Increase in breast cancer linked to pollution levels Study suggests everyday toxins a risk factor EXPOSURE TO everyday environmental pollution could be a factor in the rising rates of breast cancer, new research suggests.
A study carried out at Aberdeen University found evidence that subjecting female sheep to a "real-life" cocktail of chemicals triggered abnormalities in the mammary glands, including in some types of proteins associated with breast cancer in humans.
The researchers, who admit they were surprised by the effects shown, say that further work should now be carried out to see whether environmental pollution could be a factor in the steady increase in rates of breast cancer among women in the past few decades.
Breast cancer is the most common cancer among women in the UK, with more than 41,000 new cases being diagnosed each year.
The research, which is being unveiled at the Fertility 2007 conference in York this week, involved grazing sheep for up to five years on a field treated with processed human sewage sludge, used to represent the everyday mix of chemicals present in the environment, such as pesticides and synthetic oestrogen, found in the contraceptive pill.
Dr Paul Fowler, senior lecturer in reproductive physiology at Aberdeen University, said the model of "real-life" exposure was a vital element of the work, instead of using extremely high doses of chemicals which are often used in other toxicology studies.
"A human being would be unlikely to receive those kind of doses unless they had an accident of some kind," he said. "We are really trying to determine the real-life situation."
Fowler said they had not expected to see any changes in the mammary glands of the pregnant ewes - who were compared with sheep grazed on land treated with a standard fertiliser - but cautioned that it still had to be established if these were long-term abnormalities. More work would also be needed, he said, to identify the potential chemicals or mix of chemicals that could be causing the changes.
"It would suggest that we should definitely look at whether there may be similar effects in the human," he added.
Professor Steven Heys, professor of surgical oncology at Aberdeen University and clinical collaborator on the research, said that the incidence of breast cancer was rising by 2% every year. "It is absolutely vital that we carry out research into various things in the environment," he added.
Environmental campaigners pointed out that previous studies had also linked the "chemical cocktail" present in modern lifestyles to diseases such as breast cancer and asthma.
Duncan McLaren, chief executive of Friends of the Earth Scotland, said: "While this latest study should help us to better understand how exposure to chemicals can impact on health, we already know enough to know that we should be taking steps to eliminate or replace the most problematic chemicals."
However, breast cancer charities cautioned that there is no "conclusive evidence" of a link between environmental pollutants and the disease.
Lorraine Dallas, assistant director of Breast Cancer Care Scotland, said more research was needed to determine whether there was link.
And Liz Baker, Cancer Research UK's science information officer, said the strongest risk factor for breast cancer in women is lifestyle changes, such as having fewer children later in life, breast-feeding less and drinking more alcohol.
|
|
Posted by: Fiona Sinclair, Ayrshire on 11:28pm Sat 14 Apr 07
The usual guff from Cancer Research, who take funds from big business, and refuse to contemplate any link between cancers and toxic pollution, however many studies make that link clear. Why are these people quoted, when they are career administrators, with no personal interest and probably no scientific background?
The research studies have been piling in the evidence for links between cancers and other diseases and disorders that are increasing within the population. The links between cancers and environmental toxins have been known about for decades, the more recent research results are showing links between neurological disorders like autism and Alzheimers. The 2 links below are a very good place to start further reading:-
http://www.ewg.org/reports/bodyburden2/part3.php - Health Effects of
pollutants (EWG report on umbilical cord research)
http://www.ewg.org/reports_content/bodyburden2/pdf/stmt_slaughter-20050714.pdf
- the only microbiologist in Congress gives her view on what is happening
The usual guff from Cancer Research, who take funds from big business, and refuse to contemplate any link between cancers and toxic pollution, however many studies make that link clear. Why are these people quoted, when they are career administrators, with no personal interest and probably no scientific background?
The research studies have been piling in the evidence for links between cancers and other diseases and disorders that are increasing within the population. The links between cancers and environmental toxins have been known about for decades, the more recent research results are showing links between neurological disorders like autism and Alzheimers. The 2 links below are a very good place to start further reading:-
http://www.ewg.org/reports/bodyburden2/part3.php - Health Effects of
pollutants (EWG report on umbilical cord research)
http://www.ewg.org/reports_content/bodyburden2/pdf/stmt_slaughter-20050714.pdf
- the only microbiologist in Congress gives her view on what is happening
Posted by: Fiona Sinclair, Ayrshire on 11:29pm Sat 14 Apr 07
The usual guff from Cancer Research, who take funds from big business, and refuse to contemplate any link between cancers and toxic pollution, however many studies make that link clear. Why are these people quoted, when they are career administrators, with no personal interest and probably no scientific background?
