THE TRUTH ABOUT BREAST CANCER--PART 3

[Guest guest]

http://www.monitor.net/rachel/r573.html

 

RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY #573 .

 

.. ---November 20, 1997--- .

 

.. HEADLINES: .

 

.. THE TRUTH ABOUT BREAST CANCER--PART 3 .

 

.. ========== .

 

.. Environmental Research Foundation .

 

.. P.O. Box five zero three six, Annapolis, MD 21403 .

 

.. Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: erf .

 

.. ========== .

 

.. Back issues available by E-mail; to get instructions, send .

 

.. E-mail to INFO with the single word HELP .

 

.. in the message; back issues also available via ftp from .

 

.. ftp.std.com/periodicals/rachel and from gopher.std.com .

 

.. and from http://www.monitor.net/rachel/ .

 

.. Subscriptions are free. To , E-mail the words .

 

.. SUBSCRIBE RACHEL-WEEKLY YOUR NAME to: listserv. .

 

=================================================================

 

 

 

THE TRUTH ABOUT BREAST CANCER--PART 3

 

 

 

As we saw in Part 1 of this series (REHW #571), perhaps 30% (a

 

few say as much as 50%) of breast cancer can be explained by

 

genetic inheritance or by factors in a woman's life that increase

 

her exposure to natural estrogens in the blood stream (female sex

 

hormones). Genetic inheritance accounts for an estimated 5% to

 

10% of the total.[1]

 

 

 

The evidence implicating natural estrogen is pretty convincing.

 

If a woman starts having her period early in life or goes through

 

menopause late, her chances of getting breast cancer are

 

increased. Not having a baby at all, or having the first baby

 

late in life, increases the likelihood of breast cancer. Having

 

more babies is more protective against breast cancer --having

 

more than 5 is most protective.[2] Breast feeding seems to be

 

protective (though it is unclear exactly why). Having one's

 

ovaries surgically removed is VERY protective; in pre-menopausal

 

women, the ovaries are the major source of natural estrogen. In

 

sum, for unknown reasons, under some circumstances, prolonged

 

exposure to natural estrogen increases the likelihood of breast

 

cancer in some women.[1]

 

 

 

Still, 50% to 70% (or more) of breast cancers remain unexplained.

 

And consider this: Compared to their grandmothers, more of the

 

current generation of women in their '50s had children, and they

 

had their children earlier --both factors that should have

 

reduced this generation's breast cancer risk. Yet this

 

generation's incidence of breast cancer has been steadily

 

increasing.[3] Clearly something else is overwhelming these

 

protective reproduction-related " risk factors. "

 

 

 

The " something else " is no doubt a combination of other factors

 

including medical irradiation,[4] exposures to cancer-causing or

 

cancer-promoting chemicals (including alcohol, cigarette

 

smoke,[5] pharmaceuticals, pesticides, food additives such as

 

partially hydrogenated vegetable oils,[6,7] and other industrial

 

compounds), lack of exercise, obesity (especially among women who

 

were thin at age 18 and seriously overweight after menopause[8])

 

and perhaps other (as yet unknown) factors. Most likely these

 

various factors work together, along with natural estrogen.

 

Furthermore, many people probably inherit a susceptibility to

 

particular harms --for example, some people have a

 

poorly-developed mechanism for detoxifying chemicals that they

 

ingest. For those people, ingesting chemicals may be more

 

dangerous than it is for other people. Thus, genetic inheritance

 

and environmental exposures no doubt interact in complex ways to

 

cause breast cancer and other cancers as well.

 

 

 

What's hopeful is this: we can't change out genetic inheritance,

 

but we can clean up the environment and reduce exposures to known

 

carcinogens. But first, of course, we would need to identify

 

them. There are about 75,000 different chemicals now in use and

 

only 1200 to 1500 of these have been tested for

 

carcinogenicity.[9] No one knows how many of the 75,000

 

contribute to cancer in humans but a recent estimate concluded

 

that we should expect 5% to 10% of these (3750 to 7500 different

 

chemicals) to be carcinogenic in humans.[10] Currently, our

 

government regulates fewer than 200 chemicals on the basis of

 

their carcinogenicity. We have a ways to go yet --and we add

 

roughly 2000 new, untested chemicals into commercial use each

 

year now. Yes, we have a ways to go.

 

 

 

Medical irradiation is the most-firmly-established of all causes

 

of breast cancer. At least 32 positive studies have shown that

 

irradiating the female breast increases the likelihood of breast

 

cancer.[11] (In the case of mammography, after age 50 the

 

benefits pretty clearly outweigh the risks, but if you are

 

younger than 50, read up on the subject before you decide. In any

 

case, please don't take our word on this --consult a qualified

 

physician.)

