Doctor Barry Bloom, dean of the Harvard School of Public Health says, "The data show that 50% of cancers could be averted with a proper diet, no smoking and other personal choices. That's not very expensive. You reduce the risks, and then hope that cures will eventually be found for the remaining cancers. What we want to do most is prevent cancer—that's a lot cheaper and a lot less painful". Even if you were born with defective genes, you may be able to avoid cancer by minimizing the environmental and life-style conditions that can initiate and promote cancer.
The National Cancer Institute has enhanced its Web site ( http://www.cancernet.nci.nih.gov ). In addition to information on cancer prevention, detection and treatment, it provides the latest news on cancer trials and tells users which trial would be good for a particular illness and stage of the disease.
by The Canadian Institute for Business and Environment
When my friend got cancer, I was introduced to a whole new world of the "cancer patient culture". Dances were held for cancer patients. Discussion groups and websites strictly are created for cancer patients. Cancer recovery centers are being built. Cancer psychiatric services are being developed. But cancer was described as a disease of the aged, contracted mostly by 70 and 80 year olds. Quite the opposite. Cancer is hitting the young. When we discovered my friend had cancer, our friends who don’t like to talk about it, started talking to us. Before they were not willing to reveal they had cancer, or their family members had cancer, for fear of seeming to be weak, they shared their stories with us. They are all young. Our best swimming partner, one of the healthiest people I know got breast cancer at age 45. Another friend with cancer at 34 years, and another at 49. It’s reported that there has been an approximate 300% increase in testicular cancer among those aged 25 to 34 since the 1950s.
Cancer so early in youth is not supposed to happen. It certainly didn’t happen during my father’s and mother’s young years in the 1930’s and 1940’s, when there were far fewer chemicals in the environment. Far fewer additives in our food. And far fewer pesticides being used. Compared to previous generations, we are becoming a fragile people. We are quickly becoming susceptible to long term, persistent chemicals that are weakening and striking our human health systems. Maybe it is mother nature’s way of controlling a rampant population on earth. Or maybe it is just too many petrochemicals and food additives that we refuse to take out of the environment.
For years environmental agencies have been tracking the increasing use of carcinogenic products in our factories. For years, hospitals and health departments have been tracking the increasing frequency of cancer caused by the carcinogens. But neither agencies have put the two together and said let’s prevent cancer. Let’s reduce the use of carcinogenic chemicals. Instead, governments and families are budgeting billions of dollars a year to treat and cure cancer, when they could be saving money and reducing cancer, by limiting or eliminating the use of certain chemicals.
**********************************************************
The American Cancer Society reports that, "environmental causes probably account for well over half of all cancer cases. Most environmental risks are determined by lifestyle choices (smoking, diet, etc.), while the rest arise in community and workplace settings". It adds that, "the degree of cancer hazard posed by these voluntary and involuntary risks depends on the concentration or intensity of the carcinogen and the exposure dose a person received. In situations where high levels of carcinogens are present and where exposures are extensive, significant hazards may exist, but where concentrations are low and exposures limited, hazards are often negligible. However, when low-dose exposures are widespread, they can represent significant public health hazards (for example, secondhand tobacco smoke)". It states that, "strong regulatory control and constant attention to safe occupational practices are required to minimize the workplace potential for exposure to high-dose carcinogens. Various chemicals (for example, benzene, asbestos, vinyl chloride, arsenic, and aflotoxin) show definite evidence of human carcinogenicity; others are considered probable human carcinogens based on evidence from animal experiments (for example, chloroform, dichlorodiphenyl- trichloroethane [DDT], formaldehyde, polychlorinated biphenyls [PCBs], and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons). Often in the past, direct evidence of human carcinogenicity has come from studies of workplace conditions involving sustained, high- dose exposures. Occasionally, risks are greatly increased when particular exposures occur together (for example, asbestos exposure and cigarette smoking)". Source the American Cancer Society, website at http://www2.cancer.org/
**********************************************************************
"There is a lack of appreciation of the potential hazards of environmental and food source contaminants. Laws, policies, and regulations protecting and promoting tobacco use worsen the cancer problem and drive up health care costs", according to the study, "Cancer At a Crossroads: A Report to Congress for the Nation", by the National Cancer Advisory Board, September 1994. It also stated that "While individuals have a responsibility to change high-risk behavior, government and society have responsibilities to identify and prevent workplace and environmental hazards, restrict advertising of unsafe products, require accurate product labeling, and provide culturally targeted education about cancer risk and prevention". It ended by stating that; "the elimination or reduction of exposure to carcinogenic agents is a priority in the prevention of cancer. We are just beginning to understand the full range of health effects resulting from the exposure to occupational and environmental agents and factors". Source, Cancer Prevention Coalition c/o School of Public Health, University of Illinois Medical Center, 2121 West Taylor Street ,Chicago, IL 60612,Tel. (312) 996-2297, Fax (312) 996-1374, e-mail epstein@uic.edu
The chemical companies, the HMO’s and private cancer centers, and the makers of medicine for cancer treatment have been paid U.S. $1.0 trillion in the U.S. and Canada over the 28 year period 1971 to 1998 for cancer treatments. Cancer accounts for at least 10% of the total cost of treating all health problems in the two countries. A study by the National Center for Health Statistics estimated the overall medical costs for cancer at US $71.5 billion for 1985. Of this total, US $21.8 billion went to direct treatment costs, $8.6 billion to the cost of lost productivity due to illness (morbidity costs), and $41.2 billion to mortality costs (value of the economic output that is lost from premature death of workers due to disease. In 1995, the total cost of cancer had increased to $96.1 billion. This is a conservative estimate since in 1990, the National Cancer Institute but the overall costs for cancer at US $104.0 billion.