The research studies have been piling in the evidence for links between cancers and other diseases and disorders that are increasing within the population. The links between cancers and environmental toxins have been known about for decades, the more recent research results are showing links between neurological disorders like autism and Alzheimers. The 2 links below are a very good place to start further reading:-
http://www.ewg.org/reports/bodyburden2/part3.php - Health Effects of
pollutants (EWG report on umbilical cord research)
http://www.ewg.org/reports_content/bodyburden2/pdf/stmt_slaughter-20050714.pdf
- the only microbiologist in Congress gives her view on what is happening
The usual guff from Cancer Research, who take funds from big business, and refuse to contemplate any link between cancers and toxic pollution, however many studies make that link clear. Why are these people quoted, when they are career administrators, with no personal interest and probably no scientific background?
The research studies have been piling in the evidence for links between cancers and other diseases and disorders that are increasing within the population. The links between cancers and environmental toxins have been known about for decades, the more recent research results are showing links between neurological disorders like autism and Alzheimers. The 2 links below are a very good place to start further reading:-
http://www.ewg.org/reports/bodyburden2/part3.php - Health Effects of
pollutants (EWG report on umbilical cord research)
http://www.ewg.org/reports_content/bodyburden2/pdf/stmt_slaughter-20050714.pdf
- the only microbiologist in Congress gives her view on what is happening
Posted by: Morag, West Lothian on 1:33pm Sun 15 Apr 07
A nice little bit of observation from Aberdeen to add to the already substantial volume of literature.
Agree with Fiona's observations and would add to her references two reviews of the research: Nancy Evans( Editor) The State of the Evidence,What is the Connection between the Environment and Breast Cancer, 2006, with 431 references, and more generally Richard Clapp,
Environmental and Occuoational, Causes of Cancer with 175 references.
The Women's Environmental Network and the No More Breast Cancer Campaign have been campaigning on this for many years.The Establishment is in denial!
A nice little bit of observation from Aberdeen to add to the already substantial volume of literature.
Agree with Fiona's observations and would add to her references two reviews of the research: Nancy Evans( Editor) The State of the Evidence,What is the Connection between the Environment and Breast Cancer, 2006, with 431 references, and more generally Richard Clapp,
Environmental and Occuoational, Causes of Cancer with 175 references.
The Women's Environmental Network and the No More Breast Cancer Campaign have been campaigning on this for many years.The Establishment is in denial!
Posted by: Teresa Binstock, Estes Park, Colorado, usa on 1:38pm Sun 15 Apr 07
Patents on toxic molecules remain a lucrative investment. Selling pharmaceuticals to alleviate suffering induced by intra-body toxins remains highly profitable. Patented toxins and their support systems have too many financial incentives. These must be curtailed on behalf of the biosphere and all its residents.
Patents on toxic molecules remain a lucrative investment. Selling pharmaceuticals to alleviate suffering induced by intra-body toxins remains highly profitable. Patented toxins and their support systems have too many financial incentives. These must be curtailed on behalf of the biosphere and all its residents.
Posted by: James McIsaac Butler, Canada on 3:57pm Sun 15 Apr 07
This research may come under the heading, 'Well, Duh!' .. it being so self-evident that people may not even read the article.
If researchers were to also house the sheep under power lines, NOW you've got something! Then they will get such a starkly significant tumor response it would really turn heads, everywhere.
But I guess the only EMF awareness in Scotland relates to the band and this article is merely to trumpet the local scientists ...
Very rude of me then, pardon.
This research may come under the heading, 'Well, Duh!' .. it being so self-evident that people may not even read the article.
If researchers were to also house the sheep under power lines, NOW you've got something! Then they will get such a starkly significant tumor response it would really turn heads, everywhere.
But I guess the only EMF awareness in Scotland relates to the band and this article is merely to trumpet the local scientists ...
Very rude of me then, pardon.
Posted by: ruth Smith, USA - Oregon on 8:09pm Sun 15 Apr 07
Toxic chemicals are everywhere - in our homes, schools, air we breathe and food we eat, our
cleaning products, etc.
I found an answer to chemicals in our laundry detergents. Please check out my website, this product really does work..www.mybigpay.com/ruths
Toxic chemicals are everywhere - in our homes, schools, air we breathe and food we eat, our
cleaning products, etc.
I found an answer to chemicals in our laundry detergents. Please check out my website, this product really does work..www.mybigpay.com/ruths
Posted by: free radical, Fife on 7:09am Mon 16 Apr 07
Why print anything Lorraine Dallas and Liz Baker have to say, when clearly both women have prostituted good science, common sense and probity in exchange for the on going accumulation of toxic profit within the cancer industry.
Further it’s a sad state of affairs, when the damming hypocrisy of women such as Lorraine and Liz, is afforded any type of print space or credibility. And since neither has a clue regarding the aetiology of cancer their lack of concern, compassion and rank stupidity makes them a danger to every cancer victim and their families.