 

 

 

Dr. John Gofman (a physician and radiation specialist) has argued

 

in elaborate detail that medical irradiation --IN CONJUNCTION

 

WITH OTHER CO-FACTORS --has played a role in 65% to 75% of

 

today's breast cancers.[11] (See REHW #443.) The latest edition

 

of Gofman's book makes it clear that the problem of excessive

 

radiation of girls' and women's breasts is NOT a thing of the

 

past. Anyone who wants to learn how to prevent breast cancer

 

needs to know what Gofman is talking about so that they can

 

protect themselves and their loved ones from excessive medical

 

irradiation. (See Gofman's chapter 48, pgs. 353-372).

 

 

 

In recent years, attention has focused on chemicals that can

 

disrupt the hormone system. Often these chemicals mimic or block

 

estrogen. Therefore, because breast cancer seems to be intimately

 

associated with estrogen, it seems a reasonable question ask: are

 

industrial chemicals that disrupt hormones contributing to breast

 

cancer? As we have seen (REHW #571, #572), this is a question

 

that the chemical industry is not comfortable asking.

 

 

 

Is it plausible that organochlorines could interfere with human

 

hormones? Some people think it is. Some say not, arguing that

 

organochlorines are 100 to 10,000 times less potent than natural

 

hormones. On the other hand, organochlorines are present in human

 

blood at levels 40 to 250 times as high as natural hormones.[12]

 

Furthermore, only 1% to 3% of natural hormones are biologically

 

active (and sometimes much less than 1% is active) --the

 

remaining 97% to 99% (or more) is bound by proteins and is

 

unavailable to the body's hormone receptors.[13] Organochlorines

 

are not necessarily bound in this way. Lastly, natural hormones

 

last only a short time; most have a half-life of less than 30

 

minutes in the blood.[14] Many organochlorines have half-lives

 

measured in years. Therefore, the arithmetic begins to put

 

organochlorines into the ballpark where they might compete with

 

--and interfere with --natural hormones.

 

 

 

Here we will begin to review some of the evidence indicating (in

 

some cases, NOT indicating) that exposure to certain chemicals

 

can increase a woman's chances of getting breast cancer. No one

 

has suggested that chemical exposures explain ALL unexplained

 

breast cancers. Still, if 50% to 70% of breast cancers are

 

unexplained, that means 91,000 to 127,000 new cases of breast

 

cancer go unexplained each year. If chemical exposures accounted

 

for just 10% to 20% of those cancers, then we would have the key

 

to preventing between 9,000 and 25,000 cases of breast cancer

 

each year. The possibility seems too important to ignore.

 

 

 

Here is some of the evidence:

 

 

 

** Breathing vinyl chloride fumes causes breast cancer in female

 

rats, even at low doses.[15]

 

 

 

** Likewise, a study of women who breathe vinyl chloride fumes on

 

the job showed a 36% increase in breast cancer deaths.[15]

 

 

 

** Some pharmaceutical preparations are associated with increased

 

likelihood of breast cancer. For example, a study of 501,536

 

women who received diethylstilbestrol (DES) --a synthetic

 

estrogen --revealed a 34% increased likelihood of getting breast

 

cancer.[16]

 

 

 

** Reportedly, 85% of pharmaceutical drugs involve chlorinated

 

chemicals in their manufacture.[17] A 1979 study by the National

 

Cancer Institute revealed excessive breast cancer (22 observed,

 

12.3 expected) among 1075 white women employed in pharmaceutical

 

manufacture.[18]

 

 

 

** A study in New Jersey revealed excessive breast cancer among

 

African American female pharmaceutical workers, chemical workers,

 

electrical equipment workers, and printing plant workers (the

 

latter two industries being associated with exposures to

 

chlorinated solvents).[19]

 

 

 

A New York state study of white women in the electrical equipment

 

and printing industries (again, presumably exposed to chlorinated

 

solvents) showed elevated rates of breast cancer.[20]

 

 

 

** Women employed for more than 5 years as beauticians have a

 

three-fold increased likelihood of getting breast cancer.[21]

 

 

 

** Breast cancer is increased in 339 U.S. counties that have

 

hazardous waste sites and groundwater contamination compared to

 

counties without such sites. In this study of waste dumps and

 

cancers (during 1970-1979) in U.S. counties, breast cancer was

 

the most elevated cancer among women.[22]

 

 

 

** Fishermen's wives who eat organochlorine-contaminated fish

 

from the Baltic sea (east coast of Sweden) have an elevated

 

incidence of breast cancer compared to women eating

 

less-contaminated fish from the west coast of Sweden.[23] Among

 

the group of 2175 women, 38 cancers were expected and 49 were

 

observed.

