|
Subject: Time to Treat Cancer as an Environmental Disease Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 13:58:45 -070 From: Gary Gallon GGALLON@bak.rr.com THE GALLON ENVIRONMENT LETTER506 Victoria Ave., Montreal, Quebec H3Y 2R5Ph. (514) 369- 0230, Fax (514) 369- 3282 Email: cibe@web.net Vol. 5, No. 34, October 7, 2001
CANCER CONTINUES TO CLIMB AS AN ENVIRONMENTAL DISEASECancer has become modern day plague. Its growth is linked to the modern use of chemicals, metals, pesticides, and questionable food additives which have flooded human systems. Environmental scientists call the cancer-causers carcinogens. They have been tracking their growth and diffusion throughout the human ecosystem. Yet the link has not been fully made by the health scientists and doctors, who when asked what causes cancer state that they are not sure, but that it must be a mix of heredity, a genetic tendency by some humans to get cancer. They will say stop smoking and eat better, but they don't make the pollution link. Some say that the growth in cancer can be attributed to an aging population where so many old people are getting cancer. Not true. The increase in cancer is equally among the young, those 55 and under. This special issue explores cancer as an environmental disease. It will show that it is cheaper and healthier for society to invest more in preventing cancer than to chase cures for ever-growing cancers in more a more fragile population created by constant exposures to many types of carinogens. Even skin cancer caused by too much exposure from the ultraviolet rays from the sun has jumped substantially as a result of pollution. The depletion of the ozone layer by CFC's and other ozone-depleting substances (ODS) has allowed through much more cancer-causing u.v. radiation to the earth's surface.Visit the website of the National Cancer Institute at http://www.nci.nih.gov.
CANCER INCREASED FROM MAN-MADE SOURCESA report prepared in Toronto, Ontario, entitled, "Everyday Carcinogens: Stopping Cancer Before It Starts," states that in Canada there has been a 29% increase in breast cancer, a 106% increase in Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, a 349% increase in women's lung cancer, a 116% increase in melanoma and a 146% increase in thyroid cancer for women in the past 30 years. For men, there has been a 102% increase in prostate cancer, a 273% increase in melanoma (a deadly form of skin cancer often triggered by U.V. radiation from the sun), a 115% increase in Non-Hodgkins lymphoma, a 65% increase in testicular cancer, and a 133% increase in thyroid cancer. "The problem is that these people are suffering from this disease, and often dying, unnecessarily," noted Dr. Sam Epstein, one of the world's most influential critic of cancer policy and the author of the book, The Politics of Cancer Revisited. "In Ontario, the focus is still on finding the cure rather than preventing this epidemic." Dr. Epstein, a Professor of Occupational Health and Environmental Medicine at the University of Illinois School of Public Health, stated that a significant number of cancers are attributable to environmental and workplace carcinogens - and are therefore preventable. You can contact the Cancer Prevention Coalition at http://www.preventcancer.com/ . For more information contact Liz Armstrong, Ontario Breast Cancer Prevention Coalition ph. (519) 833-7202.Also see the Canadian Environmental Law Association (CELA) website at http://www.web.net/cela/mr990326.htm . Also see the American Cancer Society website at www.cancer.org .
