Page numbers refer to the print edition but are hyperlinked to the appropriate location in the e-book.
Page numbers in italics refer to illustrations.
American Institute for Cancer Research (AICR),
xviAre We All Scientific Experts Now? (Collins),
175
aristolochic acid: aristolactam-DNA adducts,
128–29,
130,
131,
137–38,
139; aristolochic acid nephropathy,
6–7,
128–30,
180,
200n25; as carcinogen,
118–20,
131–34,
137–40 (
see also urothelial cancer); first suggested as cause of Balkan nephropathy,
125–26; genetic susceptibility to,
134–36. See also
Aristolochia;
Balkan endemic nephropathy;
Chinese herbs nephropathyassociations,
8–31; assessing causality,
6,
25–27; complexity of linkages,
16,
16–17; concurrent exposures and variables (correlation globe),
17,
17–18; confirming through repeated studies,
15–16; defined,
14; deming (data dredging) and,
20; determining through epidemiologic studies,
13–14; examples of accepted causal associations,
14–15; interpretation of,
36–37; level of statistical significance,
22; not proof of causation,
14,
37,
187n4; reasons for false findings,
22–25; reduced through meta-analysis,
22; strong vs. weak,
15–16; surfeit of,
19–22,
21availability entrepreneurs,
54
Balkan endemic nephropathy: aristolochic acid linked to,
125–26; characteristics,
123–24; Chinese herbs nephropathy similar to,
117,
120,
123,
180; geographic distribution,
123–24,
123; Grollman’s and Jelaković’s work on,
121,
122–23,
126–32,
137 (
see also Grollman, Arthur); history of,
6–7,
123–26. See also
Aristolochia;
Chinese herbs nephropathy;
urothelial cancerBernard, Hans-Ulrich,
171bias: attachment to a given position,
48–49; availability entrepreneurs and,
54; and the cell phone–cancer controversy,
68–75; cognitive shortcuts and biases,
51–53,
84; conflict of interest and,
46,
80–81; defined,
22–23; and false claims and misinformation,
177; and false findings,
22–23; ignoring contradictory studies,
49,
104–5; Ioannidis’s work on,
24–25; magnifying glass/blinkering effect,
41–42,
188n13; against negative studies,
39,
41; positive findings given more attention/credence,
xviii,
39–40,
48,
52,
71–72,
93–94; publication bias,
41; recall bias, in case-control studies,
64,
67–68,
70; research interpreted for partisan purposes,
82; “the science is the science” claim,
61; in study design,
26,
105–6; white hat bias (political correctness),
44Big Data (data mining),
179BioInitiative Report,
68,
70“Biophysical Limits on Athermal Effects of RF and Microwave Radiation” (Adair),
78–79BPA (bisphenol A),
92,
101–7; adverse effects probably minimal,
9,
108; and the endocrine system,
91–92; exposure levels and dose-response,
103–4; human exposure levels and serum BPA levels,
106–8,
109; potency,
38–39,
109,
114; risk assessment,
10; routes of exposure,
104; scientific disagreement over,
102–8; studies and papers on,
8,
44,
102,
105–8; in thermal register receipt paper,
8–9
cancer: alcohol consumption and,
14,
16,
21; causal associations (examples),
14,
15–16; concern over environmental pollution as cause,
87–88 (
see also BPA;
DDT;
endocrine disrupting chemicals);
DES and,
86–87,
91–92,
97; dietary factors and,
20–22,
24; “environmental factors” defined,
87; increase in research and papers on,
19; infectious agents and,
24,
144–49,
180,
203n11 (
see also cervical cancer;
HPV); mechanisms of,
132–34,
135,
157; signature (fingerprint) mutations,
133; smoking and,
14,
15–16,
26.
See also cell phones and brain cancer;
electromagnetic fields;
and specific cancers, such as urothelial cancer
carcinogens,
40–41.
