Some cancer causing chemicals

June 15, 2005

What's causing cancer?

Jun. 13, 2005. 01:00 AM

Toronto Star - Editorial

http://snipurl.com/fk2k

What's causing cancer?

Chemicals fingered as rates reach epidemic

proportions, by Mitchell

Anderson

Cancer in Canada is now projected to afflict one in

every 2.2 men and

one in every 2.6 women in their lifetime. In the

1930s, those numbers

were less that one in 10. What's happening? Why are we

now seeing what

many are calling a " cancer epidemic " ?

Some would suggest we are simply an aging population

and cancer is a

disease of the old. Not true. Recent statistics show

that the net

incidence rate of cancer has increased 25 per cent for

males and 20 per

cent for females from 1974 to 2005 — after correcting

for the effects

of

aging.

Children are increasingly the victims. Researchers in

Britain have

shown

that certain childhood cancers such as leukemia and

brain cancer have

increased by more than a third since the 1950s.

In Canada, hundreds of millions of dollars are raised

and spent for

cancer research and treatment. The elephant in the

room, however, is

the

contribution of environmental toxins and whether many

of the cancers

striking Canadians can be avoided rather than simply

managed.

The World Health Organization estimates that fully 25

per cent of

cancers worldwide are caused by occupational and

environmental factors

other than smoking. You don't have to look far for

some potential

chemical culprits.

There are more than 85,000 chemicals that are

currently licensed for

use

in North America. Less than half have ever been tested

for human health

risk and even fewer for potential environmental

impacts.

The U.S. Centers For Disease Control recently turned

their attention

toward pollution detection — not in the environment,

but within the

human body. Their study in 2002 found the presence of

81 different

toxic

chemicals, including PCBs, benzene and other

carcinogens in their

sampling of 2,500 people tested.

It is somewhat of a no-brainer that reducing exposure

to known

carcinogens will reduce the risk of developing cancer.

Surprisingly,

this simple logic seems to have been lost on our

federal government.

Many chemicals that are scientifically demonstrated

carcinogens or

otherwise toxic are freely used here without any legal

obligation to

identify them on the label. Some of these same

chemicals are entirely

banned elsewhere. A trip to your local supermarket

reveals a small

sample of these hidden poisons:

Mothballs contain either naphthalene or

paradichlorobenzene, both of

which are carcinogenic. A recent U.S. study linked

mothball use to an

increased incidence of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.

Polycarbonate plastics

used in food-grade plastic containers such as water

bottles can leach

Bisphenol A, an estrogen-mimicking chemical linked to

a variety of

disorders, including hormone-related birth defects,

learning

disabilities, prostate cancer and neuro-degenerative

diseases such as

Alzheimer's disease.

Several leading perfumes, nail polishes and other

cosmetic products

sold

in Canada contain the endocrine-disrupting phthalates

DBP and DEHP —

both banned for use in cosmetic products in European

Union countries.

Polybrominated diphenyl ethers or PBDEs are common

chemical fire

retardants found in everything from foam mattresses to

computer parts.

They have similar properties to the now outlawed PCBs

and are known

neurotoxins and hormone disrupters. The most dangerous

forms are now

banned in the EU, though they remain legal here in

Canada.

Many leading brands of household laundry detergent

contain trisodium

nitrilotriacetate, another suspected carcinogen as

well as an

environmental pollutant.

Chemicals that endanger human life also go down the

drain and impact

the

environment. A gruesome example involved a dead orca

that washed up

south of Vancouver in 2000 that was so contaminated

with persistent

chemicals that Ottawa considered shipping the carcass

to the Swan Hills

toxic waste facility for incineration.

Like orcas, we are perched at the top of the food

chain and are

becoming

the unwitting receptacles of many of the chemicals

designed to make our

lives more convenient.

Ballooning cancer rates are simply not worth whiter

clothes or fewer

moths.

Cancer must be fought on many fronts. Research and

treatment are

undeniably important but so is environmental cancer

prevention. It is

therefore shocking that our government is not moving

faster to ban

known

and suspected carcinogens, and requiring mandatory

" right to know "

labelling so that Canadians can better protect

themselves and their

families.

Anything less is quite simply putting the interests of

the chemical

industry ahead of human life.

Mitchell Anderson is a board member of the Labour

Environmental

Alliance

Society, a Vancouver-based charity that educates the

public on cancer

prevention.