The cost, for example, of non-small cell lung cancer, which kills more people than any other cancer, the patients and their insurance companies pay almost $175,000 for one year of treatment for this cancer. Over half of this payment goes directly to the cost of chemotherapy. Burton Goldberg writes that, "Although rising cancer rates are bad news for patients, they are great news for the cancer treatment industry, called by some, "Cancer, Inc". Source, "Definitive Guide to Cancer" a source book written by W. John Diamond, M.D. and W. Lee Cowden, M.D. and Burton Goldberg, published by Future Medicine Publishing, Inc., Tiburon, California, 1997, see its website at http://www.alternativemedicine.com/index1.shtml
Treating cancer is growing into a lucrative industry. The following are the
current annual costs:
Breast cancer US$ 6.6 billion
Colorectal 6.5 billion
Lung 5.0 billion
Prostate 4.7 billion
Bladder 2.2 billion
Uterine 1.6 billion o Melanoma 1.1 billion
Leukemia 1.1 billion
Kidney 1.0 billion
Ovarian, stomach Pancreas, cervical $610 million to 1.0 billion each
These costs to socialized medicine and to medical insurance companies as well as
to families could be substantially reduced through environmental prevention
measures. Source, "Cancer, Inc". Source, "Definitive Guide to Cancer" a source
book written by W. John Diamond, M.D. and W. Lee Cowden, M.D. and Burton
Goldberg, published by Future Medicine Publishing, Inc., Tiburon, California,
1997, see its website at
http://www.alternativemedicine.com/index1.shtml
According to Burton Goldberg, "the field of U.S. cancer care is organized around a medical monopoly that ensures a continuous flow of money to the pharmaceutical companies, medical technology firms, research institutes, and government agencies such as the FDA and the National Cancer Institute, and the American Cancer Society (ACS).
The ACS refused to join a coalition to support the Clean Air Act. The Act would reduce carcinogens in the air. The coalition that supported the Clean Air Act including the March of Dimes, American Heart Association, and the American Lung Association, but not the American Cancer Society. The ACS refused to support the Toxic Substances Control Act and never once entered the fight for clean water legislation. The ACS opposed the FDA’s ban on saccharin, one year earlier, the society had accept a grant from Coca Cola (a manufacturer of saccharin sweetened soda.
Finally, ACS opposed or failed to support occupational safety standards, efforts to reduce radiation exposure and other forms of environmentally oriented cancer prevention.
Looking at the evidence, we wonder if the ACS actually benefits from the promotion of cancer". Source "An Alternative Medicine Definitive Guide to Cancer" written by W. John Diamond, M.D., and W. Lee Cowden, M.D., with Burton Goldberg, published by Future Medicine Publishing, Inc., 1640 Tiburon Blvd., Suite 2, Tiburon, California, 1997.
While in Montreal General Hospital having my operation (taking out a 13 inch section of my colon containing a 2 ½ inch cancer tumor), taking my chemotherapy and having radiation treatments, I found row after row of hospital beds dedicated to dying cancer patients, and whole sections of the hospital dedicated to radiation, CT Scans and chemotherapy. It became clear that cancer is taking a heavy toll on government funds for Medicare. In the United States, for example, the estimated annual cost of cancer to the United States is US $110 billion. That represents approximately 2 percent of the United States’ Gross National Product (GNP). An estimated 80 million people in the U.S. have health insurance insufficient to cover the costs of cancer. Source http://www.preventcancer.com/alerts/alert3.html
In February 1999, the Canadian Federal Government announced, as part of its budget, the intention to create the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR). The goal is to significantly increase the amount of Federal funds that will be allocated to a broad spectrum of health-related research including cancer. The question is, will the research be more of the same, i.e., how to cure cancer once it hits, or will the research focus on preventing cancer and getting carcinogens out of the environment? The National Cancer Institute of Canada (NCIC) and the Canadian Cancer Society (CCS), who have been advocating for increased funding for Canadian health research. The Canadian Cancer Society (CCS) is the largest single funder of cancer research in Canada. This year the CCS contributed more than $30 million to fund a broad base of cancer research across Canada. Go to the website of the Canadian Cancer Society at http://www.cancer.ca/indexe.htm
The suspicion that the increase of cancer among American children may be the result of growing exposure to new chemicals in the environment is beginning to shape Federal research priorities and environmental strategies. A team assembled by EPA drafted a research plan to obtain funding to study the problem. EPA Administrator Carol M. Browner said, "I’m talking about new research on air pollutants, water pollutants and pesticides and their effects on children...and new testing guidelines that routinely incorporate children’s issues into EPA’s risk assessments. I’m talking about moving beyond the chemical-by-chemical approaches of the past, and instead looking at a child’s total cumulative risk from all exposures to toxic chemicals".Childhood cancer has been rising since the early 1970’s, while the death rate has been dropping. Source, "U.S. Reshaping Cancer Strategy as Incidence in Children Rises. Increase May Be Tied to New Chemicals in Environment". New York Times, September 29, 1997.
