CHICAGO, IL, November 24, 2009 –/WORLD-WIRE/– The series of recent articles on mammography which report the harm done by overscreening, written by New York Times columnist Gina Kolata, as well as in other newspapers, have made no reference to the critical role of the American Cancer Society, warns Samuel S. Epstein, M.D., chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition.

Five radiologists have served as presidents of the American Cancer Society (ACS). In its every move, the ACS promotes the interests of the major manufacturers of mammogram machines and films, including Siemens, DuPont, General Electric, Eastman Kodak, and Piker.

This bias hypes mammography, which Dr. Epstein and Rosalie Bertell, Ph.D. of the International Physicians for Humanitarian Medicine emphasize is an avoidable cause of breast cancer.

“The mammography industry conducts research for the ACS and its grantees, serves on its advisory boards, and donates considerable funds,” they warn. “DuPont also is a substantial backer of the ACS Breast Health Awareness Program; sponsors television shows and other media productions touting ACS literature for hospitals, clinics, medical organization, and doctors; produces educational films; and aggressively lobbies Congress for legislation promoting the nationwide availability of mammography services.”

In virtually all its actions, the ACS has been and remains strongly linked with the mammography industry. Meanwhile, it ignores or attacks breast self examination (BSE), following training by expert nurses or clinicians, which is the safe and effective alternative, say Drs. Epstein and Bertell.

ACS promotion continues to lure women of all ages into mammography centers, leading them to believe that mammography is their best hope against breast cancer. A leading Massachusetts newspaper featured a photograph of two women in their twenties in an ACS advertisement that promised early detection results in a cure “nearly 100 percent of the time.”

An ACS communications director, questioned by journalist Kate Dempsey, admitted in an article published by the Massachusetts Women’s Community’s journal Cancer, “The ad isn’t based on a study. When you make an advertisement, you just say what you can to get women in the door. You exaggerate a point…Mammography today is a lucrative [and] highly competitive business.”

Not surprisingly, the prestigious Chronicle of Philanthropy, the leading charity watch dog, has warned that the ACS “is more interested in accumulating wealth than saving lives.”

This evidence on the complicity of the ACS was made available to Gina Kolata at her request on October 20th, Dr. Epstein says. However, in her subsequent series of articles, she made no reference to the role of the ACS in concealing the dangers of mammography from the nation’s women.

Routine mammography delivers an unrecognized high dose of radiation, warn Drs. Epstein and Bertell. If a woman follows the current guidelines for premenopausal screening, over a 10 year period she would receive a total dosage of about 5 rads. This approximates the level of exposure to radiation of a Japanese woman one mile from the epicenter of atom bombs dropped on Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

“Mammography is a striking paradigm of the capture of unsuspecting women by run-away powerful technological and global pharmaceutical industries, with the complicity of the cancer establishment, particularly the ACS, and the rollover mainstream media,” they warn.

Drs. Epstein and Bertell emphasize, “Promotion of the multibillion dollar mammography screening industry has also become a diversionary flag around which legislators and women’s product corporations can rally, protesting how much they care about women, while studiously avoiding any reference to avoidable risks of breast cancer.

Screening mammography should be phased out in favor of annual clinical breast examination, (CBE), by a trained nurse and monthly breast self examination (BSE), also following training by a trained nurse. This is an effective, safe, and low-cost alternative, to diagnostic mammography, the two experts advise.

“Such action is all the more critical and overdue in view of the still poorly recognized evidence that mammography does not lead to decreased breast cancer mortality,” they say.

Drs. Epstein and Bertell envision nationwide networks of BSE and CBE clinics, staffed by trained nurses, saying, “These low-cost clinics would also empower women by providing them with scientific evidence on the risks of breast cancer, and also on its prevention.”

This information is of particular importance, they say, in view of the high incidence of breast cancer, which has increased by 18% from 1975, in spite of the multi-billion dollar U.S. insurance and Medicare costs of mammography. Such funds should be diverted to establishing BSE clinics nationwide and providing public information on the wide range of avoidable causes of breast cancer.

