticide exposure levels were derived by combining intensity of pesticide exposure as calculated by the two algorithms independently and duration/frequency of pesticide use from the questionnaire. Distributions of duration, intensity and cumulative exposure levels of 2,4-D and chlorpyrifos are presented by state, gender, age group and applicator type (i.e. farmer or commercial applicator) for the entire enrollment cohort and for the sub-cohort of applicators who responded to the take-home questionnaire. The distribution patterns of all basic exposure indices (i.e. intensity, duration and cumulative exposure to 2,4-D and chlorpyrifos) by state, gender, age and applicator type were almost identical in two study populations, indicating that the take-home questionnaire sub-cohort of applicators is representative of the entire cohort in terms of exposure

Design and comprehensibility of over-the-counter product labels and leaflets: a narrative review

Background Over-the-counter medicines must be supplied with appropriate, user-friendly medicine information to satisfactorily support consumer self-management and safe use. Product labels and written medicine information leaflets are highly accessible over-the-counter medicine information sources for consumers. Factors such as comprehensibility and design underpin the usefulness of over-the-counter labels and leaflets and should be further examined to better inform future optimisation strategies. Aim of the review To undertake an in-depth exploration of studies that have evaluated design and/or comprehensibility of over-the-counter labels and written medicine information leaflets Methods Database searches were performed using Medline, Embase, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts and PubMed. Studies exploring over-the-counter medicine label and/or leaflet comprehensibility and/or design were identified. Additional author and reference list searches were performed to identify studies which met the inclusion criteria and key terms. Results A total of 35 studies were included in the review, which explored OTC medicine information design and/or comprehensibility via researcher evaluation alone (n = 8) or with consumers (n = 27). Researcher-determined over-the-counter written medicine information leaflet readability (n = 4) has highlighted suboptimal readability, with few studies evaluating over-the-counter leaflet performance using the gold standard method of ‘user testing’ with consumers (n = 2). Variable over-the-counter label comprehensibility was identified in consumer studies, ranging from satisfactory understanding to considerable misunderstanding. The review findings indicate that consumer outcomes were influenced by information design, where implementation of good design principles generally improved over-the-counter label and leaflet performance. Significant diversity existed in study design aspects such as sampling frames, sample sizes and tools used to evaluate over-the-counter medicine information, which hindered the ability to adequately compare various study aspects and findings. Conclusion A wide spectrum of consumer understanding of over-the-counter medicine labels is evident in the literature, with limited studies examining over-the-counter written medicine information leaflet comprehensibility with consumers. The application of good information design principles in over-the-counter labels and leaflets contribute to improved performance. Well-designed consumer studies are needed to ascertain and optimise over-the-counter label and leaflet performance

IARC Monographs: 40 Years of Evaluating Carcinogenic Hazards to Humans

Background: Recently the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Programme for the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans has been criticized for several of its evaluations, and also the approach used to perform these evaluations. Some critics have claimed that IARC Working Groups’ failures to recognize study weaknesses and biases of Working Group members have led to inappropriate classification of a number of agents as carcinogenic to humans. Objectives: The authors of this paper are scientists from various disciplines relevant to the identification and hazard evaluation of human carcinogens. We have examined here criticisms of the IARC classification process to determine the validity of these concerns. We review the history of IARC evaluations and describe how the IARC evaluations are performed. Discussion: We conclude that these recent criticisms are unconvincing. The procedures employed by IARC to assemble Working Groups of scientists from the various discipline and the techniques followed to review the literature and perform hazard assessment of various agents provide a balanced evaluation and an appropriate indication of the weight of the evidence. Some disagreement by individual scientists to some evaluations is not evidence of process failure. The review process has been modified over time and will undoubtedly be altered in the future to improve the process. Any process can in theory be improved, and we would support continued review and improvement of the IARC processes. This does not mean, however, that the current procedures are flawed. Conclusions: The IARC Monographs have made, and continue to make, major contributions to the scientific underpinning for societal actions to improve the public’s health.This work was conducted with no direct funding, butwas supported in part by the Intramural Research Program of the NIH/NCIand NIH/NIEH

Iarc Monographs: 40 Years Of Evaluating Carcinogenic Hazards To Humans

BACKGROUND: Recently, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Programme for the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans has been criticized for several of its evaluations, and also for the approach used to perform these evaluations. Some critics have claimed that failures of IARC Working Groups to recognize study weaknesses and biases of Working Group members have led to inappropriate classification of a number of agents as carcinogenic to humans. OBJECTIVES: The authors of this Commentary are scientists from various disciplines relevant to the identification and hazard evaluation of human carcinogens. We examined criticisms of the IARC classification process to determine the validity of these concerns. Here, we present the results of that examination, review the history of IARC evaluations, and describe how the IARC evaluations are performed. DISCUSSION: We concluded that these recent criticisms are unconvincing. The procedures employed by IARC to assemble Working Groups of scientists from the various disciplines and the techniques followed to review the literature and perform hazard assessment of various agents provide a balanced evaluation and an appropriate indication of the weight of the evidence. Some disagreement by individual scientists to some evaluations is not evidence of process failure. The review process has been modified over time and will undoubtedly be altered in the future to improve the process. Any process can in theory be improved, and we would support continued review and improvement of the IARC processes. This does not mean, however, that the current procedures are flawed. CONCLUSIONS: The IARC Monographs have made, and continue to make, major contributions to the scientific underpinning for societal actions to improve the public's health