THE TRUTH ABOUT BREAST CANCER--FINAL PART 5

[Guest guest]

http://www.monitor.net/rachel/r575.html

 

 

 

RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY #575 .

 

.. ---December 4, 1997--- .

 

.. HEADLINES: .

 

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

 

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

 

.. 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--FINAL PART

 

 

 

Cancer occurs when a cell goes haywire and starts multiplying

 

uncontrollably. Modern cancer theory says a cancer is initiated

 

when damage occurs to the cell's genetic material, its DNA.[1]

 

Such damage can arise spontaneously (translation: we don't have

 

any idea what causes it) or it can result from an encounter with

 

a carcinogen, such as an x-ray or a cancer-causing chemical.

 

 

 

Damaged ( " initiated " ) cells are likely to be removed from the

 

body by a natural process called apoptosis. (Therefore anything

 

that interferes with apoptosis may encourage cancer without being

 

recognized as a carcinogen.)

 

 

 

An " initiated " cell that survives apoptosis does not begin to

 

grow uncontrollably until several more things happen to it. The

 

cell has to be " promoted " by agents (such as x-rays or certain

 

chemicals) that interfere with the ordinary messages being

 

transmitted back and forth between the cell and the body it

 

inhabits. In some instances, estrogen (female sex hormone) can

 

" promote " cancer cells. The result of " promotion " is an expanded

 

cluster of abnormal cells, waiting to become true cancers.

 

 

 

Still these promoted cells do not multiply uncontrollably unless

 

something ELSE happens to them. The " something else " is called

 

progression and it results from more physical injury to the

 

cell's DNA --and progression in all likelihood requires more than

 

one physical injury. Again, x-rays and certain chemicals (in

 

cigarette smoke, for example), might cause progression. Thus

 

cancer is a multi-step process, requiring perhaps 5 or 6 (or

 

more) " insults " to a cell before cancer develops.

 

 

 

A cell that has been sufficiently damaged takes on fearsome

 

properties --it becomes more sensitive to hormones, it can spread

 

and invade other parts of the body, and it develops a knack for

 

attracting blood vessels to nourish the growing tumor. It is now

 

a cancer and, left alone, it will multiply (grow) until it kills

 

its host.

 

 

 

Very few things have the ability to initiate cancer AND promote

 

it AND make it progress. Things that can do this are called

 

" complete carcinogens. " Radiation is a " complete carcinogen "

 

(including cosmic radiation from outer space, which we cannot

 

avoid) but most carcinogens are not --most carcinogens EITHER

 

initiate cancer OR promote it OR cause it to progress.

 

 

 

In any case, you can compare cancer to a rope hanging from a tree

 

branch. If the rope is cut, then you have a cancer. You can

 

think of carcinogens as bullets being fired at the rope. Most

 

bullets miss the rope completely. A few hit the rope and damage

 

it. As time passes and more and more carcinogens are fired at

 

the rope, eventually the rope may be cut and cancer develops.

 

Luck plays a part here (which is another way of saying we don't

 

understand what's going on).

 

 

 

In sum, cancer prevention means avoiding contact with carcinogens

 

--avoiding the bullets. This is the truth about cancer,

 

including breast cancer. What percentage of cancers are

 

avoidable?

 

 

 

In 1981, Richard Doll and Richard Peto --famous British

 

researchers --looked at cancers in every country where statistics

 

were available.[2] They looked for the lowest rates for each

 

type of cancer and on that basis they estimated that the

 

" natural " level of cancer in humans is about 1/5 of the current

 

cancer rate in the U.S. In other words, they estimated that 80%

 

of U.S. cancer cases are avoidable and preventable.[3]

 

 

 

To review the situation with breast cancer: In the U.S., the

 

occurrence of breast cancer has been increasing at the rate of 1%

 

per year since about 1950.[4] The same rate of increase is

 

visible in Canada, Japan, Denmark, the Nordic countries, and

 

elsewhere in the " developed " world.[5] The reasons for this

 

steady increase are not understood. In 1982 mammography

 

screening became widespread and many breast cancers were suddenly

 

discovered earlier. This led to a 3% to 4% annual rate of

 

increase in the incidence of breast cancers during the period

 

1982-1987, but by 1991 the " mammography effect " had passed and

 

the rate of increase had dropped back to its historical rate of

 

