> Industrialized countries with the highest overall cancer > rates are: the US, > Italy, Australia, Germany, The Netherlands, Canada and France. > > Although industrialization is suggested to be a major factor > in the prevalence > of cancer, the report reveals that the majority of > investigative studies on > occupational exposures and the risk of cancer were published > between 1950 and > 1975, adding that few occupational carcinogens have been > identified in the last > 25 years. This is a reflection of the shift to the right in > social policy in all > the major industrialized countries, as well as the complete > prostration of the > official labor movements, which have abandoned workers to > being the guinea pigs > for industrial poisoning.
Whoaaahh! The article was doing fine until this.... Shift to the Right???? Prostration??? Guinea pigs???? > > The fact that there has been an admittedly decreased interest > in studying > exposure to occupational carcinogens is itself a condemnation > of the attitude of > governments and corporations to the safety and well-being of > workers. Since 1975? What crap. OSHA is stronger than ever, new ergonomic rules, there are hundreds of examples of this NOT being true. Ask any US business CEO if his costs for safety have decreased in just the last 5 years. This, > despite the fact that the World Cancer Report's foreword > states that one of the > main reasons "for the greater cancer burden of affluent > societies" is "the > earlier exposure to occupational carcinogens." Have they proven this? 99% of all occupational carcinogens occur naturally. I work in a building that has greater air quality than my home. I am safer at work than at home. I know they check the quality weekly. Example. when I was in grade school, some kid brought in some mercury in a container. We all played with it for a while, watching it puddle in our hands. A lot of fun. 15 years later, I break a thermometer at work, spilling mercury on the floor. I had to break out a chemical spill kit, and spend an hour cleaning it up, with the help of people who had OSHA training on chemical spill cleanup. > > > Sources of electromagnetic fields, such as equipment using > electricity, > television, radio, computers, mobile telephones, microwave > ovens as well as > radars and equipment used in industry have seen an > unprecedented increase, but > the carcinogenicity of these fields is not clear, according > the study. However, > exposure to ionizing radiation, such as medical X-rays and > occupational > exposures, particularly in the medical and nuclear > industries, can cause a > variety of neoplasms, including leukemia, breast cancer and > thyroid cancer. I have worked in health care. Yes, there is exposure to x-rays, but there is also exposure to the same viruses that cause cancer. Have they ruled out biological vectors for cause of cancer? There are also studies that suggest that exposure to radioactivity can provide protection against cancer. There is also the association of RADIOLOGIC treatment of cancer. > > Such a low risk factor ascribed to environmental > contamination seems incongruous > with the reports conclusion that only about 5 percent of all > cancers can be > attributed to genetic susceptibility, and that even this > susceptibility may > itself be a product of "environmental insults." The section called > "Gene-environment interactions" concludes: "It is hoped that > a more unified > approach to cancer epidemiology and genetics will identify > those combinations of > genetic susceptibility and environmental exposures that lead > to significant > increases in risk at the individual and population level." Perhaps the unification could include equality in studying poor countries that appear to be so freakin' healthy. > > Epidemiologist and Carnegie-Mellon University Professor Dr. > Devra Lee Davis > summed up for the WSWS her views on the WHO report: "WHO has > done a good job of > identifying those things individuals can try to control that > are tied in with > their risk of developing cancer, such as smoking and poor > diet. No matter how > diligent people may be in addressing these hazards, many of > the proven and > suspected causes of cancer, such as those tied in with where > we live and work, > can only be addressed through public and private policies to > identify these > risks, and keep them out of our homes, schools, gardens, and > factories." Well, he was being nice. > > Interestingly, the study does assert that hormone replacement > therapy is > associated with an increased risk of breast and endometrial > cancers and that > certain anti-cancer drugs, such as Tamoxifen -- an > estrogen-blocker commonly > used to treat breast cancer patients -- may cause secondary > cancers. Surgical > implants used for both therapeutic and cosmetic purposes may > also cause cancer. > "There have been more than 60 published case reports of > sarcomas and other kinds > of cancers that have developed in humans at the sites of > surgical implants or > other foreign bodies. However, there are no controlled > studies that would allow > a conclusion that these cancers were indeed caused by the > pre-existing foreign > body," says the study. Then why mention it? Again, they need to rule out biologic factors like cancer causing viruses. These viruses can make their way into surgical wounds, and can be protected in itself by the implant (since the inplant does not have virus fighting capability). Poor countries, with less surgery would have less opportunity for exposure of sarcoma causing viruses. > > Another area discussed in the WHO report is the relationship > of increasing life > expectancy and population aging to cancer. Globally, life > expectancy has > increased from 45 years in 1950 to 66 years in 2000, Stop! Life expectancy in industrialized countries are higher. but the > population of the > world is aging rapidly -- the median age will have risen from > 23.5 years in 1950 > to 36.5 years in 2050. By 2050, more than 20 percent of the > population will be > 60 years and over, versus 10 percent in 2000. Age, not pollution, is the highest risk factor for cancer. More children die in less