The U.S. National Cancer Institute reported that, "approximately 8,500 children were diagnosed with cancer in 1998, and 1,700 children died from the disease during this year. While this makes cancer the leading cause of death by disease among U.S. children under age 15, cancer is still relatively rare in this age group, with, on average, one to two children developing the disease each year for every 10,000 children in the United States. Among the 12 major types of childhood cancers, leukemia (blood cell cancers) and brain and other central nervous system tumors account for over one-half of the new cases. About one-third of childhood cancers are due to leukemia; approximately 2,600 children (younger than 15 years) will be diagnosed with leukemia in 1998". The NCI also reported that, Environmental causes of childhood cancer have long been suspected by many scientists, but have been difficult to pin down, partly because cancer in children is rare and partly because it is so difficult to estimate past exposure levels in children after they develop cancer". Source http://rex.nci.nih.gov/
While human exposure to synthetic chemicals in the environment is on the rise, the overall incidence of childhood cancer also increased 10.5% between 1973 and 1994, with childhood cancers of the brain and other sites in the central nervous system rising 35.1 percent in the same time period. Against this backdrop of increasing chemical production, it is our children who are most at risk. In 1993, the National Academy of Sciences released a report documenting that children are uniquely vulnerable to the effects of pesticides, and that the government does not adequately protect children from pesticides in food. Source, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), website at http://www.nrdc.org/nrdc/search/fzintr.html
According to the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the National Childhood Cancer Foundation child cancer is on the rise and represents the number one killer of children outside of accidents. Cancer is a number of diseases, is usually long term in developing, and according to NCI, the American Cancer Society, Centers for Disease Control (CDC), and Prevention, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry and the North American Association of Center Cancer Registries the environment plays a small role in child cancer. The CDC and NCI have guidelines for Investigating Clusters of Health Events and defines Child Cancer Clusters yet no US government organization or agency or cancer registry lists investigated Child Cancer Clusters. See http://www.edc.gov/epo/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00001797.htm
But state epidemiologists have provided a list of investigated child cancer clusters where environmental carcinogens are being investigated. They include Woburn, Massachusetts were there is petrochemical contamination of groundwater (9 dead children); another investigation at Toms River, New Jersey (contaminated groundwater investigated) (61 dead children), Port St. Lucie, Florida (contaminated groundwater and termite chemicals investigated ) (29 dead children); and in McFarland, California (contaminated groundwater investigated) http://www.seattletimes.com/extra/browse/html97/canc_081597.html and in Winona, Texas (contaminated groundwater and air investigated) (9 dead children). For more information contact, Donald Sutherland, Member of the Society of Environmental Journalists, e-mail donaldsutherland-iso14000@worldnet.att.net
One in three people in Canada and the United States may contract cancer, and one in four may die from the disease. Within five years, cancer will surpass heart disease as the leading cause of death, according to the American Hospital Association. In 1994, 1.2 million new cancer cases were added to the more than eight million people in the U.S. who have already been diagnosed with cancer. Since 1950, the overall cancer incidence has increased by 44 percent; the incidence of breast cancer and male colon cancer by about 60 percent; testis, prostate and kidney by 100 percent; and other cancers, such as malignant melanoma, multiple myeloma and some lymphomas, by over 100 percent. Source website http://www.preventcancer.com/alerts/alert3.html
Annual production rates for synthetic, carcinogenic and other industrial chemicals exploded from 1 billion pounds in 1940 to more than 500 billion pounds annually during the 1990s. Recent National Cancer Institute studies have linked: non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and exposure to solvents, oils, and greases; elevated risks for multiple myeloma among men and women employed in the textile and plastic industries; lymphoma among laboratory workers at the U.S. Department of Agriculture; and lung cancer among workers who developed silicosis. The rates of certain types of cancer among some industrial workers are up to 10 times higher than in the general population. Children of workers handling chemical carcinogens have sharply increase cancer rates. For example, the risks of childhood leukemia are increased two-to-five-fold if, during their mother’s pregnancies, their fathers worked with spray paints, dyes or pigments.