See also cancer;
and specific carcinogenscash register receipts (thermal),
8–9causality: assessing,
6,
25–27; association not proof of causation,
14,
37,
187n4; Hill “criteria of judgment,”
25; multiple causes,
26Cell Phone Radiation: Science Review on Cancer Risks and Children’s Health,
68–69
cell phones and brain cancer,
59–84; biased reporting by activists,
68–74; causal association not supported,
66–67,
74–75,
76–77,
177; cell phone frequency range,
62,
78; COSMOS study,
193n55; Danish cohort study,
60,
61,
75; experimental (animal) studies,
76–77,
78,
80–81; Hardell studies,
67–68,
69–70,
75,
76; IARC report,
80–82,
193n53; ICNIRP report,
66–67,
68,
70,
72,
75; increased cell phone use,
60,
76,
77; I
NTERPHONE study,
66,
68,
72,
74–75,
82,
192n35; meta-analyses,
70–71; public concern over,
xv,
43,
59–60,
81,
83; “radiation,”
61,
62; RF exposure levels,
62–63; study design and challenges,
63–66; Volkow study,
79–80.
See also radiofrequency energyCell Phones and Brain Tumors—
15 Reasons for Concern: Science, Spin and the Truth Behind Interphone,
68–69
Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association,
60Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
142,
161cervical cancer,
149–50; adenocarcinoma,
149,
160; genetic basis of,
169; HPV and,
7,
29,
56,
151–67,
169–70; HSV-2 and,
49,
180; mechanism and timing of,
157,
169; Pap screening,
154,
160; prevalence and mortality rates,
159–60,
162–63,
163; squamous cell carcinoma,
149; vaccines against,
7,
56,
161–62,
165–67; zur Hausen’s work on,
149,
150–52,
180.
See also HPVcigarettes, electronic,
11cognitive biases and shortcuts,
36,
51–53,
84cohort studies,
13; brain tumor studies,
64; cell phone-related studies,
60,
61,
64–65,
75,
193n55; determining existence and measure of association through,
13–14; of girls, through menarche,
97; large studies,
19–20; many associations generated,
20,
21; proliferation of,
19–20.
See also epidemiologic studiesCohort Study of Mobile Phone Use and Health (COSMOS),
193n55Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM),
122,
141consensus, in science,
49–50cryptorchidism (undescended testes),
90,
98,
101,
115
DDE (dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene),
95–96.
See also DDTDES (estrogen diethylstilbestrol),
92; and cancer,
86–87,
97,
98; dosage,
98,
109,
178; endocrine disruption hypothesis and,
91–92,
194n5; Wilcox’s work on,
111–12de Villiers, Ethel-Michelle,
167–68Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA),
121,
141,
143Disconnect: The Truth About Cell Phone Radiation, What the Industry Has Done to Hide It, and How to Protect Your Family (Davis),
71–72
DNA damage and cancer,
38,
121,
132–33; aristolochic acid and (aristolactam-DNA adducts),
119,
128–29,
131,
132–34,
137–40 (
see also urothelial cancer); RF energy and,
72,
78Dodds, Edward Charles,
102dose-response relationship,
103–4Drug-Induced Liver Injury Network,
142
electromagnetic fields (EMFs),
35,
61–62; BioInitiative Report and,
73; media reporting on,
35; public concern over,
11,
35,
43,
59,
60,
65–66; risk not supported by research,
35,
73.
See also radiofrequency energyelectromagnetic spectrum,
61–62,
62electronic cigarettes,
11endocrine disrupting chemicals,
85–115; concomitant factors ignored in research,
41,
105; controversy over,
6,
11,
71,
91,
102–15; critical overviews of the issue,
111–15; endocrine disruption hypothesis,
88–92,
96–97,
100–101,
104–5,
194nn9,
13,
197–98n61 (
see also BPA;
DDT); exposure levels (magnitude),
98,
103–4,
106–8,
109,
178; impact of disruption hypothesis on research,
112; McLachlan on,
194n5; mechanisms,
91–92,
92; negative studies,
111–12; potency,
38–39,
178; precautionary principle and,
109–10; public awareness/concern,
6,
10–11,
43; skepticism re,
94; studies and publications on,
88–90,
94–96,
102,
106–8,
111–12.
