Cancer - Are Chemicals To Blame?
Cancer may be largely to blame on man made chemicals in our environment, rather than on smoking and diet, the factors that are emphasized by medical experts. The article reporting the Canadian study was printed in the Penticton Herald, a relatively obscure paper and I haven't seen it taken up by other press outlets so far.
A separate study of scientists from the Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine blames prolonged exposure to gasoline, vehicle exhaust and kitchen smoke, as reported by Xinhua news agency and published in the Shanghai Daily.
There is no agreement on what really causes cancer, and in fact cancer itself is not well understood as a friend from the Netherlands has pointed out. Whatever the real cause - or rather the combination ...
of causative factors - for cancer, environmental pollution would seem a good place to start "reducing the load", taking away one by one the factors that may be to blame, before we know for sure.
Here is the Canadian article, with two comments below, and a link to the Chinese report.
If you have a comment, I would be happy to hear it.
Soaring cancer rates blamed on chemicals
(Penticton Herald)By The Canadian Press OTTAWA -- Man-made chemicals in air, water, food and the workplace are largely to blame for a devastating cancer epidemic which will strike 41 per cent of Canadian males and 38 per cent of females, says a study released Wednesday.
Genetics and lifestyle factors such as smoking and diet can't explain the soaring cancer rates of recent decades, says the report by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.
From 1970 to 1998, the incidence of the dreaded disease increased by 35 per cent for men and 27 per cent for women after the effects of population aging have been discounted, say authors Lissa Donner and Robert Chernomas.
When lung cancers are removed from the statistics, the rates still increased by 23.9 per cent for males and 17.1 per cent for females over the period.
The toll is more dramatic when considered over a longer time: In 1921, cancer killed 6.6 per cent of males and 8.6 per cent of females, but now the death rate has risen to 27.4 per cent for men and 23.1 per cent for women, says the report. There has been a great deal of controversy about the role of environmental contaminants in cancer, and mainstream medical organizations have tended to downplay their importance. The Canadian Cancer Society estimates that only five per cent of cancers can be directly linked to contaminants in the environment, which would represent about 6,400 cases a year in Canada. But dissidents, such as U.S. scientist Samuel Epstein, author of several books on cancer, say 80 to 90 per cent of human cancer is determined environmentally.
Authors Donner and Chernomas say the medical profession is fixated on screening, diagnosis and damage control rather than prevention.
"Mainstream medicine places the blame for cancer on lifestyle and genetics -- and emphasizes research into changes at the individual level. It identifies symptoms and treats them, while largely ignoring the root causes of disease.
"We believe that successful cancer prevention requires a very different approach." They note that more than 18 million kilograms of known carcinogens were released into the Canadian environment in 2001, according to the federal government's National Pollutant Release Inventory.
Donner conceded in an interview that many carcinogenic chemicals are useful and would be hard to replace. For example, chlorine is vital in water treatment, but can interact with organic materials to form carcinogenic chemicals known as trihalomethanes.
But she rejects the view that rising cancer rates are an inescapable fact of life in the modern era.
"That kind of resigned attitude is not going to create a healthy society," she said in an interview.
"We need a strategy, to pick and choose and figure out where to go next."
A comment on the article received from a friend by e-mail:I’d say that the causes of soaring cancer rates are multiple. I realize that that’s a rather safe statement, but from the top of my head, I’d say: devitalized – dead – food; disrupted food patterns; alcohol consumption, mental stress, mental impact events are significant factors. However, the most serious problem is that the commonly accepted definition of cancer (the appearance – presence – of a tumor) is a “too little too late” definition that misdefines the disaese by its end-phase phenomena and not by its onset-phenomena. Most often, many years (6 to 8) lie between the onset of cancer and the tumor. Compared to a 1 day’s 24 hours period, what everybody calls “cancer” makes up only the last couple of minutes of the “cancer day.” Naturopathy, the Germans were good at it (Enderlein) provides methods (dark field microscopy) to detect cancer at its onset. Even deviations of something as simple as the blood’s pH can serve as a marker.
My comment to this:True that we regard cancer only as the end stage of the disease, the visible tumor which is really an attempt to get rid of whatever it was. The fact remains that we ARE poisoning ourselves and that it is getting harder and harder for our bodies to cope as the poisons are more widespread.There is also another German (Hamer) who says that cancer is a body program that's triggered by an unconfronted emotional trauma of great impact and that each kind of trauma produces a cancer in a specific organ or a cancer of a specific kind. Very interesting and it seems to work.
Of course the soaring cancer rates imply that something that causes cancer is on the increase. And a good candidate for that is environmental pollution, which in fact has been increasing in huge steps. Huge amounts of chemicals are being put into the environment. Cars are run on fuel that is without lead now, but we added benzene, a known carcinogen to "green" gasoline, and we require catalytic converters based on platinum, vapors of which remain in the air and are known to increase lung cancer risks. Traffic based pollution is present just about everywhere, it is saturating our cities.