1% annual rise. Thus when someone says, " The incidence of breast

 

cancer is dropping " they are describing the end of the

 

mammography effect (the shift from the 4% annual increase back to

 

the 1% annual increase). The incidence of breast cancer is not

 

really dropping --it is still increasing at about 1% each year,

 

for unknown reasons. (On the other hand, the DEATH rate from

 

breast cancer IS dropping slightly because tumors are now being

 

found earlier, so earlier and more successful therapies (surgery,

 

chemotherapy and radiation treatments) are keeping more women

 

alive, at least for the 5 years that officially define a " cure. " )

 

 

 

As we have seen (REHW #571, #572, #573, #574), 30% to 50% of

 

breast cancers can be explained by exposure to

 

naturally-occurring estrogens (sex hormones), which a woman's

 

body produces as part of the monthly menstrual cycle. However,

 

this still leaves 50% to 70% of breast cancers unexplained.

 

 

 

In recent years, Devra Lee Davis and Leon Bradlow at Cornell

 

University have suggested that xenoestrogens might account for

 

10% or 20% of the unexplained breast cancers. Xenoestrogens are

 

industrial chemicals that mimic natural sex hormones. Davis and

 

Bradlow initially proposed their hypothesis in 1993 and they have

 

elaborated upon it since. In the body, estrogen is metabolized

 

into two different chemicals -- " good " estrogens and " bad "

 

estrogens (analogous to " good " cholesterol and " bad "

 

cholesterol). Evidence is mounting that some organochlorines and

 

other xenoestrogens help create bad estrogens, which contribute

 

to breast cancer.[6,7,8]

 

 

 

So far, most of the human studies of this subject have focused on

 

DDE (a breakdown product of the pesticide DDT) and PCBs. Last

 

week, we pointed out that these are inappropriate chemicals for

 

determining whether or not xenoestrogens cause breast cancer.

 

PCBs represent a group of 209 chemicals, some of which are

 

estrogenic and others of which are ANTI-estrogenic. (Some

 

ANTI-estrogens, such as tamoxifen, are used for breast cancer

 

therapy, to stop a cancer from spreading. Some women have even

 

been given tamoxifen in an attempt to prevent breast cancer.

 

Unfortunately, tamoxifen has caused other cancers in some of

 

these women.[9]) Regarding DDE, we overstated the case somewhat

 

last week, saying flatly that DDE is not estrogenic. There are

 

two kinds of DDE and one is estrogenic (o,p'-DDE) and the other

 

is not (p,p'-DDE). However, the human studies that have provided

 

the basis for claims that organochlorines don't cause breast

 

cancer have all reported total DDE or p,p'-DDE (the

 

non-estrogenic form).[10] Therefore, our point remains valid:

 

studies of total DDE or mixed PCBs provide no basis for claiming

 

that xenoestrogens aren't implicated in breast cancer. They are

 

not studies of clearly-estrogenic substances.

 

 

 

There are at least three aspects of hormone-disrupting chemicals

 

that make them exceedingly difficult for science to study:

 

 

 

1. Chemicals that interfere with hormones may only be effective

 

at a particular moment in the development of a baby in the womb.

 

In the laboratory, exposing a pregnant rat to dioxin on the 15th

 

day of pregnancy dramatically affects the sexual characteristics

 

of her male offspring after they mature. Dioxin exposure on

 

other days has no such effect. (See REHW #290.) It may be that

 

exposure to organochlorines or other hormone-disrupting chemicals

 

at a particular moment in the womb primes a baby girl's breast

 

cells for later growth of cancer.[8]

 

 

 

2. Furthermore, some hormone disrupters (such as the common

 

pesticide, atrazine) only stay in the body for a few months or a

 

few years. By the time a baby grows into childhood or adulthood,

 

these chemicals are gone and can't be studied. DDE and PCBs are

 

convenient to study because they remain in the body for a long

 

time, but they are not necessarily important chemicals for breast

 

cancer. The important ones may well be gone by the time the

 

research begins.

 

 

 

3. Many of these chemicals work in combinations. Their effects

 

are additive. Two chemicals present at ineffective levels may

 

combine to produce an effect. This has been conclusively

 

shown.[11] Scientists almost never study combinations of

 

chemicals --and most of us have combinations of HUNDREDS of

 

different organochlorines and other xenoestrogens in our bodies,

 

as a result of continuous chemical trespass by corporations.

