Breast Cancer Rates

[Guest guest]

Frank <califpacific wrote:

alternative_medicine_forum From: Frank Fri, 2 Jul 2004 21:50:45 -0700 (PDT) Unholy Alliance: Part Ihttp://www.cancercoverup.com/newsletter/07-2004/Unholy Alliance: Part IBY KATHLEEN B. DEOULThere's a breast cancer epidemic in the United States.Between 180,000 and 200,000 women will fall victim tothe disease this year. For about 20% of them, 40,000,the disease will prove fatal. If doubt that thesituation is out of control and has reached crisisproportions, consider the following:* Three decades ago, the odds of a woman gettingbreast cancer were 1 in 20.* Ten years ago, the odds of a woman getting breastcancer were 1 in 13.* Today, the odds of a

woman getting breast cancer are1 in 7!In other words, today you are three times as likely toget breast cancer as you were in the 1970s.But that's not all.According to the National Cancer Institute's SEERdata, the rate of occurrence for breast cancer amongwomen under the age of 40 increased by 55% between1951 and 1995, and continues to rise at around 2% peryear!Why is this happening?Initially, researchers dismissed the rise in thebreast cancer rate claiming it was nothing more thanthe result of more intensive screening. Because morewomen were getting mammograms, they argued, it wasnatural that cases that had previously gone undetectedwould be found, giving the appearance of an increasedrate.The trouble is, were this the case, after an initialrise in new cases, the breast cancer rate would beexpected to level off, reflecting the new, moreaggressive screening. That isn't what

happened.Instead, the rate continued to rise. Moreover, whilepreviously undetected cases might account for a slightrise in the breast cancer rate, there is no way theycould be responsible for the rate tripling!But if it's not more screening, what is the cause, andwhy haven't we heard more about it?The answer is that an unholy alliance of specialinterests doesn't want you to know the truth! There issimply too much money, power and influence at stake!Above all else, this alliance doesn't want you tolearn one central fact: the very people we have putour faith in to cure breast cancer may be itsprincipal cause!To understand how this could be it is necessary firstto examine the evidence showing the link between thebreast cancer epidemic and its cause.A SIMPLE CALCULUSResearchers will argue that determining the cause of adisease as complex as breast cancer is an illusivegoal. Yet, a simple

calculus points a clear finger ofblame:* Fully 70% of the women who contract breast cancerhave NONE of the known risk factors.* Non-industrialized countries have far lower rates ofbreast cancer than industrialized countries.* North America and Northern Europe have the highestbreast cancer rates.* Asia and Africa have the lowest breast cancer rates.* Women who live in non-industrialized countries andthen move to industrialized countries develop breastcancer at the same rate as women who have always livedin industrialized countries.In short, something is happening in the industrializedworld that is causing the breast cancer epidemic!But what is it?If you listen to the "experts," they'll tell you thatthe reason is that women are too fat, or are takinghormone replacement therapy or that they have agenetic disposition to the disease or that they didn'tbreast feed or that they

did breast feed or that theyhad children too late or that they didn't have enoughchildren.According to the "experts" any way you slice it, it'sthe fault of the women who get breast cancer that theyhave contracted a life-threatening disease!In other words, blame the victim!It's an easy out. It's also a way to divert attentionfrom the real cause: the ever-increasing presence oftoxic chemicals in our environment.There are over 85,000 synthetic chemicals incommercial use today, and more than 90% of them havenever been tested for their effects on human health.Of those that have been tested, many are known to becarcinogenic.But how do we know that we are being exposed to thesechemicals? We know because no less an authority thanthe United States Geological Survey says that we are.A CHEMICAL FEASTTwo studies by The U.S. Geological Survey show justhow bad the problem has become. One

