Attention Women

Chemicals linked to breast cancer

Half of all breast cancers have some suspected environmental cause - By Douglas Fischer, STAFF WRITER A new report on the causes of breast cancer concludes exposure to environmental toxins and radiation contributes more than previously understood to the risk of developing breast cancer. The report, to be released today by San Francisco-based Breast Cancer Fund and Breast Cancer Action, reviews a year's worth of scientific work on the disease. That work, the report found, increasingly points to common chemicals found in the home -- in plastic food containers, rainwear, pesticides, paints and varnishes -- as an important factor in a person's breast cancer risk. "We can't say breast cancer is all women's fault," said Nancy Evans, an author of the report and a health science consultant for the Breast Cancer Fund. "There's very little testing going on of the chemicals out there. And there's no testing prior to market of the effects that these chemicals will have when they get into the environment." Though overall cancer rates are down, the incidence rate for many cancers -- including breast cancer -- are up. A generation ago, the lifetime risk for someone developing cancer was one in four. Today one out of three women will develop some kind of cancer. For men, the odds are one in two. About half of all breast cancers in women can be attributed to some cause: genetic predisposition, a decision to have children or not, the age at which she gave birth and whether those children were breast fed. The rest remain mysteries -- until environmental causes are taken into account, according to the report, "State of the Evidence 2004: What is the Connection Between the Environment and Breast Cancer?" Surveying 21 research studies published since February 2003, the report found chlorinated chemicals, found in drinking water and many manufacturing processes, such as paper production, were associated with higher cancer rates in three studies. Another study found the hormone Zeranol, used to fatten beef cattle, contributes to the proliferation of breast cancer cells -- even at hormone levels below that which the U.S. Food and Drug Administration considers safe. And, in what Evans called one of the more surprising findings, researchers at Duke University identified a new class of chemicals, dubbed "hormone sensitizers" -- that make cells more responsive to hormones like estrogen. Estrogen helps breast cancer cells proliferate, which is why delayed pregnancy or no pregnancy is a risk factor in women -- the more a woman ovulates, the longer the period of exposure to unopposed estrogen. These hormone sensitizers, particularly the solvent ethylene glycol methyl ether used in paints, varnishes, dyes and fuel additives, essentially sensitizes cells to estrogen. "When you're exposed to a chemical that makes cells more responsible to estrogen -- both your own estrogen and the estrogen in an oral contraceptive -- that makes them proliferate more," Evans said. "When they proliferate more, they have more of a chance of But with many variables contributing to the risk of breast cancer, other researchers expressed caution before blaming drinking water or Tupperware. Dr. Robert Hiatt, a professor of epidemiology at the University of California, San Francisco and leader of a ground-breaking, seven-year study examining the effects of the environment on one aspect of breast cancer, suspects there are environmental influences controlling, for instance, the onset of puberty -- a key breast cancer factor. But those influences include diet and physical activity in addition to environmental toxins. Separating their various influences requires further work, said Hiatt, who is working with Evans and the Breast Cancer Fund on this front. "There's no smoking gun," he added. At the same time, "it's not like we're in a hopeless situation where things are spiraling out of control.... A lot of stuff in the environment is getting into our systems and it's measurable. How much of this has a biological effect and a harm is another question." Likewise, scientists at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have long warned against equating health risks to low-level exposure to a particular compound. That was the message Wednesday from the American Chemistry Council, representing manufacturers of 90 percent of the country's chemical products. "Government and independent research into the causes of breast cancer have generally pointed to diet and lifestyle, not the low levels of modern substances that are present in the environment," said council spokesman Chris VandenHeuvel. "People are living longer and healthier lives in part due to the many essential and life-saving products of modern chemistry."

Surreptitiously or otherwise, there is a connection between pharmaceutical companies and industries that pollute. Besides both being huge contributors and supporters of the Republican Party, and thus benefactors of the policies of the Bush Administration, it's obvious that, as more pollution makes us sicker, the more we'll need to take prescription drugs manufactured by the pharmaceuticals. What an incredible conspiracy!

If the above news isn't bad enough, consider...