Breast cancer in women has increased substantially in Canada and the United States. During the 1990s, nearly 2 million women will have been diagnosed with breast cancer and 460,000 will have died. Between 1950 and 1989, the incidence of breast cancer increased by 53 percent. There has been an approximate doubling in. lung cancer rates in recent decades among non-smokers. A wide range of occupational exposures and urban air pollution has been shown to cause lung cancer. Source http://www.preventcancer.com/alerts/alert3.html
A study found a four times higher risk of breast cancer for women who showed high blood (serum) leaves of DDE (which is a breakdown substance of the pesticide DDT). These preliminary results suggest a role for organochlorine pesticides in the development breast cancer. Source, "Definitive Guide to Cancer" a source book written by W. John Diamond, M.D. and W. Lee Cowden, M.D. and Burton Goldberg, published by Future Medicine Publishing, Inc., Tiburon, California, 1997, see its website at http://www.alternativemedicine.com/index1.shtml
California leads the U.S. with 17,800 new breast cases and 4,400 cancer mortalities every year. It also tops the list of America’s toxic waste sites, with 258 active sites, nearly 100 more than second place Alaska, and almost 200 more than third place Maryland. White women in the San Francisco bay Area have the world’s highest rate of breast cancer, 104 cases per 100,000 women. This is double that of Europe, and 5 times higher than that of Japan, reports the International Agency for Research on Cancer. Source, "Definitive Guide to Cancer" a source book written by W. John Diamond, M.D. and W. Lee Cowden, M.D. and Burton Goldberg, published by Future Medicine Publishing, Inc., Tiburon, California, 1997, see its website at http://www.alternativemedicine.com/index1.shtml
Big tobacco companies are paying out more than US$246 billion to cover health costs to U.S. states after finally admitting that cigarette smoking affects health and seriously costs the medical system. The Krevar Commission on HIV in Canada found that the government and the Red Cross were late in responding to the dangers of AIDS the requirements to test for AIDS in blood, and now government has to pay out huge amounts to those who contracted AIDS through the tainted blood transfusions. So, what does this have to do with governments and the chemical companies? It is very possible that the chemical companies and governments who have not responded to the signs over the past two decades that carcinogens emitted by the companies are directly linked to the increases in the cancer in communities throughout Canada and the United States. They may become financially liable for the huge and growing costs of Medicare and other medical costs of treating the millions of new and unnecessary cancer cases.
*************************************************************************
In 1999, one in two American men and one in three American women will get cancer according to Dr. Samuel Epstein. He found that, in the 1950s, one in four Americans were afflicted with this deadly disease. Despite the expenditure of $25 billion since the war on cancer was declared by President Nixon in 1971, cancer rates have soared. Why? In a recently released book, Dr. Samuel Epstein reveals evidence implicating industrial carcinogens that permeate our environment, in our foods, our air, our water, our consumer products. And he blames the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the American Cancer Society (ACS), what he calls "the cancer establishment", for ignoring these causes and instead spending billions on the elusive search for a magic bullet cure for cancer. Source, "The Politics of Cancer Revisited", by Dr. Samuel Epstein East Ridge Press, Fremont Center, New York, 1998. Copies can be obtained through Dr. Epstein’s web site at http://www.preventcancer.com , or from the publisher by calling 1-800-269-2921).
Dr. Samuel Epstein points out, from 1950 to 1998, the overall incidence of cancer rose about 60 percent, with much higher increases for cancer of some organs. For non-Hodgkins lymphoma and multiple myeloma, the increase has been 200 percent. Breast cancers have increased by 60 percent. Prostate cancer has increased 200 percent. For testicular cancer in men of the ages 28 to 35, there has been a 300 percent increase since 1950. And don’t let anybody fool you into thinking that the cancer rate increase is because the population is getting older? These rates are age adjusted. The cancer rates of a group of 50-year-old men in 1990, for example, are compared to the cancer rates of a group of men in 1950. Dr. Epstein asks, "why is the cancer establishment losing the war against cancer? "The cancer establishment is fixated on damage control, diagnosis, treatment and basic genetic research, and is indifferent, if not sometimes hostile, to cancer prevention, in other words, getting carcinogens out of the environment.
***********************************************************************
In 1964, two senior scientists at the National Cancer Institute, Wilhelm Hueper and W.C. Conway, wrote, "Cancers of all types and all causes display even under already existing conditions, all the characteristics of an epidemic in slow motion". The unfolding epidemic was being fueled, they said in 1964, by "increasing contamination of the human environment with chemical and physical carcinogens and with chemicals supporting and potentiating their action".[1, pg.43] Unfortunately, the scientists’ words were met with silence by both governments and industry responsible for emitting the carcinogens to the air, land and water.