See also BPA;
DDT;
DES;
estrogen;
male fertilityEndocrine Disrupting Chemicals 2012: The State of the Science (Bergman, et al.),
108,
197–98n61
“environmental,” as term,
87Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
87,
108“Environment and Disease, The: Association or Causation?” (Hill),
25epidemiologic studies,
12–19; critical assessment of,
5–6,
25–27; factors affecting interpretation of,
36–50 (
see also interpretation and reporting of studies); media reporting on,
33,
34–35; meta-analysis,
22; poorly defined research,
56–57; Proteus phenomenon,
24; reasons for false findings,
22–25 (
see also false findings); types of study design,
13 (
see also case-control studies;
cohort studies).
See also associations;
case-control studies;
cohort studies;
and specific research areasEpstein-Barr virus (EBV),
147–49estrogen: BPA as,
38–39 (
see also BPA); Danish semen quality study and,
86; environmental estrogen hypothesis,
86,
88–89 (
see also endocrine disrupting chemicals); estradiol,
92,
98,
102; function of,
91; oral contraceptives in sewage effluent,
114; timing of,
38.
See also DES;
endocrine disrupting chemicals;
estrogenic chemicals; hormones: hormone therapy
European Commission (EC),
47,
108–9European Food Safety Authority,
108,
109evidence: critical assessment of,
25–27,
28,
48,
49; evaluating credibility,
23–24,
25; ignoring contradictory studies,
4,
49,
104–5“Evidence for Decreasing Quality of Semen During the Past 50 Years” (Carlsen, et al.),
85–86,
88,
98–100experimental studies: animal endocrine disruption studies,
94; BPA and fetal development in mice,
102,
105–6; chemical exposure timing and mammary tumors,
97; RF studies on animals,
76–77,
78,
80–81exposure: causal factors difficult to determine with low-level environmental exposure,
92–94; DES vs. environmental contaminants,
98,
109,
178; determining association between disease and,
15–18; dose-response relationship,
103–4; magnitude of,
18,
37–39,
98; measuring RF exposure,
64–65 (
see also cell phones;
radiofrequency energy); routes of exposure,
104; timing of,
38,
88–89.
See also specific agents
failure, importance of,
178false findings,
6; and availability errors,
53; false positive results,
39,
69–70; and media reporting,
34; and need to view “latest study” in context,
55; reasons for,
22–25Federal Communications Commission (FCC),
63findings: communication gulf in reporting to public,
xvii; false positive results,
39,
69–70; Latour’s “hybrid” concept and,
35; media reporting on,
xiii–xv,
33,
34–35,
39–40; more attention to positive findings,
xviii,
39–40,
48,
52,
93–94; mystique of,
176; “null” findings rarely published,
41; refuted findings still cited,
24; translation of,
33.
See also false findingsFood and Drug Administration (FDA): aristolochic acid advisory,
120,
200n25; BPA deemed safe,
108; drug approval by,
202n56; and herbal and dietary supplements,
121,
141–42; HPV-DNA test recommended over Pap screening,
160; HPV vaccines approved,
161funding: endocrine disruption hypothesis’s impact on,
112–13; industry funding,
46,
60,
73–74; for large cohort studies,
19–20; narrowly-framed issues and,
5; public appeal vs. scientific merit,
xvi,
57; public fears useful to,
xvi,
43–44
genetics and genomics,
177,
179.
