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
