2008

0984566#
tyr54567778239()

Summary #3

Samuel S. Epstein (2004) in chapter eight, " Legislative Proposals For Reversing The Cancer Epidemic And Controlling Run-Away Industrial Technologies", Pp. 149- 170, in "Cancer as an Environmental Disease" (P. Nicolopoulou et al., 2004), suggested "six legislative proposal"(2004, P.152) as " fundamental democratic rights: (2004, P.149) to control various technological exposures to conquer cancer.
According to Epstein (2004), one of the rights for people was "precautionary principals" (P.153). The author believed that this caution was a main to protect both atmosphere and people by prohibiting and preventing the increase of new hazards with permitting the ban of doubtful products(Epstein, 2004, P.153). Also, the writer noted this important caution could lead to make industrial managers to find clear documents to show that their goods were safe (Epsein, 2004, P.153).
Another law that Epstein (2004) suggested was " reduction of toxins in use"(P.155). In the writer's opinion, this law was possible by disposing exposures and replacing other safety machinery with a sever time to observe producers(Epstien, 2004, P.155).
In addition, from the author's point of view, "right - to - know" (Epstein, 2004, P. 155) was another right for people. Epstein (2004) claimed that all information about carcinogens including the hazardous products should accessible for all people in societies(P.155). The author believed that this right was necessary for capital goods, "prescription drugs" (Epstein, 2004, P.l160), cancers that related to environmental and career (Epstein, 2004, Pp.158-161).
Moreover, the writer included another suggestion that was about governmental decisions to increase governmental finance to work more on essential research by independent, truthful and knowledgeable experts(Epstein, 2004, P.162). Also, Epstein (2004) claimed that NGOs should be involved in protection societies by evaluating studies in hazards and also supporting financially (P.164).
Another "legislative proposal" (Epstein, 2004, P.165) for industrial administrators for deforming, influencing or hiding any information about dangers in environment, occupation and customer (Epstein, 2004, P.165).
The last suggestion of the author was to create "an independent citizen health and safety agency" (Epstein, 2004, P.169). In Epstein's (2004), it is crucial to establish and organization to regulate recent healthiness (P.169). The writer believed that this organization could play the role of a mediator between industrial managers and NGOs , employees, customers (Epstein, 2004, P.169).

#summary(non fiction book)

L.Hens (2004) in chapter six, " Health Impact assessment Of Accidents With Environmental Carcinogens: A case Of study Of The Belgian PC//Dioxin Incident in 1999, "Pp. 103-135", in "Cancer as an Environmental Disease"(P.Nicolopoulou et at.,2004), explained " the quantification and the evaluation of cancer risks" (P.103) that related to environmental PCB/Dioxin in Belgium in 1999, by identifying risks, evaluating both "dose-response" (P.105) and exposures with characterizing the danger.

First of all, the writer identified that hazardous exposures such as dioxins had cancer and non-cancer effects on "both humans and experimental animals" (P.109). In fact, L.Hens (2004)reported that several carcinogens such as TCDD, a kind of dioxin, caused the increase in cancer among "industry workers"(P.109). However, the author believed that these exposures had "non-cancer effects"(P.109) such as changing "immune function"(P.109), reducing enzymes and increasing "endometriosis"(P.112).

In addition, in the next part of his chapter, Hens(2004) discussed the evaluation of dioxins and PCBs into three parts. Firstly, the author explained how these exposures affected on humans cells, and how these hazards related to difficulties in "growth factors, tumour necrosis factors, immunotoxicity and hormonal status" (P.114). Secondly, to evaluate the Belgian exposures, Hens (2004)showed which dosage is the lowest dose of dioxin and PCBs. Finally, the author demonstrated " acceptable daily intake" (P.117) for both dioxin and PCBs.

Furthermore, L.Hens (2004) explained the evaluation of exposures in a comparison the amount of pollutant before and during Belgian event. For example, in the writer's opinion, the amount of dioxin in the air in the north of Belgium before 1999 was lower than in January 1999. Also, the writer explained how several mineral oils such as PCBs added to "animals feed products" (P.120), and how these oils entered to "food chain" (P.119). From the writer's point of view, some food such as meat, eggs, milk and even several "food products"(P.121) such as sausages and biscuits polluted to PCBs and dioxins. Moreover, L.Hens (2004) claimed that contaminating the whole of "food chain" (P.119) happened because of delay in response from governors.

In addition, the writer characterized the hazards in Belgian case by explaining the various "aspects of risk assessment" (P.124), and discussing about disadvantages of this assessment. In fact, the author presumed the different parts of risk in "acceptable daily intake"(P.117) steps, "selected diets" (P.124), cancer and "non-cancer effects" (P.127) with giving some examples of other situations in the world to compare with Belgian case.

At the end of his chapter, Hens(2004) concluded that what happened in Belgium was not the worst occurrence " in the history of environmental health accidental exposures" (P.129);however, the author believed that this event was very important because it showed the influence of environmental pollutants on "food chain" (P.129). Moreover, L.Hens (2004) stated that environmental exposures had both cancer and "non cancer effects"(P.127) on humans.

#summary(non fiction book)

summary #1 ( non-fiction book)

A.Novogradec and S.Harris Ali (2004) in chapter two, “ Incorporating The Environmental Context In The Study Of Cancer” (Pp. 11-38), in “ Cancer as an Environmental Disease”(P.Nicolopoulou et al.,2004), indicated the effect of environment on cancer, problems with methods of studies, and the effects “of risk assessment for cancer policy and intervention”(Pp.27-30).
The writers claimed that the increase of incident of cancer happened not only "by genetic changes" but also by environmental factors. The authors claimed that "environmental carcinogens" affected on various species of animals and humans such as growing the number of "cancer deaths amongst belugea whales"(p.14). In addition, A.Novogradec and S.Harris Ali(2004) argued about the increase of cancer among immigrant, for example, the increase of breast cancer among Japanese women in Louse Angeles was equal non-immigrants. Furthermore, in the writers' opinion, studying "childhood cancer"(P.17) assumed the increase of some cancers such as brain cancer and leukemia among children in rich countries, for instance, the increase of "childhood cancer"(P.17) in U.S was 1% each year. Also, A.Novogradec and S.Harris Ali (2004) assumed that the study of identical twins in different environment situation showed the role of environment on cancer.

In addition, from point of writers' view, there were several problems with methods of studying cancer. The writers noted that one of those problems is about "randomized clinical trials"(P.21) which is morally unacceptable. Furthermore, the authors claimed that ecological "exposure measurements"(P.23) were incomplete, and these measurements misled researchers.Moreover, according to the authors, "cancer clusters"(P.24) is another problem in cancer studies. A.Novogradec and S. Harris Ali(2004) explained that identifying, analyzing and interpreting cancer clusters is a complicated issue, and the rate of these cancers grew due to the spread of "risk factors" (P.24). In the last part of their chapter, A.Novograde and S. Harris Ali (2004) discussed the effects of "risk assessment" (P.27) on governments to involve and to make decision to decrease the rate of cancers that occur by environmental carcinogens; however, the writers believed that still there are several problems with cancer studies such as facing a variety of exposures that led to various unnecessary levels.

At the end of their chapter, A.Novogradec and S.Harris Ali (2004) concluded that the rate of cancer was increasing because of environmental carcinogens, and this rising make some governors to think about reducing "public exposure"(P.30).

Hi