 

 

 

For these (and other) reasons, science may never solve the puzzle

 

of breast cancer --or it may find answers only after many more

 

decades of research.

 

 

 

In the meantime, prevention can begin now. Breast cancer

 

activists could be advocating a ban on every chemical that shows

 

any tendency to interfere with hormones, or to cause cancer, in

 

any form of life. Activists' determination to ban harmful

 

chemicals should not wax and wane as new studies of DDE and PCBs

 

are misleadingly reported (or ignored entirely) by the NEW YORK

 

TIMES.

 

 

 

The rationale for banning hormonally active chemicals, and

 

carcinogens, is ethical. The molecular biologist and physician,

 

John Gofman, has argued, " If you pollute when you DO NOT KNOW if

 

there is any safe dose, you are performing improper

 

experimentation on people without their in-formed consent.... If

 

you pollute when you DO KNOW that there is no safe dose with

 

respect to causing extra cases of deadly cancers, then you are

 

committing premeditated random murder. " [12] Either way, our

 

human rights are being violated by corporate polluters.

 

 

 

As an ethical principle, the burden of proof should be shifted to

 

the polluter to demonstrate --BEFORE the pollution begins --that

 

living things will not be harmed.

 

 

 

Cancer --including breast cancer --is a political disease.

 

Corporations have hijacked our sovereign power and are using it

 

against us, contaminating our air, water, and food with

 

cancer-causing, hormone-disrupting chemicals. If we are to

 

survive as a species, we will need to reassert the sovereign

 

power of the people to " promote the general welfare " (as the

 

preamble to our Constitution says). We simply have no other

 

choice.

 

 

 

--Peter Montague

 

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

 

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

 

[1] A clear explanation of cancer processes can be found in

 

Sandra Steingraber, LIVING DOWNSTREAM (New York: Addison-Wesley,

 

1997), pgs. 239-245.

 

 

 

[2] Richard Doll and Richard Peto, " The Causes of Cancer:

 

Quantitative Estimates of Avoidable Risks of Cancer in the United

 

States Today, " JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE Vol. 66,

 

No. 6 (June 1981), pgs. 1191-1308.

 

 

 

[3] Doll and Peto, cited in note 2 (above), said (Table 20, pg.

 

1256) they " guestimated " (their word, pg. 1235) that 35% of

 

cancers are caused by poor diet but they said the individual

 

estimates that add up to 35% are " uncertain in the extreme " (pg.

 

1235). They estimated that 30% of cancers are caused by tobacco

 

preparations and 3% by alcohol. They estimated that industrial

 

chemicals (including food additives, occupational exposures,

 

pollution, and industrial products) together accounted for 8% of

 

all cancers, or less. However they also said (pg. 1239)

 

" important occupational [cancer] hazards may quite possibly exist

 

that have not yet been detected.... " and, " On present knowledge,

 

therefore, it is impossible to make any precise estimate of the

 

proportion of the cancers of today that are attributable to

 

hazards at work (let alone how many future cancers may arise from

 

past occupational exposure during the years before 1980), and

 

none of the estimates that have been made are claimed to be

 

anything more than informed guesses. " They further said (pg.

 

1241), " We do not, ourselves, consider particularly reliable any

 

explicit numerical estimates of the proportion of cancers

 

currently ascribable to occupation.... " On pg. 1251 they say

 

their upper limit estimate of 5% of cancers being caused by

 

pollution is " rather arbitrary. " On pg. 1251 they also say

 

industrial products " ...are a class of agents which are so

 

numerous that we can only echo the uncertainty with which we

 

discussed many pollutants in the previous section. " And they

 

conclude by saying, " There is too much ignorance for complacency

 

to be justified. " (pg. 1251) Unfortunately, their work has been

 

cited again and again since 1981 to justify the very complacency

 

they warned against.

