THE FIRST TWO AUTHORS REPLY

Luenda E. Charles1 and Dana Loomis2

1 Health Effects Laboratory Division, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Morgantown, WV 26505-2888
2 Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599

In his letter to the editor, Dr. Mezei (1) raises an important issue regarding a limitation of our study (2), which investigated risk factors for prostate cancer mortality rather than incidence. Although the distinction between cancer incidence and mortality is likely to be familiar to most readers of the Journal, we acknowledge that prostate cancer mortality is affected by various factors, including the ones cited by Dr. Mezei, and agree that a short description of the limitations of mortality data in our study would have been helpful to some readers.

However, we disagree with his assertion that "the value and interpretation of the results are questionable" (1, p. 929) because the study was based on mortality data. For differential survival to confound associations of prostate cancer with exposure to magnetic fields, substantial differences in prostate cancer survival would have to be associated with cumulative exposure. However, our analyses included only those workers employed by five large companies within a single industry. Large differences in culture and socioeconomic position are less likely to confound associations in such internal comparisons than in community-based studies that sample from the population at large. Moreover, access to medical care is likely to be relatively uniform within a cohort of workers from the same industry.

Undoubtedly, additional studies designed to control for biases from several sources would have to be conducted before it can be concluded that electromagnetic field exposure is an etiologic agent for prostate cancer development. Our study (2) makes an important contribution to the literature on prostate cancer mortality, and it adds another layer to the foundation of studies from which epidemiologists and laboratory scientists can build to further investigate whether a causal relation exists between exposure to electromagnetic fields and development of prostate cancer.

REFERENCES

  1. Mezei G. Re: "Electromagnetic fields, polychlorinated biphenyls, and prostate cancer mortality in electric utility workers." (Letter). Am J Epidemiol 2003;158:928–9.[Free Full Text]
  2. Charles LE, Loomis D, Shy CM, et al. Electromagnetic fields, polychlorinated biphenyls, and prostate cancer mortality in electric utility workers. Am J Epidemiol 2003;157:683–91.[Abstract/Free Full Text]




This Article
Extract
FREE Full Text (PDF)
Alert me when this article is cited
Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Email this article to a friend
Similar articles in this journal
Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Similar articles in PubMed
Alert me to new issues of the journal
Add to My Personal Archive
Download to citation manager
Disclaimer
Request Permissions
Google Scholar
Articles by Charles, L. E.
Articles by Loomis, D.
PubMed
PubMed Citation
Articles by Charles, L. E.
Articles by Loomis, D.