38.3% OF WOMEN AND 48.2% OF MEN NOW GETTING CANCERIn the 1950's a cancer diagnosis was the expected fate of approximately 25 percent of the American population. Today cancer strikes 40 percent of the population (38.3 percent of women and 48.2 percent of men). The biggest upsurge has taken place in the last two decades and has hit all age groups, from infants to the elderly. Overall, cancer is the second leading cause of death and the leading cause between 35-64 years of age. Another indicator of the role of environmental factors is the increase in cancer incidence among successive generations. The occurrence of melanoma (the most deadly type of skin cancer) rose 350 percent between 1950 and 1991 in the US; mortality rose by 157 percent. Between 1982 and 1989 alone, melanoma incidence jumped 83 percent. Melanoma is increasing at an annual rate of 4 percent and the age of diagnosis is going down. The types of cancer that are galloping out of control also indicate evidence of environmental attack: after lung cancer in women, those growing most rapidly are melanoma of the skin, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and multiple myeloma. Skin cancer of the serious kind has been worsened by hole in the protective ozone layer above earth that reduces the flow of ultraviolet rays to the earth's surface and to our sunburnt bodies. The ozone layer has been attacked by successive emissions of CFC's and other ozone-depleting substances. Melanomas are associated with exposure to ultraviolet radiation. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) projects that tens of thousands of additional fatal skin cancers will result from the 5 percent loss of ozone that has occurred above North America. Lymphomas are consistently associated with exposure to synthetic chemicals, especially a class of pesticides developed by the military in 1942 known as phenoxy herbicides--the most famous being Agent Orange. Steingraber documents the evidence which associates the phenoxy herbicides with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Exposure to radiation has been recently linked to the surge in cases of multiple myeloma, which is also associated with exposure to a variety of chemicals, most notably benzene. "Bone marrow. Lymph nodes. Skin. From the body's dark tunnels to its sunlit surface, cancers of all kinds are presenting themselves with increasing frequency. Melanoma, lymphoma and multiple myeloma are simply traveling at especially high velocities," she writes.Steingraber spends some time discussing the group of chemicals known as organochlorines, formed by the chemical marriage of chlorine and carbon atoms, which represent some 50 percent of the synthetic materials recognized as endocrine disrupters. Almost universally, chlorine and carbon do not coincide in the natural world. To force the two together, elemental chlorine gas is required. A powerful poison, chlorine gas was first introduced in World War I, but its use grew exponentially during and after World War II. According to Steingraber, the military demands of World War II were the catalyst, from an ecological viewpoint, in transforming a carbohydrate-based economy into a petrochemical-based economy. Simply put, products previously derived from vegetation were now manufactured from oil. "Dioxin is a beautifully symmetrical molecule, consisting of two chlorinated carbon rings held together by a double bridge of oxygen atoms ... dioxin has been linked to a variety of cancers and is now believed to inhabit the body tissues of every person living in the United States." Source, a review of the book, Living Downstream: An Ecologist Looks at Cancer and the Environment, by Sandra Steingraber, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, 1997, review by Joanne Laurier, 13 May 1999.
CANCER IS PREVENTABLE WITH PROPER LIFESTYLE AND LESS CARCINOGEN EXPOSUREDr. Anthony Miller, epidemiologist and chair of the 1995 Ontario Task Force on the Primary Prevention of Cancer estimated that fifty per cent of cancer could be prevented on the knowledge we now have about toxins and lifestyle threats to our immune defense systems.. While his estimate includes such 'lifestyle' factors as tobacco and dietary fat, it also includes environmental toxins - carcinogens we do not choose to have in our lives. According to the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization, 80 per cent of all cancers are connected, directly or indirectly, to environmental factors and are therefore preventable. This is an eye-opening statistic, and as Sandra Steingraber explains in her book entitled, "Living Downstream: A Scientist's Personal Investigation of Cancer and the Environment," it is "derived by subtracting the rates of cancer in countries with the least cancer from rates of the countries with the most." While ‘environmental' has a different meaning to geneticists (who believe it includes everything beyond a cell membrane, including hormones, vitamins, caffeine, drugs, etc.) than it does to ecologists (who think of the environment as everything outside one's own skin), these approaches are not necessarily contradictory. As Steingraber says, "What we drink, inhale, and find to eat in the environment external to ourselves quickly becomes our internal environment." According to the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization, 80 per cent of all cancers are connected, directly or indirectly, to environmental factors and are therefore preventable.Visit the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization at the website http://www.iarc.fr/ . Also see the website www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Environment/Living_Downstream.html