 

 

 

[4] Barry A. Miller and others, " Recent Incidence Trends for

 

Breast Cancer in Women and the Relevance of Early Detection: An

 

Update, " CA--A CANCER JOURNAL FOR CLINICIANS Vol. 43, No. 1

 

(Jan./Feb. 1993), pgs. 27-41. And: Stephanie E. King and David

 

Schottenfeld, " The 'Epidemic' of Breast Cancer in the

 

U.S.--Determining the Factors, " ONCOLOGY Vol. 10, No. 4 (April

 

1996), pgs. 453-462. And: Eric J. Feuer and Lap-Ming Wun, " How

 

Much of the Recent Rise in Breast Cancer Incidence Can Be

 

Explained by Increases in Mammography Utilization? " AMERICAN

 

JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY Vol. 136, No. 12 (December 15, 1992),

 

pgs. 1423-1436. And: J.M. Liff and others, " Does Increased

 

Detection Account for the Rising Incidence of Breast Cancer?

 

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH Vol. 81, No. 4 (1991), pgs.

 

462-465. And: Barry A. Miller and others, " The increasing

 

incidence of breast cancer since 1982: Relevance of early

 

detection, " CANCER CAUSES AND CONTROL Vol. 2 (1991), pgs. 67-74.

 

And: Emily White and others, " Evaluation of the increase in

 

breast cancer incidence in relation to mammography use, " JOURNAL

 

OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE Vol. 84 (1992), pgs. 1546-1552.

 

And: Miriam K. Campbell and others, " Cohort-Specific Risks of

 

Developing Breast Cancer to Age 85 in Connecticut, " EPIDEMIOLOGY

 

Vol. 5 (1994), pgs. 290-296. See Table 2. And: Larry G. Kessler

 

and others, " Projections of the Breast Cancer Burden to U.S.

 

Women: 1990-2000, " PREVENTIVE MEDICINE Vol. 20 (1991), pgs.

 

170-182. And: G.C. Roush and others, CANCER RISK AND INCIDENCE

 

TRENDS: THE CONNECTICUT PERSPECTIVE [iSBN 0-89116-412-x]

 

(Washington, D.C.: Hemisphere, 1987). Hemisphere is an imprint of

 

Taylor & Francis; telephone 1-800-821-8312. And: Gertraud

 

Maskarinec and others, " Mammography Screening and the Increase in

 

Breast Cancer Incidence in Hawaii, " CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY,

 

BIOMARKERS AND PREVENTION Vol. 6 (March 1997), pgs. 201-208. And:

 

Paula M. Lantz, " Mammography screening and increased incidence of

 

breast cancer in Wisconsin, " JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER

 

INSTITUTE Vol. 83 (1991), pgs. 1540-1546. And: Eric J. Feuer and

 

others, " The Lifetime Risk of Developing Breast Cancer, " JOURNAL

 

OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE Vol. 85 (1993), pgs. 892-897.

 

And: Theodore R. Holford and others, " Trends in female breast

 

cancer in Connecticut and the United States, " JOURNAL OF CLINICAL

 

EPIDEMIOLOGY Vol. 44 (1991), pgs. 29-39. And: Robert A. Hahn and

 

Susan H. Moolgavkar, " Nullparity, Decade of First Birth, and

 

Breast Cancer in Connecticut Cohorts, 1855 to 1945: An Ecological

 

Study, " AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH Vol. 79, No. 11

 

(November 1989), pgs. 1503-1507.

 

 

 

[5] John F. Forbes, " The Incidence of Breast Cancer: The Global

 

Burden, Public Health Considerations, " SEMINARS IN ONCOLOGY Vol.

 

24, No. 1 Supplement 1 (February 1997), pgs. S1-20 to S1-35. And:

 

Lenore Kohlmeier and others, " Lifestyle and Trends in Worldwide

 

Breast Cancer Rates, " in Devra Lee Davis and David Hoel, editors,

 

TRENDS IN CANCER MORTALITY IN INDUSTRIAL COUNTRIES [ANNALS OF THE

 

NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES Vol. 609; ISBN 0-89766-643-7] (New

 

York: The New York Academy of Sciences, 1990), pgs. 259-268. And:

 

J. Ranstam and others, " Rising incidence of breast cancer among

 

young women in Sweden, " BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER Vol. 61, No. 1

 

(January 1990), pgs. 120-122. And: Michael Grace and others, " The

 

Increasing Incidence of Breast Cancer in Alberta 1953-1973, "

 

CANCER Vol. 40 (1977), pgs. 358-363. And: Marianne Ewertz and

 

Bendix Carstensen, " Trends in Breast Cancer Incidence and

 