And whilst we have more than enough evidence to globally resonate the precautionary principal over and over again, , just ask yourself who stands to profit most by ignoring the facts of good science….need I say more!
Why print anything Lorraine Dallas and Liz Baker have to say, when clearly both women have prostituted good science, common sense and probity in exchange for the on going accumulation of toxic profit within the cancer industry.
Further it’s a sad state of affairs, when the damming hypocrisy of women such as Lorraine and Liz, is afforded any type of print space or credibility. And since neither has a clue regarding the aetiology of cancer their lack of concern, compassion and rank stupidity makes them a danger to every cancer victim and their families.
And whilst we have more than enough evidence to globally resonate the precautionary principal over and over again, , just ask yourself who stands to profit most by ignoring the facts of good science….need I say more!
Posted by: john, london on 12:10pm Mon 16 Apr 07
hello? have any of you read the paper? this was a tiny study of 22 pregnant sheep, 11 of whom had been eating sewage for years. the researchers found minor, unexplained differences in the protein profiles of breast tissue removed from the sheep. it found no major difference in the expression of the major proteins involved in cancer. how this constitutes 'proof' that environemntal pollutants cause breast cancer is a little beyond me, could someone explain?
also, given the fact that women who take pharmaceutical-grade oestrogens - the Pill and HRT - only show a relatively small increase in breast cancer for the time they take the drugs. are we to conclude from this that there is some compound in sewage sludge that is massively more potent than oestrogen, yet undetectable in assays for oestrogenic activity?
the major drivers for breast cancer risk, as far as the solid epidemiology shows, are: age; family history; and the effects of endogenous hormone levels on breast tissue as determined by reproductive history - i.e. when you start and finish your periods, how early you have kids, how many you have, and whether you breast feed them or not.
evoking the spirit of 'nasty thngs in the environment' is a lovely way to transfer emotional responsibility from personal lifestle factors to external and uncontrollable risk while burying your head in the sand.
hello? have any of you read the paper? this was a tiny study of 22 pregnant sheep, 11 of whom had been eating sewage for years. the researchers found minor, unexplained differences in the protein profiles of breast tissue removed from the sheep. it found no major difference in the expression of the major proteins involved in cancer. how this constitutes 'proof' that environemntal pollutants cause breast cancer is a little beyond me, could someone explain?
also, given the fact that women who take pharmaceutical-grade oestrogens - the Pill and HRT - only show a relatively small increase in breast cancer for the time they take the drugs. are we to conclude from this that there is some compound in sewage sludge that is massively more potent than oestrogen, yet undetectable in assays for oestrogenic activity?
the major drivers for breast cancer risk, as far as the solid epidemiology shows, are: age; family history; and the effects of endogenous hormone levels on breast tissue as determined by reproductive history - i.e. when you start and finish your periods, how early you have kids, how many you have, and whether you breast feed them or not.
evoking the spirit of 'nasty thngs in the environment' is a lovely way to transfer emotional responsibility from personal lifestle factors to external and uncontrollable risk while burying your head in the sand.
Posted by: DH, UK on 11:22am Tue 17 Apr 07
The article doesn't say that the sheep study proves that environmental pollution causes breast cancer. It says that environmental pollution could contibute to rising rates of breast cancer.
Undoubtedly reproductive behaviour plays some part in breast cancer risk. (Family history only accounts for approximately 5% of cases)
However, evidence on the website of the Office of National Statistics shows that reproductive behaviour in the UK did not change in the 20th Century nearly as dramatically as women are led to believe.
Here is some information that can easily be found on the ONS website:
[bold]Between 1920 and 1985, the average number of births by mother did not exceed 2.42.[/bold]
[bold]Women born in 1955 and now at the end of their childbearing years had an average of 2.03 children[/bold]
This generation is now being affected by high incidence of breast cancer, yet their average family size is hardly different to that of the women born earlier in the 20th Century, who have experienced lower rates of breast cancer.
[bold]Twenty-one per cent of women born in 1920 were childless at the end of their childbearing years. This declined to a low of 9 per cent for women born in 1945 and 1946. It increased subsequently, and will be just under 20 per cent for women that are soon to complete their childbearing years.[/bold]
and
[bold]Women born in the 1940s had the lowest average age at childbirth, and these women contributed to the 1960s ‘baby boom’. They went on to have a larger family size than women born in the 1950s onwards[/bold] .
This generation, now aged 56 to 67, is being hit hard by high incidence of breast cancer. How can this be, given that they seem to have done the ‘right things’ reproductively, in comparison to women born earlier and later in the 20th Century?