HOW DO GET CANCER?How does cancer actually occur in the body? Put simply, it begins with our genes. All cancers are genetic. Just five to ten per cent of cancers are passed down through flawed genes from our parents. The vast majority result from the genetic damage that occurs in our own lifetime to the chromosomal DNA in our cells. "A cancer cell is made, not born," says Sandra Steingraber the author of "Living Downstream. Genes can be damaged when routine errors occur during cell division. But ‘sabotage by carcinogens' also occurs. "To contribute to cancer, at least some of these encounters between carcinogens and genes must involved the handful {of genes} that help govern cell division." Two types of growth-regulating genes factor into the cancer equation. So-called oncogenes encourage cell division, but when mutated can accelerate the rate of growth. Tumour suppressor genes, on the other hand, normally dampen the rate of cell division and can even stop it when DNA damage has occurred. However when these suppressor genes are disabled, or absent, cancer can result. "If a mutant oncogene is a stuck accelerator pedal, then damaged tumor suppressor genes are faulty brakes. Either problem can result in runaway cell growth," Steingraber explains. To become a full-blown malignancy, a cancer cell must pass through each of three stages: initiation, promotion and progression. For example, radiation is a complete carcinogen, which can initiate, promote and stimulate the progression of cancer dioxin at low doses is a promoter, and at higher doses, a complete carcinogen. As science is now discovering, various toxins leave distinguishable clues in our bodies. "Different carcinogens produce different patterns of mutations in genes. These can now be detected by biological markers that are indicators of physical damage caused by the interplay between human genes and carcinogens... these markers are decoding tools, like molecular fingerprints or footprints left at the scene of the crime. They serve as both signals of past exposure and predictors of future cancers...".Steingraber writes that, "Much as a gunshot wound indicates the firearm used, the particular nature of a certain gene mutation suggests the type of carcinogen responsible for the damage. Cigarette smoke leaves one type of lesion, ultraviolet radiation another, and exposure to vinyl chloride a third... "we are well on the way to solving some of the mysteries about cancers' causes and effects that have eluded scientists for many decades. As this work progresses, we will know exactly what the ‘smoking guns' are, leaving no excuse for not prohibiting environmental carcinogens." According to the most recent data, as cited in Living Downstream, as many as 40 possible carcinogens are in our drinking water, 60 are released by industry into the air, and 66 are routinely sprayed on food crops as pesticides.
Visit the website www.stopcancer.org/ca_env/pg9.html .
CANCER COST THE U.S. MEDICAL SYSTEM US $104 BILLION IN 1990In 1990, the National Cancer Institute put the overall costs for cancer in the U.S. at $104 billion. Another study by the National Center for Health Statistics estimated the overall medical costs for cancer in the United States in 1995 to be US $96.1 billion. Cancer accounts for at least 10% of the total cost of treating all health problems in the United States, and its share of the total cost of premature deaths from all causes is about 18%." Breast cancer costs $6.6 billion a year to treat. Colorectal is second at $6.5 billion. Lung cancer is third at $5.0 billion. Prostate cancer is fourth at $4.7 billion, and bladder cancer is $2.2 billion; uterine $1.6 billion. Rather than seeing this as an avoidable (or reducable) cost, governments have ignored the prevention side of cancer and have focused on the cure side - after the cancer has been contracted. Many naturalpaths state that, "to the cancer establishment, a cancer patient is a profit center." The cost per cancer patient per year is about US $175,000. Over half of this payment goes directly to the cost of chemotherapy drugs. Drug treatments for breast cancer (second biggest killer among women) typically range between $5,000 and $25,000. For terminal cases of beast cancer, U.S. Medicare payments average between US $50,0000 and $62,000 per case." Environmentalists who have focused on getting carcinogens out of the environment report that, "the field of U.S. and Canadian cancer care is organized around a medical monopoly that ensures a continuous flow of money to the pharmaceutical companies, medical technology firms, research institutes, and government agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the National Cancer Institute (NCI), and the American Cancer Society (ACS) which benefit from a larger flow of new and growing numbers of cancer patients."Source "An Alternative Medicine Definitive Guide to Cancer" written by W. John Diamond, M.D., and W. Lee Cowden, M.D., with Burton Goldberg, published by Future Medicine Publishing, Inc., 1640 Tiburon Blvd., Suite 2, Tiburon, California, 1997. See the website www.preventcancer.com/alerts/alert3.html
