Current United States stem cell policy considerations and a recommendation for an alternative policy based on guidelines from existing international policies

Embryonic stem cell research is a widely debated topic in modern politics and religion. Differing views on the fetal rights conflict with the rights of an embryo. Those who believe an embryo has the same human qualities as a fetus accordingly believe embryonic stem cell research is unethical because it destroys a potential human life. However, scientists advocate the embryo does not have human qualities and should be used for valuable research in the stem cell field. Stem cell research may lead to vast developments in medical treatments, including cancer and brain conditions and injuries that are currently incurable. ^ The current stem cell policy introduced by President Bush in 2001 in an attempt to balance the moral issues with the need for scientific research has broad negative implications on the furthering of stem cell research. There is a limited diversity of available stem cell lines, there may be constitutional issues, there is an increasing disparity between the public and private research spheres, and the U.S. is struggling to maintain its scientific community. The U.S. must develop a new stem cell research policy that will balance the interest of science and public health with the moral issues that concern the public. ^ The United Kingdom allows researchers great liberty in conducting research, permitting the creation of embryos for the sole purpose of research, while Germany is equally conservative in their laws, as their policies support the philosophy that all embryos deserve the protection of full life. The United States should adopt a policy that takes the "middle ground" approach and permit research on excess embryos created for IVF purposes, rather than simply discarding those potentially valuable research tools. ^

A nested case-control study of radiation exposure and brain cancer incidence in the United States Air Force

A nested case-control study design was used to investigate the relationship between radiation exposure and brain cancer risk in the United States Air Force (USAF). The cohort consisted of approximately 880,000 men with at least 1 year of service between 1970 and 1989. Two hundred and thirty cases were identified from hospital discharge records with a diagnosis of primary malignant brain tumor (International Classification of Diseases, 9th revision, code 191). Four controls were exactly matched with each case on year of age and race using incidence density sampling. Potential career summary extremely low frequency (ELF) and microwave-radiofrequency (MWRF) radiation exposures were based upon the duration in each occupation and an intensity score assigned by an expert panel. Ionizing radiation (IR) exposures were obtained from personal dosimetry records.^ Relative to the unexposed, the overall age-race adjusted odds ratio (OR) for ELF exposure was 1.39, 95 percent confidence interval (CI) 1.03-1.88. A dose-response was not evident. The same was true for MWRF, although the OR = 1.59, with 95 percent CI 1.18-2.16. Excess risk was not found for IR exposure (OR = 0.66, 45 percent CI 0.26-1.72).^ Increasing socioeconomic status (SES), as identified by military pay grade, was associated with elevated brain tumor risk (officer vs. enlisted personnel age-race adjusted OR = 2.11, 95 percent CI 1.98-3.01, and senior officers vs. all others age-race adjusted OR = 3.30, 95 percent CI 2.0-5.46). SES proved to be an important confounder of the brain tumor risk associated with ELF and MWRF exposure. For ELF, the age-race-SES adjusted OR = 1.28, 95 percent CI 0.94-1.74, and for MWRF, the age-race-SES adjusted OR = 1.39, 95 percent CI 1.01-1.90.^ These results indicate that employment in Air Force occupations with potential electromagnetic field exposures is weakly, though not significantly, associated with increased risk for brain tumors. SES appeared to be the most consistent brain tumor risk factor in the USAF cohort. Other investigators have suggested that an association between brain tumor risk and SES may arise from differential access to medical care. However, in the USAF cohort health care is universally available. This study suggests that some factor other than access to medical care must underlie the association between SES and brain tumor risk. ^

A comparative analysis of Texas and Louisiana Oil-field NORM Waste Policy

NORM (Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material) Waste Policies for the nation's oil and gas producing states have been in existence since the 1980's, when Louisiana was the first state to develop a NORM regulatory program in 1989. Since that time, expectations for NORM Waste Policies have evolved, as Health, Safety, Environment, and Social responsibility (HSE & SR) grows increasingly important to the public. Therefore, the oil and gas industry's safety and environmental performance record will face challenges in the future, about its best practices for managing the co-production of NORM wastes. ^ Within the United States, NORM is not federally regulated. The U.S. EPA claims it regulates NORM under CERCLA (superfund) and the Clean Water Act. Though, there are no universally applicable regulations for radium-based NORM waste. Therefore, individual states have taken responsibility for developing NORM regulatory programs, because of the potential radiological risk it can pose to man (bone and lung cancer) and his environment. This has led to inconsistencies in NORM Waste Policies as well as a NORM management gap in both state and federal regulatory structures. ^ Fourteen different NORM regulations and guidelines were compared between Louisiana and Texas, the nation's top two petroleum producing states. Louisiana is the country's top crude oil producer when production from its Federal offshore waters are included, and fourth in crude oil production, behind Texas, Alaska, and California when Federal offshore areas are excluded. Louisiana produces more petroleum products than any state but Texas. For these reasons, a comparative analysis between Louisiana and Texas was undertaken to identify differences in their NORM regulations and guidelines for managing, handling and disposing NORM wastes. Moreover, this analysis was undertaken because Texas is the most explored and drilled worldwide and yet appears to lag behind its neighboring state in terms of its NORM Waste Policy and developing an industry standard for handling, managing and disposing NORM. As a result of this analysis, fourteen recommendations were identified.^