Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiWhy Cancer's Gaining on Us
For all the pink ribbons, breast-cancer awareness events, fund-raisers, and celebrations of "survivorship," the facts remain grim. In this country, a woman's lifetime risk of breast cancer is one in eight. In 1975, the risk was about one in 11.
Outside of skin cancer, breast cancer is the most frequently diagnosed cancer in women. It is estimated that in 2008 there will be 250,230 new cases of breast cancer among women. An estimated 41,000 women will die of metastatic breast cancer in 2008. Because we still do not know what the causes of breast cancer are, primary prevention remains an elusive goal while mammography and early detection are the focus of attention.
Since World War II, the proliferation of synthetic chemicals has gone hand-in-hand with the increased incidence of breast cancer. About 80,000 synthetic chemicals are used today in the United States, and their number increases by about 1,000 each year. Only about 7 percent of them have been screened for their health effects. These chemicals can persist in the environment and accumulate in our bodies. According to a recent review by the Silent Spring Institute in Newton, 216 chemicals and radiation sources cause breast cancer in animals.
Nearly all of the chemicals cause mutations, and most cause tumors in multiple organs and animal species, findings that are generally believed to indicate they likely cause cancer in humans. Yet few have been closely studied by regulatory bodies. There is concern about benzene, which is in gasoline; polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, which are in air pollution from vehicle exhaust, tobacco smoke, and charred foods; ethylene oxide, which is widely used in medical settings; and methylene chloride, a common solvent in paint strippers and glues.
There is also broad agreement that exposure over time to natural estrogens in the body increases the risk of breast cancer, so it is important to consider the role of synthetic estrogens in breast cancer development. Many other chemicals, especially endocrine-disrupting compounds -- chemicals that affect hormones, such as the ubiquitous bisphenol A, which is found in plastic bottles and cans -- are also thought to raise breast cancer risk. Endocrine-disrupting compounds are present in many pesticides, fuels, plastics, air pollution, detergents, industrial solvents, tobacco smoke, prescription drugs, food additives, metals, and personal-care products including sunscreens.
Is there definitive evidence that these substances cause breast cancer? Have they been sufficiently studied? Well, no. We need to know more about the timing, duration, and patterns of exposure, which may be as important as dosage. But shouldn't we do everything possible to reduce exposure to the suspected chemicals? Shouldn't we take precautionary measures, as we continue and deepen the research? In Massachusetts, the leading cause of death in 2006 was cancer. It is time for action.
In our state, the Alliance for a Healthy Tomorrow, a coalition of more than 160 organizations, has worked for the passage of the Safer Alternatives Bill, which would create a program to replace toxic chemicals with safer alternatives when feasible. The bill would establish a pragmatic, gradual approach to reducing health impacts from many of the toxic chemicals that we are exposed to in everyday life. The bill passed the Senate unanimously this year, but was not voted on by the House. The alliance will introduce it again in the 2009 legislative session.
Yes, we need early detection but also primary prevention, and, of course, effective treatments for those of us with extended disease. Rachel Carson, who herself died of breast cancer in 1964, said it best: "For those in whom [cancer] is already a hidden or a visible presence, efforts to find cures must of course continue. But for those not yet touched by the disease and certainly for the generations as yet unborn, prevention is the imperative need."
16 Comments so far
Show AllWe need to think outside of the box: ending factory farming subsidies; single payer health care reform with incentives for doctors towards healthier living; stronger pollution regulations; ending the antibiotics epidemic at factory farms, which causes cancers. Just a few of many ideas we need to look at so that less people will get cancer. (Disclosure: I am taking care of my sister who has a rare cancer called leio myo sarcoma).
My mom started treatment today using Rick Simpson's method of Curing Cancer,
hopefully her Leukemia will be gone in three months time...
http:/www.phoenixtearsmovie.com
This is a worthwhile article, but it fails to do justice to the complexity of causes involved in breast cancer (e.g., genetic), as well as the improvements made in treatment across the last 30 years. The aim of reducing unsafe chemicals is of course a good one, but I have to say that I'm not optimistic about it given our lack of knowledge regarding the new chemicals and the capitalistic nature of our society. More direct effects will come with enhanced detection and treatment.
The article is also a bit myopic in its focus on one specific form of cancer, when in reality people suffer and die from all kinds of different cancers. I've been through years of chemotherapy surrounded by patients with different types of cancer. Breast cancer, as important as it may be, is only the tip of the iceberg. And as someone mentioned above, these other cancers haven't seen nearly as much publicity and funding (and progress) as breast cancer.