ONE IN TWO MEN TO GET CANCER, ONE IN THREE WOMENIn 1999, one in two American men and one in three American women will get cancer. In the 1950s, one in four Americans were afflicted with this deadly disease. Despite the expenditure of $25 billion since the war on cancer research when war was declared on cacner by President Nixon in 1971, cancer rates have soared. Why? In a recently released book, Dr. Samuel Epstein reveals evidence implicating industrial carcinogens that permeate our environment, in our foods, our air, our water, our consumer products. And he blames the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the American Cancer Society (ACS), what he calls "the cancer establishment," for ignoring these causes and instead spending billions on the elusive search for a magic bullet cure for cancer. Source, "The Politics of Cancer Revisited", by Dr. Samuel Epstein East Ridge Press, Fremont Center, New York, 1998. Copies can be obtained through Dr. Epstein's web site at www.preventcancer.com , or from the publisher by calling 1-800-269-2921.Dr. Samuel Epstein points out, that from 1950 to 1998, the overall incidence of cancer rose about 60 percent, with much higher increases for cancer of some organs. For non-Hodgkins lymphoma and multiple myeloma, the increase has been 200 percent. Breast cancers have increased by 60 percent. Prostate cancer has increased 200 percent. For testicular cancer in men of the ages 28 to 35, there has been a 300 percent increase since 1950. And don't let anybody fool you into thinking that the cancer rate increase is because the population is getting older -- these rates are age-adjusted. The cancer rates of a group of 50 year old men in 1990, for example, are compared to the cancer rates of a group of men in 1950. Dr. Epstein asks, "why is the cancer establishment losing the war against cancer? "The cancer establishment is fixated on damage control, diagnosis, treatment and basic genetic research, and is indifferent, if not sometimes hostile, to cancer prevention, in other words, getting carcinogens out of the environment. Visit the Canadian Cancer Society website at www.cancer.ca/indexe.htm
ENVIRONMENT AND CANCER LINK MADE AS FAR BACK AS 1964Why is it that in 2001 doctors and health scientists still are not making the link between pollution, chemical food additives (carcinogens) and cancer? As far back as 1964, two senior scientists with the National Cancer Institute - Dr. Wilhelm Hueper and Dr. W.C. Conway, wrote, "Cancers of all types and all causes display even under already existing conditions, all the characteristics of an epidemic in slow motion." The unfolding epidemic was being fueled, they said in 1964, by "increasing contamination of the human environment with chemical and physical carcinogens and with chemicals supporting and potentiating their action." Their words were met with silence by the cancer associations, governments, and the polluters. Their work was supported 30 years later by the World Health Organization (WHO) which maintains and analyzes cancer mortality (death) data from 70 countries. The World Health Organization research shows that industrialized countries have far more cancers than countries with little industry (after adjusting for age and population size). One-half of all the world's cancers occur among people living in industrialized . In 1904 only 1 out of 24 Americans had cancer in his lifetime. Today the cancer rate is one out of two for men and 2 out of 3 in women. In 1996, more Americans died of cancer than died in World War II, the Korean War and Vietnam combined, with 550,000 Americans dying of cancer. In 2001 it is expected that more than 1.25 million Americans will be diagnosed with cancer.Source, www.alkalizeforhealth.org. Also see the website www.drkelley.com .
CANCER ON THE RISE IN CHILDRENPolluters and apologist for cancer call it an aging population's disease. They call it the disease of the old. Not true. Cancer is flaming up in all ages as different chemicals and contaminants enter the human food chain. According to the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the National Childhood Cancer Foundation child cancer is on the rise and represents the number one killer of children outside of accidents. Cancer is not just one disease caused by one carcinogen. It is a number of different kinds of cancers created by many different factors. The US Environmental Protection Agency has set Maximum Contaminate Levels (MCLs) for 80 chemicals in drinking water with a list of volatile organic chemical (VOCs) which can cause cancer. President Clinton issued an Executive Order #13045 entitled, "Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks." It requires Federal Agencies to identify and access health risks and safety risks that disproportionately affect children. The Center for Disease Control (CDC) and the National Cancer Institute have guidelines for Investigating Clusters of Health Events and defines Child Cancer Clusters yet no US government organization or agency or cancer registry lists investigated Child Cancer Clusters.See the website www.epa.gov/OGWDW/ccl/ccl_fr.html and wilkes.edu/~eqc/standards.htm . Also see the website www.edc.gov/epo/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00001797.htm
U.S. BEGINNING TO TAKE ACTION ON CANCER AS AN ENVIRONMENTAL DISEASEThe suspicion that the increase of cancer among American children may be the result of growing exposure to new chemicals in the environment is beginning to shape Federal research priorities and environmental strategies. A team assembled by EPA drafted a research plan to obtain funding to study the growing number of cancers in children. EPA Administrator Carol M. Browner said, "I'm talking about new research on air pollutants, water pollutants and pesticides and their effects on children...and new testing guidelines that routinely incorporate children's issues into E.P.A.'s risk assessments. I'm talking about moving beyond the chemical-by- chemical approaches of the past, and instead looking at a child's total cumulative risk from all exposures to toxic chemicals." Childhood cancer has been rising since the early 1970's, while the death rate has been dropping.Source, "U.S. Reshaping Cancer Strategy As Incidence in Children Rises. Increase May Be Tied to New Chemicals in Environment." New York Times, September 29, 1997.