Obesity Lowers Odds of Surviving Breast Cancer

By Anthony J. Brown, MD NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Previous reports have shown that obesity increases a woman's risk of developing breast cancer -- and now new research indicates that obesity continues to have a negative effect once breast cancer occurs. Obese women with early-stage breast cancer are more likely than their normal-weight counterparts to have the cancer spread and to die of their cancer, according to findings presented Wednesday at the annual meeting of the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology in Atlanta. "Obesity is linked with the development of breast cancer," lead author Dr. Penny R. Anderson, from the Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia, told Reuters Health. "Our study and others go on to show that breast cancer outcomes are less than optimal for women who are obese." The findings are based on a study of 2010 women with early breast cancer who underwent lumpectomy, removal of lymph nodes, and radiation therapy with or without chemotherapy. The subjects were divided into normal weight, overweight, or obese groups. Women in the obese group were more likely to be older and postmenopausal than women in the other groups, the researchers note. The size of the tumor and the number of involved lymph nodes did not differ between the groups. Still, the overall survival rate -- 88 percent -- at five years was slightly (but significantly) lower than the 92 percent rate seen in the other groups. As to how obesity worsens breast cancer outcomes, Anderson said it's unclear but may involve "effects on circulating estrogen levels and hormone metabolism."

Or, consider this:

U.S. Blocks Progress on North America Phase Out of Toxic Pesticide at Tri-National Meeting

NEWS RELEASE - Officials Ignore Public Health, Indigenous and Environmental Groups Recommending Elimination of Lindane MONTREAL, CANADA—The U.S. representatives to a tri-national taskforce meeting last week in Montreal announced plans to allow continued use of lindane in the U.S, despite Canada’s plans to eliminate agricultural uses by the end of 2004 and Mexico’s stated goal of a full phase out of agricultural, veterinary and pharmaceutical uses of the pesticide. The U.S. position disregards the objections of public health, indigenous and environmental groups who are calling for elimination of the pesticide lindane, a neurotoxic chemical that has already been banned in 17 countries. Representatives from the three countries met in Montreal, Canada through September 28-30 to draft a North American Regional Action Plan for lindane through the Commission for Environmental Cooperation of North America established by NAFTA. “The U.S. position allowing continued use of lindane is downright shameful,” said Pam Miller, the official Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) representative on the task force and Executive Director of Alaska Community Action on Toxics who was in the meeting last week. “The U.S. should take a lead role in getting rid of this old and dangerous chemical, not lag behind the rest of the world.” Fifty-eight public health, indigenous and environmental organizations recently sent a joint letter to U.S. agency officials and task force members urging elimination of lindane. More than 400 health care professionals in the U.S. sent a similar letter. Environmental NGOs have also submitted a request to Bayer CropScience to voluntarily withdraw lindane products from the North American market. Bayer recently acquired Gustafson LLC, the primary distributor in the U.S. of lindane seed treatment products. Lindane is also a current target of several international treaties. For example, it is included the "Prior Informed Consent" list of the Rotterdam Convention, and it will likely be one of the top candidates considered for addition to the list of chemicals targeted for global elimination under the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. “This old, bioaccumulative pesticide damages human nervous and immune systems and is linked to cancer,” said Kristin Schafer, Program Coordinator for Pesticide Action Network North America. “The U.S. must reconsider its position and eliminate both pharmaceutical and agricultural uses of lindane to protect public health.” Lindane is a known neurotoxin that causes seizures, damages the nervous system, and weakens the immune system. Exposure may also cause cancer and disrupt the human and animal hormone systems. Because lindane is highly persistent and travels globally via air and water, its continued use in agriculture poses an exposure risk to people far from the source. Lindane is now one of the most abundant pesticides in Arctic air and water, and northern indigenous peoples are exposed through their traditional diets. Lindane residues have also been reported in a variety of common foods in the U.S. ....

Don't worry, ladies. You go vote for George Bush because he's "a hard worker" and he says he's "got a plan" to solve this. Sure, he's eliminated numerous federal environmental pollution regulations, refused to consider funding international coalitions designed to improve the quality of life and reduce the destruction of our planet, allowed healthcare costs to skyrocket, and reduced funding for medical research and treatment, but hey, he needed all that money to fight a bogus war in no-WMD Iraq and make sure rich people get enough tax breaks to "stimulate the economy". Even if you get breast cancer from pollution and die, rest assured it was for the betterment of... of... oh: of Corporate America and the freedom of Iraqi citizens to "choose" to walk their streets at night and get blown to smithereens by our deceived, underpaid and underprotected sons and daughters in the U.S. military. WOO-HA! Is this country great, or what?