Volume 31, Issue 3 -

Background: The role of socioeconomic position (SEP) as an effect modifier of the association between asthma exacerbations and outdoor air pollution remains unclear. Objective: To identify and summarize the evidence regarding SEP as an effect modifier of the association between asthma exacerbations and outdoor air pollution in children. Methods: We conducted searches in five electronic databases from January 1950 to June 2015 with no language restriction. Observational studies involving children, measuring any non-biological outdoor air pollutant exposure, resulting in any asthma-related health service use, and reporting measures of effect by individual or aggregated SEP measures were included. Results: Ten studies met the inclusion criteria. Five studies reported on hospitalizations, three on emergency department visits, one on ambulatory visits, and one on repeat hospital visits. Six studies identified differential effects of the effect of air pollution on asthma outcomes by SEP with stronger effects for children with a low SEP level; however, the analysis of interaction between air pollutants and SEP was significant in one study of asthma hospitalizations only. The differential effect was reported using individual and aggregated SEP measures. Conclusion: This review reveals that there is weak evidence of SEP as an effect-modifier of the association between air pollution and children’s asthma exacerbations. While stronger negative effects on asthma-related hospitalizations occur for children living in a lower SEP, the sample size of some of the original studies limited the statistical assessment of the modification effect.

Introduction: Investigations about the association between prostate cancer and environmental and/or occupational pesticide exposure have evidenced a possible role of these chemical substances on tumor etiology, related to their action as endocrine disruptors. Objective: To assess the association between pesticide exposure and prostate cancer by conducting a systematic review of the scientific literature. Materials and methods: Articles published until August 18, 2015 were searched in the databases MEDLINE/Pubmed, Scielo, and Lilacs using the keywords “pesticides” and “prostate cancer”. Only the analytical observational studies whose methodological quality met the criteria established by the New Castle-Ottawa scale were included in this review. Results: The review included 49 studies published between 1993 and 2015. All studies were in English and analyzed exposure to pesticides and/or agricultural activities. Most studies (32 articles) found a positive association between prostate cancer and pesticides or agricultural occupations, with estimates ranging from 1.01 to 14.10. Conclusion: The evidence provided by the reviewed studies indicates a possible association between the development of prostate cancer and pesticide exposure and/or agricultural occupations.

The clandestine manufacture of methamphetamine in residential homes may represent significant hazards and exposures not only to those involved in the manufacture of the drugs but also to others living in the home (including children), neighbours and first responders to the premises. These hazards are associated with the nature and improper storage and use of precursor chemicals, intermediate chemicals and wastes, gases and methamphetamine residues generated during manufacture and the drugs themselves. Many of these compounds are persistent and result in exposures inside a home not only during manufacture but after the laboratory has been seized or removed. Hence new occupants of buildings formerly used to manufacture methamphetamine may be unknowingly exposed to these hazards. Children are most susceptible to these hazards and evidence is available in the literature to indicate that these exposures may result in immediate and long-term adverse health effects. The assessment of exposure within the home can be undertaken by measuring contaminant levels or collecting appropriate biological data from individuals exposed. To gain a better understanding of the available data and key issues associated with these approaches to the characterisation of exposure, a review of the published literature has been undertaken.

Histories of mold, pollen, dust, food, chemicals, and electromagnetic field (EMF) sensitivities are the major categories of triggers for chemical sensitivity. They are tied together by the coherence phenomenon, where each has its own frequencies and identifiable EMF; therefore, they can be correlated. The diagnosis of chemical sensitivity can be done accurately in a less-polluted, controlled environment, as was done in these studies. The principles of diagnosis and treatment depend on total environmental and total body pollutant loads, masking or adaptation, bipolarity of response, and biochemical individuality, among others. These principles make less-polluted, controlled conditions necessary. The clinician has to use less-polluted water and organic food with individual challenges for testing, including dust, mold, pesticide, natural gas, formaldehyde, particulates, and EMF testing, which needs to be performed in less-polluted copper-screened rooms. The challenge tests for proof of chemical sensitivity include inhaled toxics within a clean booth that is chemical- and particulate-free at ambient doses in parts per million (ppm) or parts per billion (ppb). Individual foods, both organic and commercial (that are contaminated with herbicides and pesticides), are used orally. Water testing and intradermal testing are performed in a less-polluted, controlled environment. These include specific dose injections of molds, dust, and pollen that are preservative-free, individual organic foods, and individual chemicals, i.e. methane, ethane, propane, butane, hexane, formaldehyde, ethanol, car exhaust, jet fuel exhaust, and prosthetic implants (metal plates, pacemakers, mesh, etc.). Normal saline is used as a placebo. EMF testing is performed in a copper-screened room using a frequency generator. In our experience, 80% of the EMF-sensitive patients had chemical sensitivity when studied under less-polluted conditions for particulates, controlled natural gas, pesticides, and chemicals like formaldehyde.