June 17, 2005

Thanks, Kelly, for backing me up on what I have been saying all along! This post reaffirms everything I believe about cancer diagnosises increasing at an alarming rate and occurring in younger and younger people. My daughter's tumor began developing in the embryonic stage of her gestational developement. My hat's off to you again Kel!

Blessings, Renee"Kelly W." <kellykebby wrote:

What's causing cancer?Jun. 13, 2005. 01:00 AMToronto Star - Editorialhttp://snipurl.com/fk2kWhat's causing cancer?Chemicals fingered as rates reach epidemicproportions, by Mitchell AndersonCancer in Canada is now projected to afflict one inevery 2.2 men and one in every 2.6 women in their lifetime. In the1930s, those numbers were less that one in 10. What's happening? Why are wenow seeing what many are calling a "cancer epidemic"?Some would suggest we are simply an aging populationand cancer is a disease of the old. Not true. Recent statistics showthat the net incidence rate of cancer has increased 25 per cent formales and 20 per cent for females from 1974 to 2005 — after correctingfor the effects of aging.Children

are increasingly the victims. Researchers inBritain have shown that certain childhood cancers such as leukemia andbrain cancer have increased by more than a third since the 1950s.In Canada, hundreds of millions of dollars are raisedand spent for cancer research and treatment. The elephant in theroom, however, is the contribution of environmental toxins and whether manyof the cancers striking Canadians can be avoided rather than simplymanaged.The World Health Organization estimates that fully 25per cent of cancers worldwide are caused by occupational andenvironmental factors other than smoking. You don't have to look far forsome potential chemical culprits.There are more than 85,000 chemicals that arecurrently licensed for use in North America. Less than half have ever been testedfor human health risk and even fewer for potential environmentalimpacts.The

U.S. Centers For Disease Control recently turnedtheir attention toward pollution detection — not in the environment,but within the human body. Their study in 2002 found the presence of81 different toxic chemicals, including PCBs, benzene and othercarcinogens in their sampling of 2,500 people tested.It is somewhat of a no-brainer that reducing exposureto known carcinogens will reduce the risk of developing cancer.Surprisingly, this simple logic seems to have been lost on ourfederal government. Many chemicals that are scientifically demonstratedcarcinogens or otherwise toxic are freely used here without any legalobligation to identify them on the label. Some of these samechemicals are entirely banned elsewhere. A trip to your local supermarketreveals a small sample of these hidden poisons:Mothballs contain either naphthalene orparadichlorobenzene, both of which are

carcinogenic. A recent U.S. study linkedmothball use to an increased incidence of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.Polycarbonate plastics used in food-grade plastic containers such as waterbottles can leach Bisphenol A, an estrogen-mimicking chemical linked toa variety of disorders, including hormone-related birth defects,learning disabilities, prostate cancer and neuro-degenerativediseases such as Alzheimer's disease.Several leading perfumes, nail polishes and othercosmetic products sold in Canada contain the endocrine-disrupting phthalatesDBP and DEHP — both banned for use in cosmetic products in EuropeanUnion countries.Polybrominated diphenyl ethers or PBDEs are commonchemical fire retardants found in everything from foam mattresses tocomputer parts. They have similar properties to the now outlawed PCBsand are known neurotoxins and hormone disrupters. The most dangerousforms

are now banned in the EU, though they remain legal here inCanada.Many leading brands of household laundry detergentcontain trisodium nitrilotriacetate, another suspected carcinogen aswell as an environmental pollutant.Chemicals that endanger human life also go down thedrain and impact the environment. A gruesome example involved a dead orcathat washed up south of Vancouver in 2000 that was so contaminatedwith persistent chemicals that Ottawa considered shipping the carcassto the Swan Hills toxic waste facility for incineration.Like orcas, we are perched at the top of the foodchain and are becoming the unwitting receptacles of many of the chemicalsdesigned to make our lives more convenient.Ballooning cancer rates are simply not worth whiterclothes or fewer moths.Cancer must be fought on many fronts. Research andtreatment are undeniably important but

so is environmental cancerprevention. It is therefore shocking that our government is not movingfaster to ban known and suspected carcinogens, and requiring mandatory"right to know" labelling so that Canadians can better protectthemselves and their families.Anything less is quite simply putting the interests ofthe chemical industry ahead of human life.Mitchell Anderson is a board member of the LabourEnvironmental Alliance Society, a Vancouver-based charity that educates thepublic on cancer prevention.

Discover Stay in touch with email, IM, photo sharing more. Check it out!