Search

BackgroundRecently, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Programme for the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans has been criticized for several of its evaluations, and also for the approach used to perform these evaluations. Some critics have claimed that failures of IARC Working Groups to recognize study weaknesses and biases of Working Group members have led to inappropriate classification of a number of agents as carcinogenic to humans.ObjectivesThe authors of this Commentary are scientists from various disciplines relevant to the identification and hazard evaluation of human carcinogens. We examined criticisms of the IARC classification process to determine the validity of these concerns. Here, we present the results of that examination, review the history of IARC evaluations, and describe how the IARC evaluations are performed.DiscussionWe concluded that these recent criticisms are unconvincing. The procedures employed by IARC to assemble Working Groups of scientists from the various disciplines and the techniques followed to review the literature and perform hazard assessment of various agents provide a balanced evaluation and an appropriate indication of the weight of the evidence. Some disagreement by individual scientists to some evaluations is not evidence of process failure. The review process has been modified over time and will undoubtedly be altered in the future to improve the process. Any process can in theory be improved, and we would support continued review and improvement of the IARC processes. This does not mean, however, that the current procedures are flawed.ConclusionsThe IARC Monographs have made, and continue to make, major contributions to the scientific underpinning for societal actions to improve the public's health.

Examines procedures and practices adopted during the decommissioning, demolition and disposal of obsolete ships, focusing on occupational safety and health issues and environmental aspects. Reviews existing legal and regulatory tools, assesses previous work undertaken by concerned agencies and identifies specific measures and actions that may be undertaken by the ILO in the future.

We studied 569 cases of renal cell carcinoma in the file5 of the Department of Pathology of the Nor~vegian Radium Hospital from 1964 to 1974. A nephrectorny had been perfornied in all cases. Clinical information on sex, age, survival time and metastases was traced. The histological slides were examined and turnour growth pattern, cell type, cell shape, nuclear atypia, abnormal nucleoli, nuclear grade, va s c~~l ainrv asion and tumour demarcation mere all evaluated. Besides well-known prognostic factors j ~ ~ cash t uniour stage, presence or absence of metastases and vascular invasion, nuclear grade \sas found to be a useful prognostic factor. Younger patients were found to do better than older, and women better than men. Smaller tumours carried a better prognosis than larger and clear cell turnours had a better prognosis than those composed of eosinophilic or basophilic cells. The presence of spindle cells was a bad prognostic omen.

An electrodialysis unit 8 comprises a cathode 68, an anode 70, a membrane 71 between the cathode 68 and the anode 70, a cathode flow path 72 for water flow along the membrane 71 on the cathode side, an anode flow path 74 for water flow along the membrane 71 on the anode side, and a reaction zone formed between the membrane 71 and the cathode 68 where the cathode 68 faces the anode 70, wherein the cathode flow path 72 is arranged for laminar flow in the reaction zone and wherein the electrodialysis unit 8 comprises flow conditioning elements 64 arranged to promote laminar flow in the incoming water flow to the cathode flow path 72.