See also HPVgenome association studies,
135GM (genetically modified) foods,
10,
11,
177Grollman, Arthur,
120–23,
139; and Balkan endemic nephropathy,
122–32,
180,
200n25; and the safety of supplements,
121–22,
142,
143,
202n52; and urothelial cancer,
130–40
Henle, Werner and Gertrude,
148,
149Herberman, Ronald,
68,
71Hill, Austin Bradford,
25Hormonal Chaos (Krimsky),
90
HPV (human papillomavirus),
149–72; about,
149,
150–51,
153–54; and anogenital and oropharyngeal cancers,
158–59; and cervical cancer,
7,
24,
29,
56,
80,
151–67,
169–70 (
see also cervical cancer); contributing factors to HPV research success,
172; difficult to study,
152–53; genome mapping,
170,
172; genotypes,
154,
157,
158,
160–62,
167–72,
168; HPV DNA testing,
160–61; HPV story as model,
172–73; IARC and,
80,
156,
162,
170,
205n46; increased research on,
154–55; prevalence by region,
163–64,
164; study methods,
205n46; vaccines against,
7,
56,
161–62,
165–67; worldwide variation and prehistoric viral spread,
171–72Human Genome Project,
179human papillomavirus.
See HPVhybrids (objects of scientific study),
35,
110
illusion of validity,
1–2,
3,
4,
18Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers,
63International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC),
80; and aristolochic acid,
120; cancer genetic sequences database,
133–34; and cell phone RF energy,
66,
74,
80–82,
193n53 (
see also INTERPHONE study);
DDT classified as possible carcinogen,
95; and hazard vs. risk,
40–41,
80,
188n10; and HPV–cervical cancer research,
80,
156,
162,
170,
205n46International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP),
63,
66–67,
68,
70,
72,
75interpretation and reporting of studies,
36–50; advocacy and political correctness,
44; biased interpretation,
82; causation assumed,
37; conflict of interest,
46,
80–81; consensus not always correct,
49–50; danger of believing one’s hypothesis,
46–47; environmental health controversies,
48–49; exposure (dose), timing, and properties of agent,
37–39; false positive results and,
39,
69–70; hazard vs. risk,
40–41,
48,
80; magnifying glass/blinkering effect,
41–42,
188n13; and opposition to scientific consensus,
5; peer-review system,
44–45; positive findings given more attention/credence,
xviii,
39–40,
48,
52,
71–72,
93–94; precautionary principle and,
47–48,
69,
72–73,
189n25; publication bias,
41; public fears useful to scientists, regulators,
43–44; public sensitized to certain threats,
xiii–xv,
42–43; science that appeals to public vs. science focused on next research,
55–56.
See also specific topics and reports
Journal of the American Medical Association (
JAMA),
79–80
Journal of the National Cancer Institute (
JNCI),
60,
95–96
journals, scientific/medical,
12,
34,
44–45,
46,
60.
See also specific publications
media: and the cell phone–cancer controversy,
59–60,
192n35; EMF reporting,
35,
65; endocrine disrupters covered,
89–90; and funding,
43; more attention to positive findings,
xviii,
39–40,
48,
93–94; newsworthiness vs. scientific value,
xiii–xv,
57–58,
115; reporting of study results or risks (generally),
xiii–xv,
33,
34–35,
55; and the threshold of publication,
45meta-analysis,
22.
See also specific topics and publicationsmethodology, as issue,
103–4mutations, involved in cancer,
121,
133
nasopharyngeal carcinoma,
140–49National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey,
17–18,
17National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences,
96,
97,
103,
105,
121National Institutes of Health (NIH),
43“natural experiment,”
124natural history of cervical cancer,
153nonmonotonic dose-response,
104
Our Stolen Future: Are We Threatening Our Fertility, Intelligence, and Survival? Scientific Detective Story (Colborn),
89,
90
Pap (Papanicolaou) screening,
154,
160PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls),
43,
86,
95peer-review system,
44–45pesticides and herbicides,
11,
86.
See also DDTpolitical correctness,
44pollutants, environmental: atmospheric pollutants,
11,
38; chemical pollutants correlation globe,
17–18,
17; endocrine disruption hypothesis,
88–91,
92,
96–97,
100–101,
194nn9,
13,
197–98n61; estrogenic chemicals,
85–86,
88–89,
91–92,
92,
94,
194n5; public concern over,
43,
86–88.
See also BPA;
DDT;
endocrine disrupting chemicalspolychlorinated biphenyls.