The World Health Organization (WHO) maintains and analyzes cancer mortality
(death) data from 70 countries. WHO research shows that industrialized countries
have far more cancers than countries with little industry (after adjusting for
age and population size). One-half of all the world’s cancers occur among people
living in industrialized countries, even though such people are only one-fifth
of the world’s population. [1, pg.59] From these data, WHO has concluded that at
least 80% of all cancer is attributable to environmental influences.[1,pg.60]
In the U.S., the cancer epidemic described by Hueper and Conway in 1964 has been
progressing steadily. In 1950, 25 percent of adults in the U.S. could expect to
get cancer during their lifetimes. Today about 40 percent of North Americans
(38.3% of women, 48.2% of men) can expect to get cancer. Omitting lung cancer
from the statistics, the incidence (occurrence) of cancer increased 35% in the
U.S. between 1950 and 1991. If we include lung cancers, then cancer incidence
increased 49.3% between 1950 and 1991. [1, pg.40]. Source, Rachel Newsletter,
P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403, Fax: 410- 263-8944. e-mail: erf@rachel.clark.net.
Website at
http://www.monitor.net/rachel/
Viewing the same phenomenon from another vantage point: white women born in the U.S. in the 1940s have experienced 30 percent more non-smoking related cancers than did women of their grandmothers’ generation (women born between 1888 and 1897). Among men, the differences are even sharper. White men born in the 1940s have more than twice as much non-tobacco related cancer as their grandfathers did at the same age. [1, pg.45] (Historic data are missing for nonwhites.) In the U.S. today, in the age group 35 to 64, cancer is the number one killer.
*******************************************************************
The National Cancer Institute in the U.S. stated that, "occupational studies have played a major role in identifying well-established environmental carcinogens, such as asbestos, benzene, arsenic, aromatic amines, coal tars, vinyl chloride, chromium, and wood dust". NCI stated that, "it is well established that primary prevention is the most effective means of disease control. This is particularly true of cancer. Source, " Measures of Progress Against Cancer, Cancer Prevention, Significant Accomplishments 1982 to 1992, The National Cancer Institute (NCI), Washington, D.C.
**************************************************************************
Many cancers in Ontario are on the rise, according to a new report, "Everyday Carcinogens, Stopping Cancer Before It Starts", by Liz Armstrong, for the Canadian Breast Cancer Prevention Coalition, released March 26, 1999. The report was commissioned for a conference on cancer prevention in Hamilton, Ontario. According to the report, in Ontario there has been a 29% increase in breast cancer, a 106% increase in Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, a 349% increase in women’s lung cancer, a 116% increase in melanoma and a 146% increase in thyroid cancer for women in the past 30 years. For men, there has been a 102% increase in prostate cancer, a 273% increase in melanoma, a 115% increase in Non-Hodgkins lymphoma, a 65% increase in testicular cancer, and a 133% increase in thyroid cancer.
"The problem is that these people are suffering from this disease, and often dying, unnecessarily", noted Dr. Sam Epstein, perhaps the world’s most influential critic of cancer policy and the author of the book, The Politics of Cancer Revisited. "In Ontario, the focus is still on finding the cure rather than preventing this epidemic". Dr. Epstein, a Professor of Occupational Health and Environmental Medicine at the University of Illinois School of Public Health, stated that a significant number of cancers are attributable to environmental and workplace carcinogens and are therefore preventable. "Few Canadians in Ontario know that there has been an increase in many cancers that are linked to environmental and workplace causes. Moreover, cancer is a leading cause of death and is placing a huge strain on the health care system", according to, author of the report. You can call Liz Armstrong, Breast Cancer Prevention Coalition. Phone: 519-833.7202. See the Canadian Environmental Law Association’s (CELA) website at http://www.web.net/cela/mr990326.htm
*******************************************************************
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has identified at least 55 pesticides that could leave carcinogenic residues in foods. In a single meal, a person can conceivably consume residues of a dozen different neurotoxic or carcinogenic chemicals, from salad to wine, broccoli to oranges. "Many cancer causing pesticides and industrial chemicals found in the environmental and in our food tend to accumulate in fatty tissues, whether in fish, cattle, fowl, or people", stated, Dr. Samuel Epstein. In 1989, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) announced that the residues of agricultural chemicals on fruits and vegetables eaten during a typical American childhood could be initiating between 5,500 and 6,200 cancers every year. NRDC found that the cancer risk could be as much as 6 times greater for children aged 1 to 5 than for adults. In light of these facts, a consortium of 75 EPA experts ranked pesticides residues among the top three environmentally derived cancer risks. Source, "Intolerable Risk, Pesticides in Our Children’s Food", Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Washington, D.C. Website at http://www.nrdc.org/nrdc/
