|
|
Lynn Howard Ehrle,
Senior Biomedical Policy Analyst
Organic Consumers Assoc.
8888 Mayflower Dr., Plymouth, MI 48170
Stress and Breast Cancer: Another Smoke Screen?
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/331/7516/548#116563
Response in BMJ to the recent Stress and Breast Cancer study
Nielsen et al (10 Sept) cite stress as an important factor in breast
cancer and they believe it[breast cancer] is "a hormone dependent
disease with a clear positive relation to high endogenous
concentrations of oestrogen."
The emphasis upon stress, diet, exercise, yoga, family history, etc.,
tend to cloud the issue (intentionally?). It has long been known that
breast tissue is highly effected by ionizing radiation. This fact was
demonstrated by Ian MacKenzie in 1965 when he found that women who had
fluoroscope examinations for tuberculosis had a 24-fold greater risk of
breast cancer as compared to others who were not irradiated(1). This
study was confirmed in 1969 by Myrden and Hiltz(2).
Then, in 1970, a paper by Tamplin and Gofman(1963-associate director,
Lawrence Livermore Natl. Lab and director of its Biomedical Research
Div) quantified the dose -response for radiation-induced breast
cancer(3). In 1971, Segaloff and Maxfield, in a radiation/oestrogen
experiment, concluded, "radiation alone could be the causative agent in
the rising incidence of breast carcinoma"(4). This was the first study
to document a synergistic response but it was ignored by cancer
"experts" who were playing ball with the embryonic nuclear power
industry.
Despite the best efforts by independent investigators (Nobel laureate
H.J. Muller,Ernest Sternglass, John Gofman,Rosalie Bertell,Alice
Stewart,Brian MacMahon,Baruch Modan,Rudi Nussbaum,Chris Busby,Inge
Schmitz -Feuerhake, Alexey Yablokov, to name a few) to focus on
radiation health effects, the radiation connection was too hot to
handle.
How could the National Cancer Institute(NCI) distribute a booklet to
its cancer centers in 2003 (What You Need to Know About Breast
Cancer)proclaiming "No one knows the exact causes of breast cancer"?
How could the NCI and cancer specialists around the world ignore the
work of these respected scientists or later papers published in major
medical journals that disproved this claim?
A 1996 paper by Mary S. Wolff(Mt. Sinai School of Medicine)that stated,
"In women, strong links have been established between breast cancer
risk and ionizing radiation"(5). Or the commentary by five cancer
experts on risk factors-- "With the notable exceptions of ionizing
radiation and inherited genetic damage, none of the established risk
factors for breast cancer directly causes the disease"(6).
John W. Gofman published an extensively referenced book(340
references)in 1996 that identified medical X rays as the primary cause
of the skyrocketing incidence of breast cancer(7), representing the
best historical account of the disease.
Incredibly, on 27 July 1996, NCI director Richard Klausner, speaking at
Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi's town hall meeting, noted, "As far as I am
aware, all of the data we have to date on low-level ionizing radiation
does not demonstrate an increased risk"(transcript sent to this
writer). He must have known of the preliminary results of the
NCI-funded U.S. Scoliosis Cohort Study. Published in the low
circulation journal Spine(8),it found an average of 24.7 X rays and a
mean cumulative dose of 10.8 cGy(a very low dose) resulted in a 69%
increase in breast cancer mortality, a jarring revelation to the
radiation community.
In 2004, the Breast Cancer Fund published a booklet on the primary
causes of cancer, i.e., radiation and its synergistic co-action with
chemicals. Six prominent scientists reviewed the document, the first
one to reference the Segaloff-Maxfield study and another later paper
demonstrating synergism by Calef and Hei(Establishment of a radiation
and estrogen-induced breast cancer model. Carcinogenesis
2000;21:769-776). The Fund's conclusion: "Exposure to ionizing
radiation is the best-established environmental cause of human breast
cancer"(9)and it urged an investigation into the synergistic
interaction of radiation and chemicals, a necessary component in cancer
prevention, risk analysis, and The Precautionary Principle.
References
1. MacKenzie I. Breast cancer following multiple fluoroscopies. Brit J
Cancer 1965;19:1-8.
2. Myrden JA, Hiltz JE. Breast cancer following multiple fluoroscopies
during artificial pneumothorax treatment of pulmonary tuberculosis.
Canadian Med Assoc J 1969;100:1032-1064.
3. Tamplin AR, Gofman JW. Radiation-induced breast cancer. Lancet
1970;1:297.
4. Segaloff A, Maxfield WS. The synergism between radiation and
oestrogen in the production of mammary cancer in the rat. Cancer
Research 1971;31:166-168.
5. Wolff Ms, Collman GW, Barrett JC, Huff J. Brreast cancer and
environmental risk: epidemiological and experimental findings. Annu Rev
Pharmacol Toxicol 1996;36:573-596.
6. Davis DL, Axelrod D, Bailey L, Gaynor M, Sasco AJ. Enviro Health
Perspect 1998;9:523-529.
7. Gofman JW. Preventing Breast Cancer: The Story of a Major,Proven,
Preventable Cause of this Disease(2nd ed). San Francisco:Committee for
Nuclear Responsibility,1996.
8. Doody MM,Lonstein JE, Stovall M, Hacker DG, Luckyanov N, Land CE.
Breast cancer mortality after diagnostic radiography:findings from the
U.S.Scoliosis Cohort Study. Spine 2000;25:2052-2063.
9. Evans N(ed). State of the Evidence:What Is the Connection Between
the Environment and Breast Cancer? San Francisco: Breast Cancer
Fund/Breast Cancer Action, 2004
Competing interests: None declared
|
|