This information was detailed in 2001 in a scientific article on “The Dangers and Unreliability of Mammography: Breast Examination As A Safe Effective and Practical Alternative,” published in the prestigious International Journal of Health Services as long ago as 2001. This was co-authored by Dr. Epstein, Dr. Bertell, a leading international expert on radiation hazards, and the late Barbara Seaman, the leader and founder of the women’s breast cancer movement.

Samuel S. Epstein, M.D. is professor emeritus of Environmental and Occupational Medicine at the University of Illinois at Chicago School of Public Health; Chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition; and a former President of the Rachel Carson Trust. His awards include the 1989 Right Livelihood Award and the 2005 Albert Schweitzer Golden Grand Medal for International Contributions to Cancer Prevention. Dr. Epstein has authored 20 scientific articles and 15 books on cancer prevention, including the groundbreaking The Politics of Cancer (1979), and most recently Toxic Beauty (2009, Benbella Books: www.benbellabooks.com) about carcinogens in cosmetics and personal care products.

Rosalie Bertell, Ph. D. is an expert in Radiation Epidemiology. She is the retired President of International Institute of Concern for Public Health, Member of the Board of Regents of the International Physicians for Humanitarian Medicine; Member of the European Committee on Radiation Risk and the Cancer Prevention Coalition (U.S.). Dr. Bertell is a recipient of many awards, including the United Nations Environment Program, Global Five Hundred Award and the Right Livelihood Award (Alternative Nobel Prize). She is author of five books and has published more than 100 professional papers and articles.

CONTACT:
Samuel S. Epstein, MD
Professor Emeritus
Environmental & Occupational Medicine
University of Illinois Chicago School of Public Health
Chairman, Cancer Prevention Coalition,
Chicago, Illinois 60612
Tel. 312-996-2297
Email: epstein@uic.edu
Web: www.preventcancer.com

Rosalie Bertell, Ph.D.
Regent, International Physicians for Humanitarian Medicine
Founding Member European Committee on Radiation Risk
Yardley, Pennsylvania 19067
Tel. 215-968-4236
Email: rosaliebertell@greynun.org
Web: www.iicph.org

Copyright © 2009, World-Wire. All rights reserved.
Issuers of news releases and not World-Wire are solely responsible for the
accuracy of the content. World-Wire is a resource provided by
Environment News Service
To subscribe to World-Wire alerts click
here.
World-Wire, 620 Vineyard, Suite 303, Seattle, WA, 98110 Phone: (206) 201
3124

Group warns that nurses face health risks from chemical exposure

The very chemicals used to keep hospitals squeaky clean and to treat patients could be harmful to nurses who are exposed to them in their daily duties, according to a study released Tuesday by an Oakland environmental group.

Nurses are exposed to a wide range of chemicals on the job – from heavy-duty cleaners and latex to chemotherapy drugs – that could have long-term effects on their health and the health of their children, say researchers with the Environmental Working Group and Health Care Without Harm, which coordinated an online survey of 1,500 nurses in the United States.

But few regulations limit nurses’ exposure to chemicals, and, in fact, most nurses have no idea that their work environment could be harmful, said Jane Houlihan, vice president of research for Environmental Working Group and an author of the study.

“As much as we rely on nurses to protect us when we’re sick, we’re not protecting nurses in return,” Houlihan said. “They face a diverse range of exposures in the workplace that really could pose significant health risks.”

Powered by ScribeFire.

From Ms Magazine:

That lipstick or nail polish you may be wearing — are they a danger to your health? How about your deodorant, toothpaste, body lotion, soap?

Seemingly innocuous personal-care products contain a host of largely unregulated chemicals and toxic ingredients. Some of those chemicals — phthalates, formaldehyde, petroleum, parabens, benzene and lead — have been variously linked to breast cancer, endometriosis, reproductive disorders, birth defects and developmental disabilities in children.