examined waterfrom 406 urban wells and 2,543 rural wells. It foundthat one or more volatile organic compounds(industrial solvents and related chemicals) werepresent in 47% of the urban wells and 14% of the ruralwells. They affected the drinking water of as many as50 million Americans. Included among the noxiouschemicals the USGS discovered were benzene and xylene,both powerful carcinogens. The four chemicals detectedmost frequently trichloroethene and tetrachloroethenwhich are industrial solvents, methyl tert-butyl ether(MTBE) a gasoline additive and thrichloromethane(chloroform) which is a solvent and a byproduct of thedisinfection of drinking water.A second study by the USGS examined the presence ofpharmaceutical products, hormones and other organicproducts in U.S. streams. These results were equallydisturbing.Substances found included steroids, human andveterinary drugs natural and synthetic

hormones,detergents, plasticizers insecticides and fireretardants. In many instances, wastewater chemicalswere mixed in the streams sampled. In half thesamples, seven or more chemicals were detected and inone 38 separate chemicals were found.What is most troubling is that there are no safetystandards of health advisories for many of thechemicals the researchers found. Nor is there anyunderstanding of what health effects may result fromexposures to combinations of the substances detected.Moreover, the level of contamination is likely toincrease as the volume of chemicals used inagricultural and other applications continues to grow.For example, in California alone, the use ofcarcinogenic pesticides increased by 127% between 1991and 1998. In other regions of the country, similarincreases have occurred.But is there really a threat?The evidence suggests there is.THE LINK TO BREAST

CANCERAlthough chemical manufacturers deny any health threatfrom their products, studies of exposures in theworkplace and the home suggest otherwise.For example, in New Jersey, a study of 24,000 bluecollar workers found a significant association betweenbreast cancer in African-American women and employmentin one of several chemical-intensive industries.Ironically, one of the industries where thisphenomenon was present was pharmaceuticals, wherebreast cancer mortality among workers was 1.64 timeshigher than the national average. In the electricalequipment industry, where industrial solvents arewidely used, the rate was 1.51 times higher. A studyof New York women in the electrical and printingindustries had similar findings.The scope of the problem becomes evident when youconsider that 4 million women are employed in thechemical industry and that at least one million ofthem are exposed to chemicals

that are known to causebreast cancer!Nor is this news recent.A study published in the Journal of OccupationalMedicine in 1977 reported that women exposed to vinylchloride in the workplace experienced a higher thanexpected rate of deaths from breast cancer.But you don't have to work around toxic chemicals todevelop an increased breast cancer risk.On Long Island, the New York Department of Healthfound that women who had lived near large chemicalplants located there experienced a sharply increasedrisk of breast cancer. Another study, published in theInternational Journal of Epidemiology found thatbreast cancer mortality among white women increased indirect proportion to how close they lived to one ofthat state's 111 Superfund toxic waste sites. Thecloser they were, the greater the risk.Further, it's not just epidemiological studies thatsuggest the link between chemical pollution and

breastcancer.MORE EVIDENCEIn a recent study, researchers at the Sart TilmanHospital in Liege Belgium have concluded that womenwith breast cancer have higher residues of thechemicals DDT and HCB in their tissue. The studyincluded 159 women with breast cancer and 250 healthywomen.According to Dr. Charles Charlier, a lead researcher,"These results add to the growing evidence thatcertain persistent pollutants may occur in higherconcentrations in blood samples from breast cancerpatients than controls."What was particularly striking was that 25% of thehealthy women had no detectable levels of either DDTor HCB in their blood samples whereas only 2.5% of thewomen with breast cancer did.Since it is known that DDT and HCB act like estrogenin the human body, stimulating the growth ofprecancerous and cancerous cells, the finding providesan important indication of the role these pollutantsmay

have in the rapid increase in breast cancer rates.First used in the 1940s, DDT use peaked in 1962, when80 million kilograms were applied to crops forests andother land areas. With the publication of "The SilentSpring," however, concern over the effects ofwidespread use of the chemical arose. As a result, itwas banned by the EPA in 1972. As of 1995, its use wasbanned in 49 countries.While DDT has been banned, it remains a problem due toits persistence in the environment. The USGS has foundDDT residues in water and soil samples a much as 20years after it was first applied!Of course, it's not just DDT that is a problem.A New York University study on women's health reportedthat women with the highest concentrations ofchlorine-based pesticides and other organochlorines intheir blood and fat had cancer risks from 4 to 10times higher than the general population.For New Yorkers this is a particularly