************************************************************************
Tap water across the United States’ Midwest is contaminated by dangerously high levels of weed killer that pose a cancer risk to bottle-fed babies, an environmental group said Wednesday. The group’s president urged the Environmental Protection Agency to ban atrazine and noted that water utilities are spending millions to clean chemical from drinking water. The Environmental Working Group found Atrazine, a chemical sprayed on corn, in tap water in 796 towns and cities in the nation’s Corn Belt, according to a report. Atrazine, in high doses, has been linked to cancer. See full story the website http://www.infobeat.com/stories/cgi/story.cgi-id=2560471752-73d>
**************************************************************
In 1978, following a public outcry and threatened with legal action, Israel banned many toxic chemicals such as DDT and PCB’s which had been directly linked in a 1976 study with breast cancer in women. Once Israel banned these chemicals, they began noting a significant decrease in the level of toxic chemicals found in human breast milk. Over the next 10 years, the rate of breast cancer deaths declined sharply, with a 30% drop in mortality for women under 44 years old, and an 8% overall decline. It was found that women with the highest blood levels of DDT had 4 times the breast cancer risk of women with the least exposure. While DDT is banned for most uses in Canada and the United States, it is used on coffee plantations, oranges, and other fruits grown in Mexico, Latin America and Asia. According to environmental medicine expert William Rae, M.X., 81% of 107 cancer patients with measurable exposure to pesticides had much lower than average levels of T and B-lymphocytes (white blood cells). Source, "Definitive Guide to Cancer" a source book written by W. John Diamond, M.D. and W. Lee Cowden, M.D. and Burton Goldberg, published by Future Medicine Publishing, Inc., Tiburon, California, 1997, see its website at http://www.alternativemedicine.com/index1.shtml
************************************************************************
Insulin-like Growth Factor-1 (IGF-1) is produced normally by the cow’s pituitary gland. IGF-1 circulates in blood to each cell in the body, coordinating cellular function. IGF-1 regulates cell growth, division and differentiation, particularly in the young. High levels of IGF-1 in milk have been increasing linked to increased cancer in humans that consume milk and milk products (cheese, yogurt, cottage cheese, etc.). However, in 1994, the chemical companies (Monsanto being largest producer) developed for the milk industry "Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone" (rHGH) which helps the cows to produce 20% more milk. However, the growth hormone also stimulates pituitary production of IGF-1 levels in the milk of those cows. Recently, Eli Lilly & Co., a manufacturer of rBGH, reported a tenfold increase in IGF-1 levels in cows receiving the hormone. IGF-1 is the same in humans and cows, and is not destroyed by pasteurization. In fact, the pasteurization process actually increases IGF-1 levels in milk. Furthermore, there is suggestive evidence that IGF-1 in rBGH milk reacts more with the body than when IGF-1 is in non-hormonal milk.
After the rBGH milk is consumed, IGF-1 is not destroyed by human digestion.
Instead, IGF-l is readily absorbed across the intestinal wall. Additional
research has shown that it can be absorbed into the blood stream where it can
effect other hormones. The Cancer Prevention Coalition reports that, "it is
highly likely that IGF-1 promotes transformation of normal breast cellular
activity to breast cancers. In addition, IGF-1 maintains the malignancy of human
breast cancer cells, including their invasiveness and ability to spread to
distant organs. (ICF-1 has similarly been associated with colon cancer.) The
prenatal and infant breast is particularly susceptible to hormonal influences.
Such imprinting by IGF-1 may increase future breast cancer risks, and may also
increase the sensitivity of the breast to subsequent unrelated risks such as
mammography and the carcinogenic and estrogen-like effects of pesticide residues
in food, particularly in premenopausal women".
In an attempt to help some people, milk producers that don’t use hormones are
labeling their milk "hormone free". Ironically, the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) is siding with the chemical industry and has prohibited
dairy producers and retailers from labeling their milk as "hormone-free", The
FDA states that such labeling could be "false or misleading" under federal law.
The chemical company, Monsanto, has teamed up with the federal government and is
suing several milk producers for using the label. Source,
http://www.preventcancer.com/alerts/alert5.html
******************************************************************
The Cancer Prevention Coalition recommends three things that you can do:
Do not buy or use milk from cows treated with rBGH. There are many brands
without it, especially certified organic milk.
Contact your local supermarket and find out if they have a policy regarding rBGH and milk. Make clear that you would like rBGH-free milk available.
Write to Health Canada and the U.S. FDA and express your concern that they not restrict the labeling of rBGH-free milk.