Agreed that dead food, stress and mental impact events could play important roles. As you say, the causes are multiple, but we could very well start taking off some of the load that leads to the huge numbers of cases, and pollution is a good place to start.
And a further comment from my friend received 12 March (2004):I guess you’re right. It would be interesting to see if cancer in animals living in “civilized” environments – not pets - show a similar increase in cancer rates. They are exposed to the the same new chemicals as we are and they feed on polluted food. The Hamer theory fits. A friend of mine, who treats cancer patients, standardly finds an unconfronted emotional impact some 6 to 10 years before the tumor arises.
See also related links:
Environmental and Occupational Causes of Cancer - A Review of Recent Scientific Literature - Prepared by Boston University School of Public Health and the Environmental Health Initiative, University of Massachusetts Lowell. (PDF)Drug Manufacturers Avoid Scrutiny of Chemical Causes of Cancer by Promoting Mammography & Tamoxifen
The Nation: Cancer, Chemicals and History by Jon Wiener
Twenty of the biggest chemical companies in the United States have launched a campaign to discredit two historians who have studied the industry's efforts to conceal links between their products and cancer. In an unprecedented move, attorneys for Dow, Monsanto, Goodrich, Goodyear, Union Carbide and others have subpoenaed and deposed five academics who recommended that the University of California Press publish the book Deceit and Denial: The Deadly Politics of Industrial Pollution, by Gerald Markowitz and David Rosner.Soaring Cancer Rates Blamed On Chemicals
Ludhiana, September 7, 2004 - Hindustan Times
Cancer cases: Pesticides the culprit - Megha Mohan
PGI study finds pesticides turning this cotton belt of Talwandi Sabo block into a 'cancer belt'Monthly Newsletter www.cancer-coverup.com - August 2004 - KATHLEEN B. DEOUL
The evidence suggesting a link between toxic chemicals and the nation's cancer epidemic seems impossible to ignore. A study of female chemists found they had a 65% higher chance of dying from breast cancer...
Cancer: It's a Growth Industry - An interview with Dr. Samuel Epstein By David Ross
Chemical Contaminants and Human Disease: A Summary of Evidence
Study blames chemicals for soaring cancer rates
Driving, pollution may cause lung cancer, scientists say
Otto Warburg - Cancer and Oxygen
Nature of Cancer By Ernst Krebs, Jr.
The answer to cancer has been known for many years
Cancer: It's a Growth Industry - An interview with Dr. Samuel Epstein By David Ross
OVERCOMING CANCER An 8-part article by Walter Last
UK: The Imperial Cancer Research Fund, the Cancer Research Campaign and the Institute of Cancer Research preserve a monopoly over the whole field of cancer. They determine the public perception of what it is and what can be done about it. Between them, they have been gradually and intermittently losing the war against many cancers for almost a century.
The Ecologist: YOUR MONEY AND YOUR LIFE
Britain's cancer charities are a multimillion pound industry. But they are no nearer to 'curing' cancer than they were half a century ago. Quite the opposite – much of their time and money is spent avoiding awkward questions about what causes the disease. Martin J Walker investigates.Child cancer 'link to pollution'
Exposure to environmental pollution while in the womb might increase a child's risk of cancer, a study suggests. Children born near emission "hotspots" were more likely to die of cancer before their 16th birthday than others.Air pollution causes early deaths
Air pollution is responsible for 310,000 premature deaths in Europe each year, research suggests. A study by the European Commission calculated that air pollution reduces life expectancy by an average of almost nine months across the European Union.Toronto Star - Jun. 13, 2005
What's causing cancer?
Chemicals fingered as rates reach epidemic proportions...June 14, 2005 - Poughkeepsie Journal
Cancer unit is assailed over studies - Corporate cash has role, critics allege
Three leaders of local cancer support and education groups are accusing the American Cancer Society of downplaying links be-tween environmental contaminants and cancer. But Monday, the American Cancer Society defended its efforts to study links between cancer and contamination. "What is the American Cancer Society saying about environmental contamination? Nothing!" said Barbara Smith, coordinator of the Oncology Support Program at Benedictine Hospital in Kingston. "They're raising money and buying flowers. Let them do something with their money that will help us here and now."
