Acute health effects of the Sea Empress oil spill

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether residents in the vicinity of the Sea Empress tanker spill suffered an increase in self reported physical and psychological symptoms, which might be attributable to exposure to crude oil. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study; postal questionnaire including demographic details, a symptom checklist, beliefs about health effects of oil and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression and SF-36 mental health scales. SETTING: Populations living in four coastal towns on the exposed south Pembrokeshire coast and two control towns on the unexposed north coast. PATIENTS: 539 exposed and 550 unexposed people sampled at random from the family health services authority age-sex register who completed questionnaires. MAIN RESULTS: Adjusted odds ratios for self reported physical symptoms; scores on the Hospital Anxiety and Depression and SF-36 mental health scales, in 1089 people who responded out of a possible 1585 (69%). CONCLUSIONS: Living in areas exposed to the crude oil spillage was significantly associated with higher anxiety and depression scores, worse mental health; and self reported headache (odds ratio = 2.35, 95% CI 1.56, 3.55), sore eyes (odds ratio = 1.96, 95% CI 1.06, 3.62), and sore throat (odds ratio = 1.70, 95% CI 1.12, 2.60) after adjusting for age, sex, smoking status, anxiety, and the belief that oil had affected health. People living in exposed areas reported higher rates of physical and psychological symptoms than control areas. Symptoms significantly associated with exposure after adjustment for anxiety and health beliefs were those expected from the known toxicological effect of oil, suggesting a direct health effect on the exposed population.

Breast cancer hypothesis: a single cause for the majority of cases

STUDY OBJECTIVE—The main cause of breast cancer remains unknown. Numerous causal factors or predisposing conditions have been proposed, but account for only a small percentage of the total disease. The current search for multiple causes is unavailing. This report explores whether any single aetiological agent may be responsible for the majority of cases, and attempts to define its properties.
METHODS—Examination of all relevant epidemiological and biological evidence.
MAIN RESULTS—Genetic inheritance is not the main cause of breast cancer because most cases are sporadic, there is a low prevalence of family history, and genetically similar women have differing rates after migration. Environmental exposure, such as pollution by industrialisation, is not a major cause, as deduced from a spectrum of epidemiological data. The possibility of infection as cause is not persuasive as there is no direct biological evidence and no epidemiological support. Oestrogen status is closely related to breast cancer risk, but there are numerous inconsistencies and paradoxes. It is suggested that oestrogens are not the proximate agent but are promoters acting in concert with the causal agent. Dietary factors, and especially fat, are associated with the aetiology of breast cancer as shown by intervention and ecological correlation studies, but the evidence from case-control and cohort studies is inconsistent and contradictory.
CONCLUSIONS—The hypothesis that best fits the epidemiological data is that dietary fat is not itself the causal agent, but produces depletion of an essential factor that is normally protective against the development of breast cancer. Many of the observed inconsistencies in the epidemiology are explainable if deficiency of this agent is permissive for breast cancer to develop. Some properties of the putative agent are outlined, and research investigations proposed.


Keywords: breast cance