Source of this information is at the website http://www.preventcancer.com/alerts/alert5.html
************************************************************************
In 1971, the Food and Drug Administration told doctors to stop prescribing DES, or diethylstilbestrol, to expectant mothers as a treatment option for preventing miscarriages because a rare vaginal cancer called clear cell adenocarcinoma was occurring at unusually high rates in daughters of women who had taken the drug. The disease most often struck at between 15 and 27 years of age. New research presented last week at a National Institutes of Health meeting found that women who were exposed before birth to DES appear to have an increased risk of health problems throughout life, including occurrence of the cancer later in life, miscarriages, ectopic pregnancies, stillbirths, premature births, and autoimmune diseases. Men exposed before birth to DES have an increased risk of genital malformations and, some studies suggest, testicular cancer. Two new studies in mice suggest that DES may affect future generations. Source, "DES Exposure Found to Pose Lifelong Risk. New Research Suggests Effects May Extend to Grandchildren of Women Who Took the Drug". Washington Post Health, 27 July 99, 9.
*********************************************************************
Junk food, like hotdogs may well contribute to cancer. The Cancer Prevention Coalition (CPC) in Chicago reported that, "three different studies have come out in the past year, finding that the consumption of hot dogs can be a risk factor for childhood cancer. Peters et al. studied the relationship between the intake of certain foods and the risk of leukemia in children from birth to age 10 in Los Angeles County between 1980 and 1987. The study found that children eating more than 12 hot dogs per month have nine times the normal risk of developing childhood leukemia. A strong risk for childhood leukemia also existed for those children whose fathers’ intake of hot dogs was 12 or more per month. Researchers Sarusua and Savitz studied childhood cancer cases in Denver and found that children born to mothers who consumed hot dogs one or more times per week during pregnancy has approximately double the risk of developing brain tumors. Children who ate hot dogs one or more times per week were also at higher risk of brain cancer. Bunin et. al, also found that maternal consumption of hot dogs during pregnancy was associated with an excess risk of childhood brain tumors".
The CPC further reported that, "hot dogs contain nitrites which are used as preservatives, primarily to combat botulism. During the cooking process, nitrites combine with amines naturally present in meat to form carcinogenic N-nitroso compounds. It is also suspected that nitrites can combine with amines in the human stomach to form N-nitroso compounds. These compounds are known carcinogens and have been associated with cancer of the oral cavity, urinary bladder, esophagus, stomach and brain". Source website
http://www.preventcancer.com/alerts/alert6.html
**********************************************************************
Gentrian violet is a carcinogen used to treat chickens and turkeys for diseases caused by fungus. It is added to poultry feed to inhibit mold. Nitrofurans (nitrofurazone and furazolidone) are added to livestock feed to increase the growth rates, particularly of pigs, chicken and turkeys. Another additive, aldicarb, has been associated with altered immune functions in women who consume food contaminated with small amounts of this additive.
Other food additives that may increase the risk of certain kinds of cancer include Blue Dye No. 2 (propyl gallate), and Red Dye No. 3 used to color meats, smoked meats, salami, bologna (etc.). According to Michael F. Jacobson, Ph.D., of the Center for Science and the Public Interest, "these additives are linked with cancers". Source, "Definitive Guide to Cancer" a source book written by W. John Diamond, M.D. and W. Lee Cowden, M.D. and Burton Goldberg, published by Future Medicine Publishing, Inc., Tiburon, California, 1997, see its website at http://www.alternativemedicine.com/index1.shtml
**********************************************************************
Some chemicals found in the house can contribute to cancer. For instance, ethylene chloride (also known as dichloromethane), the propellant used in many aerosol products, is carcinogenic. Although some products containing methylene chloride have been pulled from the market, this carcinogen continues to be found in many consumer products such as spray paint and stripper. More recently, it was learned that indoor latex paints used widely for decades contained highly neurotoxic mercury-based fungicides. But it was not until 1990 that manufacturers finally removed most of these potent neurotoxins. The Cancer Prevention Coalition reports that long-term exposure to indoor pollution can result in lung cancer, or damage to the liver, kidneys, and central nervous system. Certain cleansers and many brands of cat litter contain the carcinogen crystalline silica. Some car cleaning products contain formaldehyde.
*********************************************************************
Non carcinogenic alternatives are available. For example, Baking Soda is an excellent cleaner and deodorizer. Borax is an excellent disinfectant. Distilled White Vinegar is also safe and an excellent cleaner, available in both supermarkets and health food stores. Essential Oils distilled from plant oils, essential oils are less allergenic than synthetic fragrances. They add a pleasing fragrance to your cleaning formulas. Hydrogen peroxide is an alternative to bleach, available at supermarkets and drugstores. Lemon juice is an excellent cleaner, available in both health food stores and supermarkets. Liquid Soaps are an alternative to harsher detergents and other cleaning agents, available in health food stores and supermarkets. Pumice Stone is a good for stain removing. Sodium Perborate is an alternative to standard bleaches made with sodium hypochlorite. It is also an alternative to standard bleaches, available from chemical supply companies.