Cancer has hit my home. My Wife has cancer and had to have a major operation. She now is taking radiation treatment that the Doctors because it was detected early says she should be OK and a less than 5% of it coming back.
With that said I say the only reason she knew she had cancer was having tests done every 6 months. In Canada the tests are free and I suggest every women should have them. A national health system in the USA is the only way to slow the increased numbers. Yes you can remove Bisphenola from bottles that is linked and do other things, that will help.
What the country needs a whole new direction where the human body that 100% of us gets sick should not be an item to make profit off.
And McCain wants 45 new nuclear plants? Misery loves company.
And would having affordable/national health care lead to cancer being diagnosed earlier, and more lives being saved?
Sioux Rose
I am grateful for this article as the CAUSE factors, relative to the plethora of chemicals swept over us and INTO our bodies, is SELDOM addressed. CANCER is, like the prison system, an established INDUSTRY in this country. Unfortunately our legal system requires a burden of proof before a product is rendered "The guilty verdict," and the CLIMATE of trespass is pervasive given the number of offensive chemicals being daily released into our air, water, soil and foods. We are WALKING chemical factories. It's a wonder more people don't break down. Part of prevention is NOT eating foods high in fat as the fat is where the chemical detritus tends to get stored. (The breasts are fatty tissue.) Sausage, many meat and pork products are awful for the body, and these can be added to transfats as used in so many snack "foods." Since it's fair to say our bodies are under attack, we must act wisely & pre-emptively by doing all we can to optimize nutrition. Stress is another killer, and while our world IS inordinately stressful, walks by the sea or in a forest, biking, Yoga, meditation are ways to help offset this overload. And prayer is also helpful...
I fully agree that environmental contaminants, and dietary choices are major contributors to cancer, but if you told someone just diagnosed with cancer what you wrote above, do you think they would appreciate it?
Prevention is nice, but we need effective treatments too.
Sioux Rose
I understand your point (USAN), and would certainly support "effective treatments." I related some time ago that I sat in on a 2-hour lecture given by American oncologists who had begun to study the cancer treatment models of other countries. Germany's was the most promising because it involved a 7-point program that treated the WHOLE person--mind, body, and emotions/spirit. THAT is what is needed. America's approach to medicine resonates with its approach to everything else, an over-inflated style Mars rules, or FORCE first. This approach does not and cannot work. The organism needs support on multiple levels to heal. Attacking it with surgical knives and/or poisons/radiation is NOT what healing is about. Some get relief for a few years, but essentially these tactics are for the most part a declaration of WAR upon the body.
What I would like to see is an approach to industry that is earth-friendly so that the detritus and tonnage of poisons are not attacking every semblance and nuance of the natural world in a food chain process that sooner or later leads right back to us. THAT was my point.
this is how FDA fights supplements:
http://www.naturalnews.com/024567.html
the research will show that varieties of cancers have similar root causes
I find it odd all this attention to breast cancer. It is increasingly curable, while some incresingly common and invariably fatal cancers like pancreatic cancer or brain gliomas get ignored.
I'm 52, and in the past two years, six acquaintances have died of pancreatic or brain tumors.
Might some of these lavishly funded breast cancer foundations consider broadening their missions a bit and fork some money over for research into these other cancers?
Thanks for this article. There are also other causes that should be eliminated, such as radiation. Some radiation comes from nuclear power plants. There is also an issue of radon in homes. Radiation is also present in some drinking water. EMF radiation is caused by electric stoves, motors, electric blankets, etc. Anyone can check their house with a gauss meter.
Last week C-span aired a Congressional Hearing on Tumors and cell phones. The experts agreed that there is a 500% increase in risk of brain cancer for children (anyone under the age of 20) who had exposure to cell phones. The FDA and the industry were the only voices that seemed to doubt the scientific evidence. A 500% increase in risk is shocking - and further proof that corporations rule since they are getting away with this.
In my opinion, it is child abuse to give a child a cell phone.
"...radiation comes from nuclear power plants"
agreed... it is a two steps back proposition to address cancer issues if we don't start actively fighting big energy's propaganda push to kill America with nuclear.
Maybe if women were given more pasture raised milk instead of factory farmed milk would their risk of breat cancer decrease. It worked for my wife even though locally grown pasture raised milk turned out to be more expensive.
Terrance Mitchell
Redfield, South Dakota
I would hope that when Obama takes office there is a very,very STRONG push to deal with these matters that have clearly gotten worse under the DEADLY indifference, and worse, under the current,noxious Republican administration. Profit DOES NOT come before people- is that really hard to understand???