--- Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Deborah Harrell wrote: > > > > Umm - another demographic that goes along with > 'burbs > > and higher education - delayed pregnancy, fewer > > pregnancies, poss. less brestfeeding (although > > actually I think that breastfeeding proportions go > > *up* with socioeconomics now (reversed > years/decades > > ago) ?) - anyway, those are risk factors for > breast cancer too. > > Those are the ones I *know* were factored in as > demographic factors. > > If those are the *only* ones that were used to > determine that the Marin > County breast cancer rate is actually really in line > with the rest of > the US, environmental factors have *nothing* to do > with the *difference* in breast cancer rates there. > > I think that Dr. Dean Edell touched on this sometime > last week in his > radio show, and there might be something at > www.healthcentral.com about > it. I've gotta finish fixing breakfast for my > in-laws, but I may look it up later.
According to this 2002 paper, the rates really are higher, and "are probably explained by Marin County's unique sociodemographic characteristics": http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12473174&dopt=Abstract "RESULTS: Marin County breast cancer incidence rates between 1990 and 1999 increased 3.6% per year (95% confidence interval, 1.8-5.5), six times more rapidly than in comparison areas. The increase was limited to women aged 45-64 years, in whom rates increased at 6.7% per year (95% confidence interval, 3.8-9.6). Mortality rates did not change significantly in Marin County despite 3-5% yearly declines elsewhere. CONCLUSION: Patterns of breast cancer incidence and mortality in Marin County are unlike those in other California counties, and they are probably [*] explained by Marin County's unique sociodemographic characteristics. Similar trends may have occurred in other affluent populations for which available data do not permit annual monitoring of cancer occurrence." [* _probably_ does not equal _is_, but see 'other factors' paragragh below] Another 2002 paper (some of the same researchers) says, "This regional difference in trend by age did not appear to be due to screening mammography or [*known]environmental exposures. Cohort exposures to breast cancer risk factors, such as oral contraceptive and/or hormone replacement therapy use, may have contributed to these rate increases. Although the reasons remain unclear..." [* known added by me; note also the _may_] (A 1998 paper by some of these same researchers did not find an increase, so if someone hasn't checked for the latest articles, they could be quoting that one.) Other factors to consider: alcohol intake (more than 1 drink a day increases breast cancer risk; some studies say any alcohol _at all_), cigarette use (studies have found both no effect and increased risk), dairy product intake (skim/low-fat dairy for premenopausals reduces risk, but has no effect on post-menopausals), and occupation (a 2000 article, link to abstract below, concludes "The results of this study suggest excess breast cancer risk in a number of occupations and industries, notably those that entail exposure to solvents and pesticides." but clearly this is not conclusive, and more research is needed.) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10738708&dopt=Abstract Re: pesticides and breast cancer: a 2002 paper reports "Because some organochlorine compounds act as estrogen agonists or antagonists within in vitro and experimental animal systems, a possible association of breast cancer risk with organochlorine exposure has been hypothesized and investigated. Although a few studies support this hypothesis, the vast majority of epidemiological studies do not. While some of these compounds may have other adverse environmental or health effects, organochlorine exposure is not believed to be causally related to breast cancer. Women concerned about possible organochlorine exposure can be reassured that **available** evidence does not suggest an association between these chemicals and breast cancer." [emphasis mine] I want to point out that many studies prior to the recent Womens Health Initiative study {"Overall, HRT users had a significantly increased incidence of breast cancer, stroke, and pulmonary embolism; a significantly reduced incidence of colorectal cancer and fractured neck of femur; but no significant change in endometrial cancer or coronary heart disease."} found no significant association between long-term hormone replacement therapy and breast cancer; now, because of the increased risk for breast cancer, we are having to decide about taking women off HRT after 3 to 5 years. And just to add fat to the fire, this study used PremPro, with an estrogenic component that comes from horses (Premarin = pregnant mare urine); no study of similar magnitude has used human-type estrogen. Would the results be different? We don't know, but all chemicals/drugs of the same type/class are not equal... Debbi Eat Your Fruits And Vegetables Maru :) (and guys, lest you think you're being ignored: regular intake of tomato products (like spagetti sauce) significantly reduces the risk of prostate cancer - they think it's the lycopenes) __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
