Here's one I apparently meant to send some time ago- --- Chad Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <massive snippage>
> This article shows that good reaserch is needed more > than arbetrary bans on chemicals and technology. > > "Environmental pollution, pesticides, and the > prevention of cancer: > misconceptions [published erratum appears in FASEB J > 1997 Dec;11(14):1330] BN Ames and LS Gold > Department of Molecular and Cell Biology, University > of California, 94720, > USA. [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > The major causes of cancer are: 1) smoking, which > accounts for about a third > of U.S. cancer and 90% of lung cancer; 2) dietary > imbalances: lack of > sufficient amounts of dietary fruits and vegetables. > The quarter of the > population eating the fewest fruits and vegetables > has double the cancer > rate for most types of cancer than the quarter > eating the most; 3) chronic > infections, mostly in developing countries; and 4) > hormonal factors, influenced primarily by lifestyle. I'll add that viruses (like human papilloma virus) contribute as well, althopugh maybe they were putting them in the "chronic infection" category. > There is no cancer epidemic except for > cancer of the lung due to smoking. Cancer mortality > rates have declined by > 16% since 1950 (excluding lung cancer). I'm not sure where they got those figures; CDC data tables comparing cancer deaths per 100,000 population in various decades beginning with 1950 actually show a slight increase: all ages/all persons 1950 = 193.9 deaths per 100K; 1998 = 202.4. At ages 55-64 there is a 'breakover' with younger people having less mortality now than in 1950, and older people having increased mortality (but the population is also proportionately older) now. However, female cancer mortality is down overall (I suspect that is due to improved detection/treatment of breast and cervical cancers), while male cancer mortality is up (especially black male, but black female is up too). http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/tables/2002/02hus039.pdf Certainly lung cancer deaths have increased since 1950, especially in the over-65 set: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/tables/2002/02hus040.pdf Five-year cancer survival rates have improved more in men than women, although lung rates have been fairly stable, with a slight gain in survival for white males, and loss for black females. (Annoyingly, breast was not listed in this table.) http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/tables/2002/02hus057.pdf [OK, I had to check: while white females have seen a mild decline in breast cancer mortality, black females have had an increase in it -- health care access issues? So much for my theory about the decline in overall female cancer mortality; maybe women eat more fruits and veggies, especially the older ones??] http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/tables/2002/02hus041.pdf > Regulatory policy that focuses on > traces of synthetic chemicals is based on > misconceptions about animal cancer > tests. Recent research indicates that rodent > carcinogens are not rare. Half > of all chemicals tested in standard high-dose animal > cancer tests, whether > occurring naturally or produced synthetically, are > "carcinogens"; there are > high- dose effects in rodent cancer tests that are > not relevant to low-dose > human exposures and which contribute to the high > proportion of chemicals > that test positive...Plants in the human diet > contain thousands of > natural "pesticides" produced by plants to protect > themselves from insects > and other predators: 63 have been tested and 35 are > rodent carcinogens...The focus of regulatory policy > is on synthetic > chemicals, although 99.9% of the chemicals humans > ingest are natural. Wild animals, including humans, evolved along with these plants; susceptible individuals are likely to have died or had fewer offspring. An example of an artificial chemical which our bodies apparently do not handle well is trans-fatty acids, which come from artificial hydrogenation of oils (promotes heart disease; there was a recent ruling that foods are going to have to be labeled with the grams of trans-fats/serving -- some snack foods companies have already removed hydrogenated products from their chips etc.). > There is no convincing evidence that synthetic > chemical pollutants are > important as a cause of human cancer. But there is plenty of evidence that specific chemicals cause various conditions, including cancer, especially with occupational exposure: arsenic => skin and lung cancer benzene => various leukemias & lymphomas polychlorinated biphenyls => reproductive damage, liver damage, chloracne (chronic skin rash/breakdown), and "probably" skin cancer This 1998 study finds exposure to certain herbicides and fungicides increases risk for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, which has been increasing in Western societies: http://www.poptel.org.uk/panap/archives/nhl.htm "...In this study, exposure to both herbicides and fungicides resulted in significantly increased risks for NHL. Among herbicides, the phenoxyacetic acids constituted the main exposure category. These have been shown to increase the risk for NHL in several earlier studies. In this study, however, the risk of increase was restricted to exposure during the last two decades preceding the diagnosis. In fact, a decreasing risk was found with increasing time since last exposure..." This is the 2002 10th Report on Carcinogens from the US Dept of Health and Human Services (ugh - pdf files): http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/roc/toc10.html This is a cool (to me!) site for occupational illnesses, designed