Chronic diseases and illnesses associated with non-specific symptoms are on the rise. In addition to chronic stress in social and work environments, physical and chemical exposures at home, at work, and during leisure activities are causal or contributing environmental stressors that deserve attention by the general practitioner as well as by all other members of the health care community. It seems necessary now to take “new exposures” like electromagnetic fields (EMF) into account. Physicians are increasingly confronted with health problems from unidentified causes. Studies, empirical observations, and patient reports clearly indicate interactions between EMF exposure and health problems. Individual susceptibility and environmental factors are frequently neglected. New wireless technologies and applications have been introduced without any certainty about their health effects, raising new challenges for medicine and society. For instance, the issue of so-called non-thermal effects and potential long-term effects of low-dose exposure were scarcely investigated prior to the introduction of these technologies. Common electromagnetic field or EMF sources: Radio-frequency radiation (RF) (3 MHz to 300 GHz) is emitted from radio and TV broadcast antennas, Wi-Fi access points, routers, and clients (e.g. smartphones, tablets), cordless and mobile phones including their base stations, and Bluetooth devices. Extremely low frequency electric (ELF EF) and magnetic fields (ELF MF) (3 Hz to 3 kHz) are emitted from electrical wiring, lamps, and appliances. Very low frequency electric (VLF EF) and magnetic fields (VLF MF) (3 kHz to 3 MHz) are emitted, due to harmonic voltage and current distortions, from electrical wiring, lamps (e.g. compact fluorescent lamps), and electronic devices. On the one hand, there is strong evidence that long-term exposure to certain EMFs is a risk factor for diseases such as certain cancers, Alzheimer’s disease, and male infertility. On the other hand, the emerging electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) is more and more recognized by health authorities, disability administrators and case workers, politicians, as well as courts of law. We recommend treating EHS clinically as part of the group of chronic multisystem illnesses (CMI), but still recognizing that the underlying cause remains the environment. In the beginning, EHS symptoms occur only occasionally, but over time they may increase in frequency and severity. Common EHS symptoms include headaches, concentration difficulties, sleep problems, depression, a lack of energy, fatigue, and flu-like symptoms. A comprehensive medical history, which should include all symptoms and their occurrences in spatial and temporal terms and in the context of EMF exposures, is the key to making the diagnosis. The EMF exposure is usually assessed by EMF measurements at home and at work. Certain types of EMF exposure can be assessed by asking about common EMF sources. It is very important to take the individual susceptibility into account. The primary method of treatment should mainly focus on the prevention or reduction of EMF exposure, that is, reducing or eliminating all sources of high EMF exposure at home and at the workplace. The reduction of EMF exposure should also be extended to public spaces such as schools, hospitals, public transport, and libraries to enable persons with EHS an unhindered use (accessibility measure). If a detrimental EMF exposure is reduced sufficiently, the body has a chance to recover and EHS symptoms will be reduced or even disappear. Many examples have shown that such measures can prove effective. To increase the effectiveness of the treatment, the broad range of other environmental factors that contribute to the total body burden should also be addressed. Anything that supports homeostasis will increase a person’s resilience against disease and thus against the adverse effects of EMF exposure. There is increasing evidence that EMF exposure has a major impact on the oxidative and nitrosative regulation capacity in affected individuals. This concept also may explain why the level of susceptibility to EMF can change and why the range of symptoms reported in the context of EMF exposures is so large. Based on our current understanding, a treatment approach that minimizes the adverse effects of peroxynitrite – as has been increasingly used in the treatment of multisystem illnesses – works best. This EMF Guideline gives an overview of the current knowledge regarding EMF-related health risks and provides recommendations for the diagnosis, treatment and accessibility measures of EHS to improve and restore individual health outcomes as well as for the development of strategies for prevention.