See PCBspreference falsification,
54Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA,
134,
137,
139
public, the: and availability cascades,
53–55,
84; BPA fears,
102; and the cell phone–cancer question,
xv,
43,
59–60,
81,
83 (
see also cell phones and brain cancer); communication gulf in reporting findings to,
xvii; denialism,
xvii; EMFs feared,
11,
35,
43,
59,
60,
65–66; external causes preferred,
179; external or invisible threats of more concern to,
42–43; and false/exaggerated findings,
xiii–xiv,
6; fears useful to scientists, regulators,
43–44,
113; health information desired, 55–56,
176; influence of, on science,
4–5,
31,
35,
93–94,
110; knowledge/awareness of real risks,
xvi; potential associations perceived as causal,
18; precautionary principle and,
47–48; RF concerns,
6,
43,
59–61,
66; science that appeals to, vs. science focused on next research,
55–56,
113–14; social context of “scientific” messages,
xvii,
83; trust in science declining,
xvi,
175.
See also societyPublic Library of Science Medicine (journal),
22
radiofrequency energy (RF): causal association with brain cancer not supported,
76–78; cell phone frequency range,
62,
78; concern and controversy over,
6,
43,
59–61,
66; electromagnetic spectrum,
61–62,
62; experimental studies on animals,
76–77,
78,
80–81; exposure through cell phone use,
62–63 (
see also cell phones and brain cancer); and glucose metabolism in the brain,
79–80; nature and potency of,
38; physiological effect unlikely,
78–79.
See also cell phones and brain cancerregulatory action: dietary and herbal supplements and,
7,
121–22,
141–43; impetus for,
xv,
33regulatory community: BPA deemed safe,
108; cell phone SAR limits,
63; hazard confused with risk,
40–41,
48,
80; more attention to positive findings,
xviii,
39–40,
48; public fears useful to,
43–44relative risk (defined),
13Rigoni-Stern, Domenico Antonio,
149–50risk evaluation: exposure (dose), timing, and properties of agent,
37–39; hazard vs. risk,
40–41,
48,
80,
188n10; magnifying glass/blinkering effect,
41–42,
188n13; public fears and,
43–44
science: bad vs. good,
5; characteristics leading to progress,
28–29; defined,
27; framing scientific questions,
113,
178 (
see also hypotheses);
heuristics and,
27; model for,
180; promise of,
179; public trust in,
xvi,
175; public’s knowledge of,
27; simplification/distortion of,
176–77.
See also scientific establishment;
scientific method;
scientistsScientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR),
77scientific establishment: and Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM),
122; consensus not always correct,
49–50; overhaul needed,
115; overturning dogma/paradigms of,
29; Platt on,
30–31; relationship between society and,
xvii,
5,
32–34,
33,
175–76scientists,
49; acknowledging what is/is not known,
177; advocacy and political correctness,
44; attachment to a given position,
48–49; as availability entrepreneurs,
54–55; and the cell phone–cancer controversy,
68–70; conflict of interest,
46,
80–81; consensus not always correct,
49–50; danger of believing one’s hypothesis,
46–47; disagreements among,
11,
49,
71,
102–15,
176; and peer review,
44–45; public fears useful to,
43–44Silent Spring (Carson),
87
simplification and oversimplification,
27smoking: dose-response relationship,
103; increased lung cancer risk,
14,
15–16,
26; magnitude of exposure,
15,
38; public perception of threat,
43,
179society: health discourse embedded in,
32–34,
33; Latour’s “hybrid” concept and,
35,
110; and the scientific establishment,
xvii,
5,
32–34,
33,
175–76.
See also public, thespecific absorption rate (SAR),
63statistics, assessing findings through,
22–23“Strong Inference” (Platt),
30–31
Thinking, Fast and Slow (Kahneman),
51–53
thinking outside the box,
2–3translational research,
121
vaccines: fraudulent study linking autism to,
11,
45,
185n3; HPV vaccines,
7,
56,
161–62,
165–67; mistrust of,
11,
165; not a threat,
177
Wingspread statement,
88–89World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research,
21World War II aerial bombing campaign,
1–3