 

 

 

** Women occupationally exposed to trichlorophenol, 2,4,5-T (the

 

herbicide that formed one-half of Agent Orange in Vietnam) and

 

dioxin had an elevated incidence of breast cancer (9 observed vs.

 

4.2 expected)[24] even though dioxin is usually considered an

 

anti-estrogen that may sometimes protect against estrogen-related

 

cancers.

 

 

 

[To be continued.]

 

--Peter Montague

 

(National Writers Union, UAW Local 1981/AFL-CIO)

 

===============

 

[1] Jennifer L. Kelsey and Leslie Bernstein, " Epidemiology and

 

Prevention of Breast Cancer, " ANNUAL REVIEW OF PUBLIC HEALTH Vol.

 

17 (1996), pgs. 47-67.

 

 

 

[2] Jennifer L. Kelsey and others, " Reproductive and Hormonal

 

Risk Factors, " EPIDEMIOLOGIC REVIEWS Vol. 15, No. 1 (1993), pgs.

 

36-47.

 

 

 

[3] Robert A. Hahn and others, " Nulliparity, Decade of First

 

Birth, and Breast Cancer in Connecticut Cohorts, 1855 to 1945: An

 

Ecological Study, " AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH Vol. 79, No.

 

1 (November 1989), pgs. 1503-1507.

 

 

 

[4] Esther M. John and Jennifer L. Kelsey, " Radiation and Other

 

Environmental Exposures and Breast Cancer, " EPIDEMIOLOGIC REVIEWS

 

Vol. 15, No. 1 (1993), pgs. 157-162.

 

 

 

[5] Alfredo Morabia and others, " Relation of Breast Cancer with

 

Passive and Active Exposure to Tobacco Smoke, " AMERICAN JOURNAL

 

OF EPIDEMIOLOGY Vol. 143, No. 9 (1996), pgs. 918-928.

 

 

 

[6] Lenore Kohlmeier and others, " Adipose Tissue TRANS Fatty

 

Acids and Breast Cancer in the European Community Multicenter

 

Study on Antioxidants, Myocardial Infarction, and Breast Cancer, "

 

CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY, BIOMARKERS & PREVENTION Vol. 6 (September

 

1997), pgs. 705-710.

 

 

 

[7] Z.Y. Chen and others, " Similar distribution of TRANS fatty

 

acid isomers in partially hydrogenated vegetable oils and adipose

 

tissue of Canadians, " CANADIAN JOURNAL OF PHYSIOLOGY AND

 

PHARMACOLOGY Vol. 73 (1995), pgs. 718-723.

 

 

 

[8] Zhiping Huang and others, " Dual Effects of Weight and Weight

 

Gain on Breast Cancer Risk, " JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL

 

ASSOCIATION Vol. 278, No. 17 (November 5, 1997), pgs. 1407-1411.

 

 

 

[9] Sandra Steingraber, LIVING DOWNSTREAM (N.Y.: Addison-Wesley,

 

1997), pg. 99, citing a 1984 estimate by the National Academy of

 

Sciences and a 1997 estimate provided by an official of U.S.

 

Environmental Protection Agency.

 

 

 

[10] Victor A. Fung and others, " The Carcinogenesis Bioassay in

 

perspective: Application in Identifying Human Cancer Hazards, "

 

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVES Vol. 103, Number 7-8

 

(July-August 1995), pgs. 680-683.

 

 

 

[11] John W. Gofman, PREVENTING BREAST CANCER: THE STORY OF A

 

MAJOR, PROVEN, PREVENTABLE CAUSE OF THIS DISEASE [second Edition]

 

(San Francisco: Committee for Nuclear Responsibility, 1996).

 

Available for $17.00 from Committee for Nuclear Responsibility,

 

P.O. Box 421993, San Francisco, CA 94142. His discussion of

 

co-factors appears on pages 350-351. The 32 positive studies

 

linking radiation to breast cancer are highlighted with a sharp

 

sign (#) in Gofman's bibliography, pgs. 383-402.

 

 

 

[12] Larry G. Hansen and Heiko T. Jansen, " [Letter], " SCIENCE

 

Vol. 266 (October 28, 1994), pg. 526.

 

 

 

[13] David V. Schapira and others, " Obesity, Body Fat

 

Distribution, and Sex Hormones in Breast Cancer Patients, " CANCER

 

Vol. 67, No. 8 (April 15, 1991), pgs. 2215-2218.

 

 

 

[14] H. Maurice Goodman, BASIC MEDICAL ENDOCRINOLOGY [second

 

Edition] (New York: Raven Press, 1994), pg. 8.