Trisodium phosphate (TSP) is a powerful cleaning material, TSP can be irritating and caustic; it does not pose long-term health hazards such as carcinogenicity, neurotoxicity, or reproductive effects. Be aware that some products with the name TSP on their container do not actually contain trisodium phosphate. Available at supermarkets, drugstores, and hardware stores. Washing Soda (also known as sodium carbonate, soda ash, and sal soda) is a strong cleaner, as an alternative to the chemical cleaners. Zeolite is a naturally occurring mineral which is an excellent deodorizer and available from G&W Supply, 1441, W. 46th Avenue #31, Denver, Colorado 80211, phone 303-455-8834. For more information you can contact, Cancer Prevention Coalition c/o School of Public Health University of Illinois Medical Center, 2121 West Taylor Street, Chicago, IL 60612, Phone: 312-996-2297, Fax: 312-996-1374, e-mail epstein@uic.edu
************************************************************************
Cancer doesn’t occur the next day. It takes decades to fester and blossom as a full-blown cancer in a human body. Working in buildings with "Sick Building Syndrome" can contribute to cancer. Sources of indoor toxic pollution include volatile organic compounds released from particle board, plasticized furniture, carpets, glues, paints, office machine toners, and air fresheners. All contribute to a complex mixture of very low level of individual pollutants, states Dr. Michael Hodgson, M.D., M.P.H., of the School of Medicine, University of Connecticut Health Center in Farmington, Connecticut. Dr. Hodgson reports that the carcinogenic effects of certain indoor air pollutants, such as asbestos, environmental tobacco smoke, radon and formaldehyde are well described in the clinical literature and are now consider cancer risk factors. Source, "Definitive Guide to Cancer" a source book written by W. John Diamond, M.D. and W. Lee Cowden, M.D. and Burton Goldberg, published by Future Medicine Publishing, Inc., Tiburon, California, 1997, see its website at http://www.alternativemedicine.com/index1.shtml
**********************************************************************
Sandra Steingraber’s new book, "Living Downstream, An Ecologist Looks as Cancer and the Environment", has been greeted with nearly total silence amongst the cancer establishment. Published by Addison? Wesley, the book is a major publishing event. In hard back, it has 270 pages, including 77 pages of references in small type at the back. At age 38, the author is an accomplished researcher, writer and teacher with a Ph.D. in biology from University of Michigan who has obviously spent years preparing the manuscript, visiting special libraries, interviewing cancer researchers, and applying her scientific training to the diverse evidence linking cancer to environmental contamination. Source, Peter Montague, Editor, Environmental Research Foundation, P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, Maryland 21403-7036, phone: 1-888-2RACHEL.
***************************************************************************
Our cities purify our sewage-laden drinking water from lakes and rivers with chlorine to kill the bacteria. Our swimming pools are loaded with chlorine to accommodate the hundreds of people that swim in them. Yet chlorine in our water may be a source of increased rates of cancer. For example, "consuming chlorinated drinking water is associated with a 20 to 40% increase in the incidence of colon and rectal cancer, according to the results of a Norwegian study published in the "International Journal of Epidemiology in 1992. Another study done by Harvard University and the Medical College of Wisconsin found that the consumption of chlorinated drinking water accounts for 15% of all rectal cancers and 9% of all bladder cancers in North America. That’s an additional 6,500 cases of rectal cancer and 4,200 cases of bladder cancer each year. The study found that people drinking chlorinated water over long periods of time have a 38% increase in their chances of contracting rectal cancer and a 21% increase in the risk of contracting bladder cancer.
The dangers from inhaling chlorine can exceed those derived from drinking chlorinated water. The amount of chloroform, the most common trihalomethane in chlorinated water, inhaled or absorbed through the skin during a typical shower may be 6 times higher than that absorbed from chlorinated drinking water, states the "International Health News". Source, "Definitive Guide to Cancer" a source book written by W. John Diamond, M.D. and W. Lee Cowden, M.D. and Burton Goldberg, published by Future Medicine Publishing, Inc., Tiburon, California, 1997, see its website at http://www.alternativemedicine.com/index1.shtml
Subscribe to "The Gallon Environment Letter". The 8 to 10 page newsletter is loaded with up to date business and policy information that your company, government agency, or organization can use immediately. It is provided twice a month. It is also accompanied by the "Green Jobs Available Report" that is sent to you once a month. Subscribe now. Send a check for $180.90 a year and help finance the research that delivers inside information and breaking news on environment business in Canada and the world. Make your check out to, "Gallon & Associates", 506 Victoria Ave., Montreal, Quebec, H3Y 2R5.
THE GALLON ENVIRONMENT LETTER SPECIAL 506 Victoria Ave., Montreal, Quebec H3Y 2R5 Phone: 514-369-0230, Fax (514) 369- 3282. E-mail cibe@web.net, Website http://www.gallon.elogik.com Vol. 3, No. 38, November 22, 1999