developed countries, thereby diluting the cause of death statistics. By comparison, > the number of > cancer deaths increased by 35 percent during the period > 1985-1997. The report > states that "[w]hile extending life expectancy is desirable > in itself, it is > equally important that increased expectancy is accompanied by > freedom from any > prospect of years of suffering as a consequence of chronic > diseases, pain or > disability." > > > Social and public health issues > > After stressing that cancer levels can be greatly reduced by > individual choices, > such as cigarette smoking cessation, a healthier diet and > lifestyle, and safe > sex, the report concludes by touching on some important social issues. > > "The increasing magnitude of noncommunicable diseases, > including cancer, > represents one of the major health challenges to global > development in the new > century.... Medical knowledge is now sufficiently advanced to > permit the > prevention of at least one-third of all cancers, the cure of a further > one-third, given early diagnosis and the administration of > effective therapy, > and the adequate control of pain and other symptoms, with > palliative care for > the remainder," states the section: "Cancer Control: A Global > Outlook." > > In order to accomplish this, the report argues that "a > country must be prepared > to allocate a certain priority to cancer control activities, > and possess a basic > public health and health care infrastructure." This advice > runs counter to the > current trend of governments attacking or even dismantling health care > infrastructures. At the United Nations Global Ministerial > Environment Forum in > February 2003, a very bleak picture of global infrastructure > was presented. > Clean water and adequate sanitation facilities, "imperative > for human health," > are lacking for billions of people. In 2000, 1.1 billion did > not have access to > an adequate water supply and 2.4 billion lacked access to > improved sanitation. > Some two-thirds of the world's population will likely face > "water stress" by > 2025. Good point. The biggest bang for the buck is not cancer control, but getting clean water to people. Here they point out how more government effort should be made to control cancer, then they illustrate that more people could be saved if there was more government effort to provide clean water. Given the choice of clean water and cancer control, which would a government first choose? > > The WHO study admits that cancer is "a problem that cuts > across national > boundaries, cultures, societies and socioeconomic strata." It > points out that a > new approach is necessary for global cancer control. But that > such an effort is > now hampered by an existing situation, in which "globally, > cancer control > activities are fragmented, uncoordinated and often > categorized and funded by > cancer type." Don't forget one third of Africans that will die from AIDS, which can ruin a perfectly good study of modalities of colorectal cancer. > > Expanding on this theme, the report continues: "[The] > development of a Programme > following an internationally accepted framework results in an > understanding of > the broader issues by both health care professionals and the > general public. Of > particular importance in many countries are avoiding the > misuses of available > resources, both public and personal, and an ethical > obligation to relieve > suffering at reasonable costs." In today's world, this prescription is > essentially chimerical. The report goes on to say that > "potential barriers to > such an approach include competing interests that could > prevent the resources > intended for cancer control being allocated for this > purpose." The culpability > of the top echelons of society for the cancer epidemic is > only alluded to in the > report's summation. > > While the World Cancer Report contains a massive compilation > of very valuable > information, its perspective is focused on the individual > rather than the > societal responsibility for the global cancer "burden": > "Current smoking levels > and the adoption of unhealthy lifestyles, together with a > steadily increasing > proportion of elderly people in the world, will result in a > doubling of new > cancer cases, from 10 million worldwide in 2000 to 20 million > in 2020, with an > annual death toll then reaching 12 million." > > In her 1997 book, Living Downstream: An Ecologist Looks at > Cancer and the > Environment, biologist Sandra Steingraber writes: "A narrow focus on > lifestyle -- like a narrow focus on genetic mechanisms -- > obscures cancer's > environmental roots. It presumes that the ongoing > contamination of our air, food > and water is an immutable fact of the human condition to which we must > accommodate ourselves" (emphasis added). > > Unfortunately, the authors of the WHO report adapt themselves > to an atmosphere > that accepts that nothing can be done to change the social > framework that > threatens a health catastrophe of enormous proportions. WRONG!WRONG!WRONG!. Read the latest report from the WHO. http://www.who.int/whr/en/ It paints a very different picture. In fact, Cancer is only mentioned ONCE! Number one leading health risk? Starvation in young children! > ------------------------------------------- > > Copyright 1998-2003 > World Socialist Web Site Ahhh... this explains a lot... ! > All rights reserved > > Whom can we trust, the collective human conscience or > self-serving elitists? > > ================================================== > > WHO does have an interesting set of recently published books. > http://bookorders.who.int:8080/newaccess/anglais/newpublications1.jsp > > A matter of time and money! So I just have to settle visiting > the site once > in a while http://www.who.int/en/ I'm with you. In fact, I think I will start looking for a good charity that feeds children. Nerd from Hell > > Cheers! > -- > Han Tacoma > > ~ Artificial Intelligence is better than none! ~ > > > _______________________________________________ > http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l > _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
