=======================Electronic Edition========================
RACHEL’S HAZARDOUS WASTE NEWS #389
—May 11, 1994—
News and resources for environmental justice.
==========
Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403
Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: erf@igc.apc.org
==========
The Back issues and Index are
available here.
The official RACHEL archive is here.
It’s updated constantly.
To subscribe, send E-mail to rachel-
weekly-request@world.std.com
with the single word SUBSCRIBE in the message. It’s
free.
===Previous
Issue==========================================Next
Issue===
WHAT CAUSES BREAST CANCER?
There are now more breast cancers diagosed in the U.S. each year
(181,000) than any other cancer, and all but 1000 of these occur
in the female half of the population. There are a few other
cancers that occur almost as often (lung: 168,000; colon and
rectum: 155,000) but these other cancers are spread among the
entire population, both men and women. [1] Breast cancer kills
more than 46,000 American women each year.
The incidence (occurrence) of female breast cancer in the U.S. is
steadily increasing; according to the National Cancer Institute,
between 1973 and 1989, among women of all ages, breast cancer
incidence rose at the rate of 1.7% per year (2.1% per year among
women over the age of 50). [2] To put it most starkly, in 1960 a
woman’s chance of getting breast cancer in the U.S. was one in
20; today it is one in 9.
The search for the causes of breast cancer has taken many turns.
There seems to be little doubt that something in the environment
contributes importantly to the disease because in high-incidence
countries, such as the U.S. and Germany, the death rate per
100,000 women is 4 times as high as it is in low-incidence
countries, such as Japan. [3] Furthermore, when Japanese women
migrate to the U.S., within a generation their breast cancer
rates begin to approach the U.S. averages.
Several factors have been linked to breast cancer: age at which a
women’s period begins (later is safer); age at which menopause
occurs (earlier is safer); age at birth of first child (earlier
is safer); diet (less fat and more fiber are safer); alcohol
intake (less is safer); and exercise (more is safer). All of
these factors have a common thread: they all affect the estrogen
levels in a woman’s blood stream. However, these known “risk
factors” still only account for 30% of breast cancers; some 70%
remains unexplained.
In the 1980s, researchers in Israel observed that the incidence
of breast cancer among Israeli women decreased noticeably when
chlorinated pesticides were reduced substantially in Israeli
milk. [4]
Devra Lee Davis and others have formally proposed the hypothesis
that estrogen-mimicking chemicals in the environment, including
pesticides and industrial wastes, may explain the rise in breast
cancer that has occurred in industrialized countries during the
past 30 years. [5] Recent U.S. studies of DDT in blood and breast
tissues of women who developed breast cancer have reached
contradictory conclusions about the relationship of DDT to breast
cancer: one found a statistically significant increase in cancer
among women with elevated levels of DDT (or its by-product, DDE)
in their breasts. [6] The more recent study found slightly
increased breast cancer rates among black and white women with
elevated DDT and DDE in their blood, but an opposite effect among
Asian women; taking all 3 groups together, the relationship was
not strong enough to achieve “statistical significance.” [7]
Most recently, researchers with the New York State Department of
Health have found that women on Long Island have a greater chance
of getting breast cancer if they grew up within a mile of a
chemical plant than if they lived further away. [8]
Many environmental factors may contribute to breast cancer. One
well-established factor that seems to have been missed by the
news media and even by some scientists is radiation. For
decades, women have been subjected to unnecessary and
unnecessarily high radiation exposures by the medical community.
(Many members of the same medical community are now studying the
relationship of chemicals to breast cancer; perhaps this helps
explain why radiation is often not discussed.)
Dr. John Gofman has recently been examining medical literature
going back to the 1930s and 1940s. He has found that many
physicians were fixated on a “problem” (later discovered not to
be a problem) called “thymic enlargement.” [9] The thymus is a
gland in the upper chest and lower neck. In the ’30s and ’40s,
doctors imagined that “thymic enlargement” was a common and
potentially fatal problem among American children. They
prescribed frequent large doses of x-rays and fluoroscopic
examinations, both for diagnosis and for therapy. (Fluoroscopy is
to x-rays what motion pictures are to snapshots. Fluoroscopy
gives the patient a much larger dose of radiation than an x-ray.)
Many doctors regularly gave x-ray treatments to newborns as a
“prophylactic” (preventive) measure –to guard against the
development of thymic enlargement. Many parents came to believe
that their children were not getting the best available medical
care if they were not given x-ray treatments. In a 1948 medical
article, two physicians wrote, “The obstetrician or pediatrician
should accede to the wishes of the parents who want neonatal
[newborn] roentgenograms [x-rays] of their children. It might
even be wise to administer therapeutic doses over the thymus.
Whatever assurance is gained by this apparently harmless and
perhaps beneficial procedure will aid in alleviating any anxiety
which occasionally becomes a thymus phobia.”
In a 1970 medical article, Dr. Hanson Blatz looked back on his
professional years, noting, “Those of you who have been in the
field a long time know it was once the practice of pediatricians
to fluoroscope babies and young children every month and when
they had the annual checkup. When we questioned this practice,
physicians would say, ‘Well, the parents expect it. They think
if I don’t fluoroscope the patients, they are not getting a
complete examination.” [10] Gofman notes that Blatz must be
describing habits of the 1940s and 1950s.
Gofman points out that, between 1920 and 1960, unnecessary and/or
excessive x-rays and fluoroscopic exposures of the breasts were
received by girls and women in connection with scoliosis (spinal
curvature), mammograms, screening for tuberculosis, diagnosis and
treatment of enlarged thymus, “therapy” for non-malignant breast
conditions, monitoring of tuberculosis treatments, exposure of
adults during exams of children, and non-medical uses (such as
fluoroscopes in shoe stores).
What should a reasonable and prudent person conclude from all
this? Is radiation important in causing breast cancer? Without
a doubt. Is DDT? Probably yes. Are other chlorinated compounds
besides DDT? Probably yes. Does anyone know for sure about
harmful effects of these chemicals? No. [11]
What should we do to protect ourselves and our children during
the decades that it will take for scientists to learn some of the
answers? Adopt the precautionary principle. Avoid exposing
yourself to exotic chemicals and technologies. Eat lots of
fruits and vegetables, especially the dark greens and dark
yellows. Prevent pollution: phase out chlorine and stop adding
to the world’s burden of radiation-producing materials derived
from nuclear power and nuclear weapons. Trust your own common
sense and don’t leave important decisions exclusively in the
hands of the “experts.”
                
                
                
                
    
–Peter Montague, Ph.D.
===============
[1] These are the National Cancer Institute’s 1992 estimates of
cancer incidence. See Barry A. Miller and others, editors,
CANCER STATISTICS REVIEW 1973-1989 [National Institutes of Health
Publication No. 92-2789], pgs. IV.[1], XV.1, and VI.1.
[2] Same publication as in note 1, Table IV-1, pg. IV.[5].
Descriptor terms: indians; native people; indigenous people;
conferences; breast cancer; lung cancer; colon cancer; rectal
cancer; morbidity statistics; japan; estrogen; israel;
pesticides; ddt; dde; long island; studies; radiation; john
gofman; thymus; x-rays; fluoroscopy; wmi; wmx; environmental
justice; national association for the advancement of colored
people; naacp; ben chavis;