On the Web:
# American Cancer Society: www.cancer.org
# Benedictine Hospital: www.benedictine.org
# Cancer Awareness Coalition: www.cacinfo.org
# Breast Cancer Options: www.breastcanceroptions.orgJune 13, 2005: Toronto Star - What's causing cancer?
Chemicals fingered as rates reach epidemic proportionsChemical 'link' to breast cancer
A chemical found in cleaning materials, textiles and plastics pose a breast cancer threat, scientists from Texas and Southern Carolina believe.New Study Links World's Biggest Selling Pesticides to Cancer
Swedish Study Finds Exposure to Glyphosate and MCPA Increases Risk for Non-Hodgkin's LymphomaNutritional Counseling Effectively Treats Cancer Patients
Excellent article in Counter Punch: The Environmental Causes of Cancer
Why We Can't Prevent CancerStudy: Chemicals most important in cancer
LIVERPOOL, England, March 20 2006 (UPI) -- University of Liverpool scientists say they've found environmental chemicals such as pesticides are more influential than thought in causing cancer. Previous studies in cancer causation have often concluded exposure to carcinogenic or endocrine-disrupting chemicals occur at concentrations too low to be considered a major factor. But new research finds exposure even to small amounts of such chemicals may result in an increased risk of developing cancer. Scientists also found genetic variations, which can predispose some people to cancer, may interact with environmental contaminants and produce an enhanced effect.December 2006: Renowned cancer scientist was paid by chemical firm for 20 years
A world-famous British scientist failed to disclose that he held a paid consultancy with a chemical company for more than 20 years while investigating cancer risks in the industry, the Guardian can reveal. Sir Richard Doll, the celebrated epidemiologist who established that smoking causes lung cancer, was receiving a consultancy fee of $1,500 a day in the mid-1980s from Monsanto, then a major chemical company and now better known for its GM crops business. While he was being paid by Monsanto, Sir Richard wrote to a royal Australian commission investigating the potential cancer-causing properties of Agent Orange, made by Monsanto and used by the US in the Vietnam war. Sir Richard said there was no evidence that the chemical caused cancer.Sir Richard Doll - Smoking and Cancer Alarm False
Doll wins a place in Hell's Hall of Shame.
Sir Richard Doll celebrated epidemiologist who established that smoking causes lung cancer, was receiving a consultancy fee of $1,500 a day in the mid-1980s from Monsanto, then a major chemical company and now better known for its GM crops business.
posted by Sepp Hasslberger on Thursday March 11 2004
updated on Tuesday December 14 2010URL of this article:
http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2004/03/11/cancer_are_chemicals_to_blame.htm
Related ArticlesOrthomolecular Treatment of Cancer - Depression
This article complements my earlier notes on Vitamin C and Cancer but even more interesting is the connection between depression, the original intent of the of the treatment. I have further embellished the body of the article, with appropriate links, for a comprehensive overview. This type of use of nutritional/vitamin treatment is bane to the pharmas hence CODEX . Chris Gupta "...had discovered the first biochemical substance that was clearly... [read more]
August 08, 2003 - Chris GuptaFibiger's Work on Cancer & Sugar
Besides depressing the immune system there is more to the story on Cancer and sugar. With this data so long known one should think, besides their primitive immue depressing treatments, that sugar laden hospital foods could at least change! Chris Gupta ..."Fibiger eventually discovered in a sugar refinery in Copenhagen mice who exhibited in considerable numbers the type of tumour he was seeking; in these tumours he found once again... [read more]
February 10, 2004 - Chris GuptaCancer - Defending An Industry
As Jason Vale awaits sentencing next week for selling Apricot seeds to people with cancer, the powers-that-be felt it necessary to defend the industry. Phillip Day of Campaign for Truth in Medicine reports: The programme went out at peak viewing time on ITV London Tuesday night at 7:30pm, the premise all too depressingly familiar. From the TV channel that gave us the moronic 'I'm a Celebrity, Get Me Out of... [read more]
February 25, 2004 - Sepp HasslbergerThe Politics of Cancer Therapy
It does not take a rocket scientist to see why the rich are the most corrupt and guess who is the richest? It's simple - just follow the money... "The Politics of Cancer Therapy" is the second part of the book titled "World Without Cancer" by Ed. Griffin, which covers this very complex and interesting subject. See: http://realityzone.com/realityzone/wwcreviews.html "The Politics of Cancer Therapy" - a one-hour lecture by Griffins can... [read more]
July 07, 2003 - Chris GuptaSome Cancer Resources
"Hello,I have metastasized to bone breast cancer which has been held in check for 10 years. Last year it began to spread. I was put on Zomeda infusions and megase, after 9 months, the cancer has spread to different portions of my bones. I am now on a monthly shot of Faslodex. Can I take by mouth 390 mg of CoQ10 to stop the progression? I currently take 60 mg... [read more]
August 14, 2003 - Chris GuptaCancer Research - A Super Fraud?
"Everyone should know that most cancer research is largely a fraud and that the major cancer research organisations are derelict in their duties to the people who support them." - Linus Pauling PhD (Two-time Nobel Prize winner). Have you ever wondered why, despite the billions of dollars spent on cancer research over many decades, and the constant promise of a cure which is forever "just around the corner", cancer continues... [read more]
July 02, 2003 - Chris Gupta