significantfinding because there are an estimated million poundsof PCBs (a family of organochlorines chemicals) buriedat the bottom of a 40-mile stretch of the HudsonRiver. The chemical contamination was the consequenceof decades of dumping by a General Electric Plant andled to contamination of fish and wildlife throughoutthe region. Ultimately the State of New York had tosue GE to force the company to pay for dredging of awaterway that runs parallel to the Hudson near Albany,NY.And what did GE industry say to this?The company claimed the river was "cleaning itself!"As far as they were concerned there wasn't a problem!But that's not all. Wherever possible the chemicalcompanies are sure no one else thinks there's aproblem - or at least they're not able to say that oneexists!MUZZLING THE OPPOSITIONWhen a number of earlier studies came out suggestingthat there was a higher presence of

residues of DDTand other chemicals in breast tumor tissues, they werequickly debunked by an article in the New EnglandJournal of Medicine. What was not revealed in thearticle, however, was the fact that it had been fundedby the Chemical Manufacturers Association.Nor was this the only instance where critics ofenvironmental contamination were attacked.When author Sandra Steingraber published "LivingDownstream," a book concerning the link betweenenvironmental pollution and cancer in 1998, the NewEngland Journal of Medicine was quick to publish ascathing book review accusing the author of beingobsessed with environmental pollution as the cause ofcancer. Again, the Journal was less than candid. Itonly identified the book review's author as Jerry H.Berke. What it neglected to disclose was the Mr. Berkewas a senior official at W.R. Grace and Company, amongthe largest chemical manufacturers. It also failed

tonote the Grace had been forced into a $69 millionclean-up of contaminated wells in Woburn,Massachusetts by the Environmental Protection Agency!When a prestigious scientific organization, theInternational Joint Committee (IJC) recommended aglobal phase-out of many chlorinated chemicals,affecting roughly 15,000 compounds, the industry wasquick to react in opposition to the move.The IJC had not made its recommendation in a vacuum.There had been mounting evidence about the danger ofthese chemicals and something even more dramatic.By 1978, Israel had one of the highest breast cancerrates in the world - 25%. Moreover, the breast cancerrate had been increasing annually in Israel for aquarter century. It also, however, had one of thehighest rates of environmental pollution from chlorinechemical pesticides such as benzene hexachloride, andDDT. Responding to public pressure, the governmentthere banned

the use of these substances. Remarkably,following the move, the breast cancer rate began todrop. By 1986 it had fallen by 8% for all groups andby more than a third for women between the ages of 25and 34.In the face of such overwhelming evidence the IJCrecommendation was clearly justified - at least that'swhat one would think. Apparently, however, the logicof the decision was not as clear to the chemicalindustry, or, more important, it's new ally: TheAmerican Cancer Society!And therein lies the other half of the story.For decades, America's land, water and air have beenfilled with noxious substances that are largelyresponsible for the cancer epidemic the nation isfacing. Yet, many of the very institutions we rely onto fight the scourge of cancer have made a devil'sbargain with the very companies responsible for thatpollution.Next month the second part of The Unholy Alliance willdetail the

way in which companies benefit from bothcausing and treating cancer, and use their financialclout to effectively buy off the institutions that areclaiming to seek a cure for the disease. We willdiscuss how this pernicious relationship colors thenature of research and directs it away from preventionand from alternatives that might hold hope formillions. Don't miss part two of "The Unholy Alliance"next month.Please pass this message or article on to someone else so that they may learn also.Community Newsletters.http://www.alternative-medicine-newsletter.infoCommunity Message Boards.http://www.alternative-medicine-message-boards.info"Do not let either the medical authorities or the politicians mislead you. Find out what the facts are, and make your own decisions about

how to live a happy life and how to work for a better world." - Linus PaulingGetting well is done one step at a time, day by day, building health and well being..list or archives: :........ - post:............. alternative_Medicine_Forum digest form:...... -digest individual emails: -normal no email:......... -nomail moderator:........ -owner unsubscribe:...... -