The Standing Committee of European Doctors, representing approximately 2 million physicians in the EU states:
[bold]it has now been scientifically demonstrated that there is indeed a link between chemical products and the appearance of disease, such as cancers ……… cancer rates have increased steadily among the populations of the industrialised countries since 1950; that cancer affects all age ranges; and that chemical pollution could contribute to the onset of cancer[/bold]
Exactly who is burying their head in the sand? The European Doctors or Cancer Research UK?
The article doesn't say that the sheep study proves that environmental pollution causes breast cancer. It says that environmental pollution could contibute to rising rates of breast cancer.
Undoubtedly reproductive behaviour plays some part in breast cancer risk. (Family history only accounts for approximately 5% of cases)
However, evidence on the website of the Office of National Statistics shows that reproductive behaviour in the UK did not change in the 20th Century nearly as dramatically as women are led to believe.
Here is some information that can easily be found on the ONS website:
Between 1920 and 1985, the average number of births by mother did not exceed 2.42.
Women born in 1955 and now at the end of their childbearing years had an average of 2.03 children
This generation is now being affected by high incidence of breast cancer, yet their average family size is hardly different to that of the women born earlier in the 20th Century, who have experienced lower rates of breast cancer.
Twenty-one per cent of women born in 1920 were childless at the end of their childbearing years. This declined to a low of 9 per cent for women born in 1945 and 1946. It increased subsequently, and will be just under 20 per cent for women that are soon to complete their childbearing years.
and
Women born in the 1940s had the lowest average age at childbirth, and these women contributed to the 1960s ‘baby boom’. They went on to have a larger family size than women born in the 1950s onwards .
This generation, now aged 56 to 67, is being hit hard by high incidence of breast cancer. How can this be, given that they seem to have done the ‘right things’ reproductively, in comparison to women born earlier and later in the 20th Century?
The Standing Committee of European Doctors, representing approximately 2 million physicians in the EU states:
it has now been scientifically demonstrated that there is indeed a link between chemical products and the appearance of disease, such as cancers ……… cancer rates have increased steadily among the populations of the industrialised countries since 1950; that cancer affects all age ranges; and that chemical pollution could contribute to the onset of cancer
Exactly who is burying their head in the sand? The European Doctors or Cancer Research UK?
Posted by: Lynne Eldridge M.D., MN USA on 6:09am Fri 18 May 07
With the study released this week implicating 216 chemicals in common use that cause breast cancer in animals, it is time we look harder at environmental pollution. Of these chemicals, 35 are air pollutants. From a global standpoint, and looking at outdoor air, the task may seem daunting, but there are simple things we can do immediately to clean up our indoor air. The US Environmental Protection Agency has ranked indoor air 4th in environmental causes of cancer. Products such as pressed wood, upholstery, air fresheners, household cleaners etc. are of concern. Some of these products we cannot avoid, but purchasing a few houseplants can lower carcinogens in your home. NASA has done extensive research on the ability of common houseplants to absorb household carcinogens. Many other products can be replaced with safer alternatives. On our website, we are creating a table based on these 216 chemicals with notes on products to avoid and solutions or alternatives available. This is available at www.avoidcancernow.c
om on the left of the home page under breast cancer news. We have already lost too many friends to breast cancer, and want those who are still with us to have an awareness of anything they can do to lower their risk.
Lynne Eldridge M.D.
Author, "Avoiding Cancer One Day At A Time: Practical Advice for Preventing Cancer"
http://www.avoidcanc
ernow.com
With the study released this week implicating 216 chemicals in common use that cause breast cancer in animals, it is time we look harder at environmental pollution. Of these chemicals, 35 are air pollutants. From a global standpoint, and looking at outdoor air, the task may seem daunting, but there are simple things we can do immediately to clean up our indoor air. The US Environmental Protection Agency has ranked indoor air 4th in environmental causes of cancer. Products such as pressed wood, upholstery, air fresheners, household cleaners etc. are of concern. Some of these products we cannot avoid, but purchasing a few houseplants can lower carcinogens in your home. NASA has done extensive research on the ability of common houseplants to absorb household carcinogens. Many other products can be replaced with safer alternatives. On our website, we are creating a table based on these 216 chemicals with notes on products to avoid and solutions or alternatives available. This is available at www.avoidcancernow.c
om on the left of the home page under breast cancer news. We have already lost too many friends to breast cancer, and want those who are still with us to have an awareness of anything they can do to lower their risk.
Lynne Eldridge M.D.
Author, "Avoiding Cancer One Day At A Time: Practical Advice for Preventing Cancer"
http://www.avoidcanc
ernow.com
Posted by: honey, us on 5:45am Sat 22 Dec 07
link exchange request
Comment | Read Comments (11)
Print this story
Email to a friend
