----- Original Message ----- From: "Deborah Harrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "brinl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2002 7:09 PM Subject: [Listref] Link: Rising breast cancer rate fuels environmentalconcerns
> I meant to post this a bit ago; the in-article link to > _The State of the Evidence_ appears a little > over-the-top, but it does present some valid points > and concerns. I do think that further research into > cancer/environmental toxins is more than warranted. > > > ** Rising breast cancer rate fuels environmental > > concerns ** > > New breast cancer numbers have prompted activists to > > demand more research into the possible role of > > environmental factors. > > http://www.msnbc.com/modules/exports/ct_email.asp?/news/824495.asp > > "Forget the San Andreas Fault. The news that Marin > County, Calif., had seen a skyrocketing increase in > the incidence of breast cancer unleashed an earthquake > of concerns. > Breast cancer jumped by 72 percent among Marin > women ages 46 to 64 during the 1990s, according to a > May report in the journal Breast Cancer Research." The data are still out on the potential causes for that, but let me comment on the link's statement on the Long Island study. And some activists fear the National Cancer Institute (NCI) is unlikely to invest significantly in more environmental research since its expensive effort with the Long Island Breast Cancer Study . By far the biggest investment of its kind, costing $30 million over nine years, the project was a multistudy attempt to investigate whether pollution was responsible for high rates of the disease in several New York counties. The NCI concluded earlier this year that pesticides such as DDT were not linked to breast cancer on Long Island. And some activists fear the National Cancer Institute (NCI) is unlikely to invest significantly in more environmental research since its expensive effort with the Long Island Breast Cancer Study . By far the biggest investment of its kind, costing $30 million over nine years, the project was a multistudy attempt to investigate whether pollution was responsible for high rates of the disease in several New York counties. The NCI concluded earlier this year that pesticides such as DDT were not linked to breast cancer on Long Island. But Brenda Edwards, associate director for the NCI's surveillance research program in Bethesda, Md., dismisses such concerns: "NCI has and will continue to fund research on the causes, diagnosis, detection, treatment, survivorship and surveillance of cancer. This has included and will continue to include investigations related to health-related environmental factors," she says. The Long Island study has been heavily criticized, however, for failing to look at more relevant chemicals than long-banned compounds as well as at potential radiation exposure My memory is that the Long Island study showed no significant signal above background for the population sample on Long Island, once all the corrections for the population were made. Part of the problem was that the population demographics on Long Island was not representative of the national population demographics. When the cancer rate was compared to a sample population that took this into account, the signal vanished. Still, if there is an apparent anomaly, we should investigate it. But, without a known mechanism for causing cancer, and without a clear correlation, we should not make any assumptions between cancer and general environmental factors. Dan M. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
