Skip to main content
NCBI home page
American Journal of Public Health logoLink to American Journal of Public Health
. 1988 Mar;78(3):287–290. doi: 10.2105/ajph.78.3.287

Usefulness of comprehensive feasibility studies in environmental epidemiology investigations: a case study in Minnesota.

A P Bender 1, A N Williams 1, J M Sprafka 1, J S Mandel 1, C P Straub 1
PMCID: PMC1349178  PMID: 3341499

Abstract

Episodes of public water supply contamination with industrial or agricultural chemicals frequently give rise to public concerns about adverse health effects. These concerns may precipitate epidemiologic or clinical investigations requiring large expenditures of state and federal resources regardless of whether such investigations are justified by scientific criteria. An alternative is a comprehensive feasibility study, utilizing all available information to determine whether large-scale studies are warranted or feasible. At a relatively modest cost, a feasibility study allows health officials to identify information needs and deficiencies, outline potential study options and costs, clearly establish the rationale for a proposed study or, conversely, prevent unwarranted expenditures of public resources. Furthermore, a feasibility study may in itself resolve many community and scientific concerns. This article provides a case study of the usefulness of a formal feasibility study in a situation involving an elevated cancer rate and contaminated municipal water supply wells surrounding a federal superfund site.

Full text

PDF
287

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Anderson H. A. Evolution of environmental epidemiologic risk assessment. Environ Health Perspect. 1985 Oct;62:389–392. doi: 10.1289/ehp.8562389. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bender A. P., Jagger H. G., Fraser J., Anderson W., Gatewood L. C., Larkin S., Olsen G. Feasibility study of a statewide pathology-based cancer surveillance system in Minnesota. I. Information characteristics. J Med Syst. 1987 Feb;11(1):25–44. doi: 10.1007/BF00992598. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bender A. P. On disease clustering. Am J Public Health. 1987 Jun;77(6):742–742. doi: 10.2105/ajph.77.6.742. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Doll R., Peto R. The causes of cancer: quantitative estimates of avoidable risks of cancer in the United States today. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1981 Jun;66(6):1191–1308. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Dusich K., Sigurdson E., Hall W. N., Dean A. G. Cancer rates in a community exposed to low levels of creosote components in municipal water. Minn Med. 1980 Nov;63(11):803–806. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Helmrich S. P., Shapiro S., Rosenberg L., Kaufman D. W., Slone D., Bain C., Miettinen O. S., Stolley P. D., Rosenshein N. B., Knapp R. C. Risk factors for breast cancer. Am J Epidemiol. 1983 Jan;117(1):35–45. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a113513. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Higginson J., Muir C. S. Environmental carcinogenesis: misconceptions and limitations to cancer control. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1979 Dec;63(6):1291–1298. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Kelsey J. L. A review of the epidemiology of human breast cancer. Epidemiol Rev. 1979;1:74–109. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.epirev.a036215. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Maclure K. M., MacMahon B. An epidemiologic perspective of environmental carcinogenesis. Epidemiol Rev. 1980;2:19–48. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.epirev.a036222. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Neutra R. R. Epidemiology for and with a distrustful community. Environ Health Perspect. 1985 Oct;62:393–397. doi: 10.1289/ehp.8562393. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from American Journal of Public Health are provided here courtesy of American Public Health Association

RESOURCES