CANCER LEADING CAUSE OF CHILD DISEASES DEATHS IN U.S.The U.S. National Cancer Institute reported that, "approximately 8,500 children were diagnosed with cancer in 1998, and 1,700 children died from the disease during this year. While this makes cancer the leading cause of death by disease among U.S. children under age 15, cancer is still relatively rare in this age group, with, on average, one to two children developing the disease each year for every 10,000 children in the United States. Among the 12 major types of childhood cancers, leukemias (blood cell cancers) and brain and other central nervous system tumors account for over one-half of the new cases. About one-third of childhood cancers are due to leukemia; approximately 2,600 children (younger than 15 years) will be diagnosed with leukemia in 1998." The NCI also reported that, Environmental causes of childhood cancer have long been suspected by many scientists, but have been difficult to pin down, partly because cancer in children is rare and partly because it is so difficult to estimate past exposure levels in children after they develop cancer."Source rex.nci.nih.gov While human exposure to synthetic chemicals in the environment is on the rise, the overall incidence of childhood cancer also increased 10.5% between 1973 and 1994, with childhood cancers of the brain and other sites in the central nervous system rising 35.1 percent in the same time period. Against this backdrop of increasing chemical production, it is our children who are most at risk. In 1993, the National Academy of Sciences released a report documenting that children are uniquely vulnerable to the effects of pesticides, and that the government does not adequately protect children from pesticides in food. Source, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), website at www.nrdc.org/nrdc/search/fzintr.html
CANCER HAS BECOME THE NUMBER ONE KILLER OF CHILDREN IN THE U.S.According to the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the National Childhood Cancer Foundation child cancer is on the rise and represents the number one killer of children outside of accidents. Cancer is a number of diseases, is usually long term in developing, and according to NCI, the American Cancer Society, Centers for Disease Control (CDC), and Prevention, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry and the North American Association of Center Cancer Registries the environment plays a small role in child cancer. The CDC and NCI have guidelines for Investigating Clusters of Health Events and defines Child Cancer Clusters yet no US government organization or agency or cancer registry lists investigated Child Cancer Clusters. But state epidemiologists have provided a this list of investigated child cancer clusters where environmental carcinogens are being investigated. They include Woburn, Massachusetts were there is petrochemical contamination of groundwater (9 dead children); another investigation at Toms River, New Jersey (contaminated groundwater investigated) (61 dead children), Port St. Lucie, Florida (contaminated groundwater and termite chemicals investigated ) (29 dead children); and in McFarland, California (contaminated groundwater investigated) and in Winona, Texas (contaminated groundwater and air investigated) (9 dead children).For more information contact, Donald Sutherland, Member of the Society of Environmental Journalists, email donaldsutherland-iso14000@worldnet.att.net . Also see www.seattletimes.com/extra/browse/html97/canc_081597.html . And See www.edc.gov/epo/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00001797.htm. US EPA SUSPECTS POLLUTION IS A NEW GROWING THREAT TO CHILDRENThe New York Times reported that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1997 suspected that the increase of cancer among American children may be the result of growing exposure to new chemicals in the environment. A team was assembled by the US EPA to draft a research plan to obtain funding to study whether or not children are being subjected to more cancers as a result of pollution. Then EPA Administrator Carol M. Browner said, "`I'm talking about new research on air pollutants, water pollutants and pesticides and their effects on children...and new testing guidelines that routinely incorporate children's issues into E.P.A.'s risk assessments. I'm talking about moving beyond the chemical-by-chemical approaches of the past, and instead looking at a child's total cumulative risk from all exposures to toxic chemicals.'" Source, "U.S. Reshaping Cancer Strategy As Incidence in Children Rises. Increase May Be Tied to New Chemicals in Environment," The New York Times, September 29, 1997. The National Childhood Cancer Foundation states that, "currently one in every 330 children in the United States develops cancer before the age of nineteen. Moreover, the incidence of cancer among children is increasing."Visit the National Childhood Cancer Foundation website at www.nccf.org.