Mortality in Denmark, 1943-1982, " INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CANCER

 

Vol. 41 (1988), pgs. 46-51. And: A.H. Andreasen and others,

 

" Regional trends in breast cancer incidence and mortality in

 

Denmark prior to mammographic screening, " BRITISH JOURNAL OF

 

CANCER Vol. 70 (1994), pgs. 133-137. And: Hrafn Tulinius and

 

Helgi Sigvaldason, " Trends in Incidence of Female Breast Cancer

 

in the Nordic Countries, " in Knut Magnus, editor, TRENDS IN

 

CANCER INCIDENCE [iSBN 0-89116-235-6] (Washington, D.C.:

 

Hemisphere, 1982), pgs. 235-247. Hemisphere is an imprint of

 

Taylor & Francis; telephone 1-800-821-8312. And: Yuko Minami,

 

" Trends in the Incidence of Female Breast and Cervical Cancers in

 

Miyagi Prefecture, Japan, 1957-1987, " JAPANESE JOURNAL OF CANCER

 

RESEARCH Vol. 87 (1996), pgs. 10-17.

 

 

 

[6] Devra Lee Davis, H. Leon Bradlow, and others, " Medical

 

Hypothesis: Xenoestrogens As Preventable Causes of Breast

 

Cancer, " ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVES Vol. 101, No. 5

 

(October 1993), pgs. 372-377.

 

 

 

[7] Devra Lee Davis and others, " Medical Hypothesis: Bifunctional

 

Genetic-Hormonal Pathways to Breast Cancer, " ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH

 

PERSPECTIVES Vol. 105, Supplement 3 (April 1997), pgs. 571-576.

 

Anyone interested in xenoestrogens, environment, and breast

 

cancer will want to see this ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVES

 

SUPPLEMENT, which is entirely devoted to the topic.

 

 

 

[8] See Devra Lee Davis and others, " Environmental Influences on

 

Breast Cancer Risk, " SCIENCE AND MEDICINE Vol. 4, No. 3 (May/June

 

1997), pgs. 56-63.

 

 

 

[9] Nils Wilking and others, " Tamoxifen and Secondary Tumours, "

 

DRUG SAFETY Vol. 16, No. 2 (February 1997), pgs. 104-117.

 

 

 

[10] David J. Hunter and others, " Plasma Organochlorine Levels

 

and the Risk of Breast Cancer, " NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE

 

Vol. 337, No. 18 (October 30, 1997), pgs. 1253-1258. And: Pieter

 

van't Veer and others, " DDT (dicophane) and postmenopausal breast

 

cancer in Europe: case-control study, " BRITISH JOURNAL OF

 

MEDICINE Vol. 315 (July 12, 1997), pgs. 81-85. Studied 265 cases

 

and 341 controls. And: Lizbeth Lopez-Carrillo and others,

 

" Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane Serum Levels and Breast Cancer

 

Risk: A Case Control Study from Mexico, " CANCER RESEARCH Vol. 57

 

(September 1, 1997), pgs. 3728-3732. See also Mary S. Wolff and

 

Paolo G. Toniolo, " Environmental Organochlorine Exposure as a

 

Potential Etiologic Factor in Breast Cancer, " ENVIRONMENTAL

 

HEALTH PERSPECTIVES Vol. 103 Supplement 7 (October 1995), pgs.

 

141-145. And see: Hans-Olav Adami and others, " Organochlorine

 

compounds and estrogen-related cancers in women, " CANCER CAUSES

 

AND CONTROL Vol. 6 (1995), pgs. 551-566.

 

 

 

[11] Ana M. Soto and others, " The E-SCREEN Assay as a Tool to

 

Identify Estrogens: An Update on Estrogenic Environmental

 

Pollutants, " ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVES Vol. 103,

 

Supplement 7 (October 1995), pgs. 113-122.

 

 

 

[12] Gofman quoted in Sandra Steingraber (see note 1, above),

 

pgs. 339-340.

 

 

 

Descriptor terms: breast cancer; carcinogens; dde; pcbs; ethics;

 

bans; atrazine; development; endocrine disrupters; radiation;

 

ddt; pesticides; xenoestrogens; estrogen; tamoxifen; john gofman;

 

burden of proof; hormone disrupters;

 

 

 

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

 

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