to be used by clinicians: http://www.haz-map.com/ This NJ site classifies multiple chemicals WRT occupational exposure, with known, probable and possible carcinogenic categories (clicking on the chemical name itself calls up Adobe files): http://www.state.nj.us/health/eoh/odisweb/ca_hsfs.htm Teratogens (known to cause birth defects) include: mercury => cerebral palsy; increased miscarriage also ribavirin => craniofacial dystocia thalidomide => limb defects Clusters of birth defects such as anencephaly in the Brownsville/Matomoros area have been tentatively linked to chlorine byproducts discharged into canals. http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/dispatch/2001-11-09/pols_feature.html "...Having directed a community-based study that predated the state's efforts to track the rise in birth defects, Rocco points to new reports of increased levels of chlorine byproducts in municipal water supplies -- chemicals known to contribute to neural cord defects -- as evidence that environmental factors must be accounted for in prevention efforts..." http://journalism.berkeley.edu/projects/border/matamoros.html "...Legal and media attention to maquila pollution came to a head with the 1993 anencephaly lawsuit. The case was settled out of court in 1995 for $17 million - the defendant corporations denied any wrongdoing - but unease lingered in Brownsville: "The way it was settled made people think that they [the maquilas] had something to hide," said Jackie Lockett, former Brownsville City Council member. "The public spotlight prompted some changes in Matamoros. Several of the largest polluting industries left town entirely. The FINSA park was the recipient of a wastewater treatment project from a NAFTA-related development fund. A sample taken in mid-November from the FINSA wastewater canal and analyzed at MicroBac laboratories in Brownsville showed only barely detectable levels of industrial solvents, well within US and Mexican wastewater discharge standards [down from pre-lawsuit levels 6000++ higher than allowed]. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10369506&dopt=Abstract "...The overall Texas border rate was significantly higher (p < 0.001) than a recently estimated rate of 9.3 for California and minimally higher than a recently adjusted rate of 11.3 for the Metropolitan Atlanta Congenital Defects Program counties (p = 0.052), both of which now reflect all gestational ages...Rates for Mexico-born Hispanic women (15.1 per 10,000) were significantly higher than rates for United States-born Hispanic women (9.5 per 10,000) (p = 0.006)." Supplementation with folic acid (deficits are known to increase neural tube defects) has slightly decreased the rate [study ongoing, numbers not yet available] -- although pollution rates are also down. Air pollution, in addition to being linked to respiratory and heart conditions, appears to affect male fertility: http://www.msnbc.com/news/907122.asp "...AFTER STUDYING 85 attendants at tollbooths on Italian highways, researchers at the University of Naples in southern Italy discovered the men had poorer quality sperm than other young and middle-aged Italian workers in the same area. �The sperm count did not differ significantly between our study group and the controls but, in general, the sperm of the study group was more feeble and less active, so it has a lower fertility potential...�" Here is a Canadian gov. site that lists 19 chemicals "considered to be toxic largely on the basis of their potential to cause cancer": http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ehp/ehd/catalogue/general/iyh/chemcarc.htm Chorinated compounds, polycyclic aromatics, and certain metals make up the bulk of these. "...So far, out of thousands of chemicals tested, scientists have identified only a few hundred that cause cancer in rodents and around 50 that definitely cause cancer in humans. The number of confirmed human carcinogens is lower because, for the majority of chemicals, there is often little or no information available on cancer incidence rates in humans. Moreover, effects that occur in laboratory animals will not necessarily occur in humans. In other words, what is harmful to a rat or mouse may not be harmful to a human..." Here is one such "unregulated experiment" in Germany: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9820659&dopt=Abstract "On the first of June, 1996 an environmental accident occurred in Schonebeck, Germany in which free vinyl chloride was evaporated into the atmosphere. Thereby, the human population living in this area was exposed to vinyl chloride and its byproducts...The exposed group showed a statistically significant increase in the mean frequency of aberrant cells (1.47% versus 1.07% in the control group). Chromosomal aberrations in peripheral lymphocytes have been shown to be a very sensitive biomarker of genotoxic effects not only for occupational exposure to vinyl chloride as reported several times during the last 20 years, but also for an accidental environmental exposure. A follow-up cytogenetic study is recommendable." [Very small study (N=29 cases, matched to 29 controls); white blood cell chromosome mutations are one marker of increased risk of leukemia or lymphoma (depending on type of white cell).] I suspect that we are altering/selecting our own genetic make-up with our impact on the ecosystem/environment, just as cancer researchers "discovered" cancer-proof mice in their labs, and Orkin helps create more-pesticide-resistant cockroaches... We do need more research, I agree, but prudence dictates that we do a bit of extrapolation and try to head off 'irreversible' changes. Debbi So, Where's Wolverine Or Professor X? Maru ;) __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