PEOPLE IN THE 21ST CENTURY ARE FRAGILE PEOPLE, TOO MANY TOXINSOur parents born in the early 1920's were strong. In their formative years they were not exposed to pesticides, few petrochemicals, nor to the Macdonald's-like fast foods. Cancer was not on the pandemic radar. The new generation is a fragile people - weakened by decades of exposure to low levels of carcinogens. We are quickly becoming susceptible to long term, persistent chemicals that are weakening and striking our human health systems. For example, white women born in the U.S. in the 1940s have experienced 30 percent more non-smoking-related cancers than did women of their grandmothers' generation (women born between 1888 and 1897). Among men, the differences are even sharper. White men born in the 1940s have more than twice as much non-tobacco- related cancer as their grandfathers did at the same age.[1,pg.45] (Historic data are missing for non-whites.) In the U.S. today, in the age group 35 to 64, cancer is the number one killer.
CANCER NEEDS TO BE JOINTLY TRACKED BY ENVIRONMENT AND HEALTH AGENCIESHealth agencies have been tracking the growth of cancer but not the growth of carcinogens in our food, water and air. Environmental agencies have been tracking the movement of carcinogens through our environment, but have not been able to apply them to the health information on cancer. It is time they share the information and work together to track the carcinogen causes of cancer and prevent it before it has to be cured. Instead, governments and families are budgeting billions of dollars a year to treat and cure cancer, when they could be saving money and reducing cancer, by limiting or eliminating the use of certain chemicals. The American Cancer Society reports that, "environmental causes probably account for well over half of all cancer cases. Most environmental risks are determined by lifestyle choices (smoking, diet, etc.), while the rest arise in community and workplace settings." It added that, "the degree of cancer hazard posed by these voluntary and involuntary risks depends on the concentration or intensity of the carcinogen and the exposure dose a person received. In situations where high levels of carcinogens are present and where exposures are extensive, significant hazards may exist, but where concentrations are low and exposures limited, hazards are often negligible. However, when low-dose exposures are widespread, they can represent significant public health hazards (for example, secondhand tobacco smoke)." It states that, "strong regulatory control and constant attention to safe occupational practices are required to minimize the workplace potential for exposure to high-dose carcinogens. Various chemicals (for example, benzene, asbestos, vinyl chloride, arsenic, aflatoxin) show definite evidence of human carcinogenicity; others are considered probable human carcinogens based on evidence from animal experiments (for example, chloroform, dichlorodiphenyl- trichloroethane [DDT], formaldehyde, polychlorinated biphenyls [PCBs], polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons). Often in the past, direct evidence of human carcinogenicity has come from studies of workplace conditions involving sustained, high-dose exposures. Occasionally, risks are greatly increased when particular exposures occur together (for example, asbestos exposure and cigarette smoking)".Source the American Cancer Society, website at www2.cancer.org
ENVIRONMENTAL CAUSES OF CANCER NEED TO BE ATTACKED AND REDUCED:
In 1994, the National Cancer Advisory Board issued a report entitled, "Cancer At a Crossroads: A Report to Congress for the Nation." It reported that,
"there is a lack of appreciation of the potential hazards of environmental and food source contaminants, and laws, policies, and regulations protecting and promoting tobacco use worsen the cancer problem and drive up health care costs", It stated that, "While individuals have a responsibility to change
high-risk behavior, government and society have responsibilities to identify and prevent workplace and environmental hazards, restrict advertising of
unsafe products, require accurate product labeling, and provide culturally targeted education about cancer risk and prevention". It ended by stating that,
"the elimination or reduction of exposure to carcinogenic agents is a priority in the prevention of cancer. We are just beginning to understand the full
range of health effects resulting from the exposure to occupational and environmental agents and factors." |
| o Breast cancer | US$ 6.6 billion |
| o Colorectal | 6.5 billion |
| o Lung | 5.0 billion |
| o Prostate | 4.7 billion |
| o Bladder | 2.2 billion |
| o Uterine | 1.6 billion |
| o Melanoma | 1.1 billion |
| o Leukemia | 1.1 billion |
| o Kidney | 1.0 billion |
| o Ovarian, stomach Pancreas, cervical | $610 million to 1.0 billion each |
These costs to socialized medicine and to medical insurance companies as well as to families could be substantially reduced through environmental prevention measures. Source, "Cancer, Inc." Source, "Definitive Guide to Cancer" a source book written by W. John Diamond, M.D. and W. Lee Cowden, M.D. and Burton Goldberg, published by Future Medicine Publishing, Inc., Tiburon, California, 1997, see its website at www.alternativemedicine.com/index1.shtml
Go to the website of the Canadian Cancer Society at www.cancer.ca/indexe.htm
Return