Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Environment

EarthTalk: What's the Connection Between Breast Cancer and Chemicals in the Environment?

E Magazine. Posted June 18, 2007.


Groundbreaking research found that synthetic chemicals have likely played a large role in the rising incidence of breast cancer throughout the world over the last half-century.

Dear EarthTalk: Is there any proof linking human breast cancer to exposure to chemicals in the environment? Or do researchers think most cases of breast cancers are genetically inherited? -- Bettine Carroll, New York, NY

A groundbreaking research study coordinated by the non-profit Silent Spring Institute and recently published by the American Cancer Society found that synthetic chemicals have likely played a large role in the rising incidence of breast cancer throughout the world over the last half-century. The study identified 216 man-made chemicals-including those found in everyday products like pesticides, cosmetics, dyes, drugs and gasoline (and diesel exhaust)-that have been shown to cause breast cancer in animals. Researchers believe these substances, many of which "mimic" naturally occurring hormones once inside the body, are also to blame for the increasing prevalence of human breast cancer.

According to epidemiologist Devra Lee Davis of the University of Pittsburgh's Graduate School of Public Health and one of the lead researchers on the new study, the more hormones cycling through a woman's body during her lifetime, the more likely she is to develop breast cancer. Synthetic chemicals that mimic hormones magnify the risk, as the body doesn't know the difference between its own real hormones and other introduced chemicals. Only one in 10 women who develop breast cancer inherits a defective gene from their parents, Davis adds, meaning that in 90 percent of breast cancer cases studied, external non-genetic agents (e.g. synthetic chemicals) contributed to the development of the cancer.

Another telling clue is the fact that the breast cancer risk of adopted children parallels the risk of the family they grew up in, not that of their biological family, as proven by analyzing medical records from Scandinavian countries that keep detailed registries following people from birth to death. "What we understand is that if cancer runs in your family it could be because your family had similar eating patterns, similar lifestyle patterns as well as lived in the same area," says Davis. "It's really important that we take another look at...the kinds of chemicals that we are using everyday," she adds. "We think that there are alternatives that can be used."

The U.S. government has been reluctant to institute new restrictions on the production of highly profitable synthetic chemicals, but European regulators are taking the issue very seriously. The European Commission's new Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) Program calls on chemical manufacturers selling anywhere in Europe to re-register and re-evaluate the potential health hazards-including cancer risks-of their products. Environmental and public health advocates hope that American chemical companies will follow that lead with chemicals sold here.

In the meantime, consumers can help prevent cancer by buying and eating organic foods, avoiding pesticides and other synthetic chemicals whenever possible, using non-plastic containers to reheat and store foods (some plastics are thoughts to leach cancer-causing chemicals into food when heated), and supporting government regulation and more research on synthetic chemicals and their effects.

CONTACTS: Silent Spring Institute, www.silentspring.org; European Commission's REACH Program, ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/reach/reach_intro.htm.

GOT AN ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTION? Send it to: EarthTalk, c/o E/The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; submit it at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/thisweek/, or e-mail: earthtalk@emagazine.com. Read past columns at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/archives.php

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: chemicals, cancer

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
dairy consumption is a strong link to breast cancer...
Posted by: satyagirl on Jun 18, 2007 12:22 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The article neglected to mention the huge role that dairy consumption plays in both breast and prostate cancer. Synthetic chemicals play a role but are not the main causes of cancer. There is a protein in cow's milk called Casein that makes up 87% of its protein. It strongly promotes cancer growth -- especially breast and prostate cancer. In fact the link between dairy consumption and breast cancer has been shown to be as strong as the link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer. The dairy industry will make sure you never learn this however.

Check out "thechinastudy.com" -- excellent book covering the most comprehensive study ever done of the relationship between diet and the risk of developing disease. It will change the way you think about food. Also, if you know anyone with breast cancer or have it yourself, I urge you to read "Your Life in Your Hands" by Dr. Jane Plant.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

milk
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Jun 18, 2007 3:52 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Milk that comes in plastic jugs tastes like plastic, so I only
drink milk that comes in wax-coated cardboard or glass
jugs. A lot of people drink milk that tastes of the detergent
used to wash the bulk milk tanks. They don't know what
milk is supposed to taste like. That detergent is: 1. A
gender-bender because all detergent is pseudo-estrogen and
2. intentionally toxic/bacteria killing. You had better learn
what milk is supposed to taste like. Quit drinking milk that
has traces of detergent in it. You need to taste raw milk
straight from the cow at least once in your life, and you
need to smell the detergent the farmer uses to wash his
equipment. Also, take a look at the farmer's hands. That
detergent is very harsh. Even wearing rubber gloves, the
farmer will have very rough hands.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Other causes
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Jun 18, 2007 4:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Did you know that enough URANIUM goes up the
smokestack of a coal-fired power plant to Fully fuel a
nuclear power plant with the same output? See:
http://www.ornl.gov/ORNLReview/rev26-
34/text/coalmain.html
If breeding of thorium into uranium and using plutonium as
fuel are allowed, enough uranium and thorium go up the
smokestack of one coal-fired power plant to fully fuel 500
nuclear power plants of the same size. That isn't all that
goes up the smokestacks of coal-fired power plants.
Arsenic and lead are also among the 73 elements in coal
smoke, and the quantities are worthy of commercial
production. They include:
Aluminum Chromium Molybdenum
Antimony Cobalt Nickel
Arsenic Copper Selenium
Barium Fluorine Silver
Beryllium Iron Sulfur
Boron Lead Titanium
Cadmium Magnesium Uranium
Calcium Manganese Vanadium
Chlorine Mercury Zinc
Thorium
Did they check for the effects of these elements from coal
smoke?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]