 

 

 

[15] Sandra Steingraber, " Mechanisms, Proof, and Unmet Needs: The

 

Perspective of a Cancer Activist, " ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH

 

PERSPECTIVES Vol. 105, Supplement 3 (April, 1997), pgs. 685-687,

 

citing P.F. Infante and others, " A historical perspective on some

 

occupationally related diseases of women, " JOURNAL OF

 

OCCUPATIONAL MEDICINE Vol. 36 (1994), pgs. 826-831, and L.

 

Chiazze and others, " Mortality among employees in PVC

 

fabricators, " JOURNAL OF OCCUPATIONAL MEDICINE Vol. 19 (1977),

 

pgs. 623-628.

 

 

 

[16] E.E. Calle, " Diethylstilbestrol and risk of fatal breast

 

cancer in a prospective cohort of U.S. women, " AMERICAN JOURNAL

 

OF EPIDEMIOLOGY Vol. 144, No. 7 (October 1, 1996), pgs. 645-652.

 

 

 

[17] Ferdinand Engelbeen, personal communication, November 16,

 

1997. Englebeen is chairman of a group called Chlorophiles who

 

say they represent workers in the chlorine and PVC industries

 

" who want to react to the allegations made against the products

 

they make with responsible care for the benefit of mankind. "

 

Their web site can be seen at http://www.ping.be/chlorophiles/ .

 

E-mail: Ferdinand.Engelbeen.

 

 

 

[18] T.L. Thomas and P. Decoufle, " Mortality among Workers

 

Employed in the Pharmaceutical Industry: A Preliminary

 

Investigation, " JOURNAL OF OCCUPATIONAL MEDICINE Vol. 21, No. 9

 

(September 1979), pgs. 619-623.

 

 

 

[19] Nancy E.L. Hall and Kenneth D. Rosenman, " Cancer by

 

Industry: Analysis of a Population-Based Cancer Registry With an

 

Emphasis on Blue-Collar Workers, " AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL

 

MEDICINE Vol. 19 (1991), pgs. 145-159.

 

 

 

[20] Hall and Rosenman, cited above, citing P.A. MacCubbin and

 

others, MORTALITY IN NEW YORK STATE, 1980-1982: A REPORT BY

 

OCCUPATION AND INDUSTRY [Monograph No. 21] (Albany, N.Y.: New

 

York Department of Health, 1986).

 

 

 

[21] K.L. Koenig and others, " Hair dye use and breast cancer: a

 

case-control study among screening participants, " AMERICAN

 

JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY Vol. 133, No. 10 (May 15, 1991), pgs.

 

985-995.

 

 

 

[22] Jack Griffith and Wilson B. Riggan, " Cancer Mortality in

 

U.S. Counties with Hazardous Waste Sites and Ground Water

 

Pollution, " ARCHIVES OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH Vol. 44, No. 2

 

(March/April 1989), pgs. 69-74.

 

 

 

[23] Lars Rylander and Lars Hagmar, " Mortality and cancer

 

incidence among women with a high consumption of fatty fish

 

contaminated with persistent organochlorine compounds, "

 

SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF WORK, ENVIRONMENT AND HEALTH Vol. 21, No.

 

6 (1995), pgs. 419-426.

 

 

 

[24] A. Manz and others, " Cancer mortality among workers in a

 

chemical plant contaminated with dioxin, " THE LANCET Vol. 338,

 

No. 8773 (October 19, 1991), pgs. 959-964.

 

 

 

Descriptor terms: breast cancer; carcinogens; radiation;

 

tobacco; cigarettes; exercise; genes; estrogen; pharmaceuticals;

 

pesticides; food additives; trans fatty acids; partially

 

hydrogenated vegetable oils; obesity; vinyl chloride; des;

 

hazardous waste landfills and cancer; pharmaceutical workers;

 

electrical workers; chemical workers; printing plant workers;

 

occupational safety and health; dioxin; 2,4,5-t; trichlorophenol;

 

food safety;

 

 

 

################################################################

 

NOTICE

 

Environmental Research Foundation provides this electronic

 

version of RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY free of charge

 

even though it costs our organization considerable time and money

 

to produce it. We would like to continue to provide this service

 

free. You could help by making a tax-deductible contribution

 

(anything you can afford, whether $5.00 or $500.00). Please send

 

your tax-deductible contribution to: Environmental Research

 

Foundation, P.O. Box five zero three six, Annapolis, MD 21403-7036. Please do

 

not send credit card information via E-mail. For further

 

information about making tax-deductible contributions to E.R.F.

 

by credit card please phone us toll free at 1-888-2RACHEL.

 

--Peter Montague, Editor

 

################################################################

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gettingwell- / Vitamins, Herbs, Aminos, etc.

 

To , e-mail to: Gettingwell-

Or, go to our group site: Gettingwell

 

 

 

 

Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now