Women and girls should be particularly concerned, as our bodies are uniquely susceptible to certain environmental chemicals. Women have a greater percentage of fat in comparison to men, so fat-soluble chemicals such as parabens and toluene tend to be more readily absorbed and fatty breast tissue can be a long-term storage site for some of the more persistent toxic chemicals. Hormones also play a role: Synthetic chemicals such as alkylphenols (found in some detergents) and bisphenol A (found in hard plastics) can mimic natural estrogens in the body — and excess estrogen can play a role in the development of breast cancer. Childbearing women may also pass toxins to fetuses in utero or to newborns when breastfeeding.

But U.S. consumers are left in the dark about vital safety information: Cosmetic companies are not required to label many of their products’ ingredients, and the Food and Drug Administration does not mandate premarket safety testing of those ingredients.

And that’s why the California Safe Cosmetics Act is such a landmark achievement.

Signed into law by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger last October and taking effect in 2007, it requires manufacturers to disclose product ingredients found on state or federal lists of chemicals that cause cancer or birth defects. The law further authorizes the state to investigate the health impacts of chemicals in cosmetics, and requires manufacturers to supply health-related information about their ingredients. Finally, the act enables the state to regulate products in order to assure the safety of salon workers.

California is the first state in the nation to pass such legislation, thus serving as a model for the other 49.

SFGate.com: Women are taking environmental health into their own hands

Recent research has shown that phthalates, chemicals routinely used in body-care products, could harm developing fetuses and young children. (The effects on adult bodies are less clear but may include male-fertility problems.) Beyond simple questions of poisoning — the sort of tests the cosmetic industry usually looks at — exposure to small amounts of chemicals such as phthalates at just the right moment in development can lead to consequences decades later. Researchers point to the experience with DES, a synthetic estrogen prescribed to millions of pregnant women before it was banned in 1971. Horrifyingly, it turns out that the grown daughters of mothers prescribed DES are up to 40 times more likely to develop certain cancers, and often have complications in their own pregnancies. There is even evidence that a third-generation effect may exist.

Though many consumers have long had a visceral aversion to ingredients they can’t pronounce (say “THA-lates”), it is only recently that this kind of conventional wisdom has coalesced into a political movement. Last year, the European Union passed legislation requiring manufacturers to reformulate body-care products without potentially harmful chemicals. An effort to pass similar regulations in California stalled after vigorous lobbying by cosmetic companies. A new bill, sponsored by state Sen. Carole Migden, would require cosmetic companies to report the presence of chemicals such as phthalates that are known to cause cancer (they are often hidden under the rubric of fragrance).

Into the breach have stepped advocacy groups. The Washington, D.C.-based Environmental Working Group has created an online database that rates the ingredients of various personal-care products. Similarly, the Breast Cancer Fund’s Campaign for Safe Cosmetics asks companies to pledge to adhere to the European Union rules in their worldwide operations.

Some companies have been working to address these issues as well. Aveda, for example, is working with Greenpeace’s mercury-testing program; its training salons have proved the perfect place to collect hair samples. The company has also removed phthalates from all of its products, including packaging, says Mary Tkach, Aveda’s executive director of environmental sustainability. “We’re trying to be a different kind of company,” she says. “We have to really think ahead.” Still, inertia in the sector is difficult to overcome. Even some of Aveda’s products score poorly in the Environmental Working Group’s database, and the company has yet to sign on to the safe-cosmetics pledge. (Tkach says Aveda’s parent company — Estée Lauder, one of the companies lobbying against the Migden bill — won’t let the company sign the pledge.) But you don’t have to resort to dreadlocks and the makeup-free hippie look to avoid questionable chemicals in cosmetics. Better choices include companies such as Avalon, Aubrey Organics and more than a hundred others that have signed the Breast Cancer Fund’s pledge and are making alternative cosmetics widely available. And, as more women realize they need to educate themselves and make their own decisions about the toxins entering their bodies, these companies are poised to grow.
Read more >>

WASHINGTON–New research strengthens the possibility that antibiotic-resistant urinary tract infections (UTI), which lead to about eight million physician visits a year for women in the United States, may originate from food animals, according to experts at the School of Public Health of the University of California at Berkeley. UTIs leading to kidney infections in women cause an estimated 125,000 hospitalizations and a quarter million ambulatory cases a year.

“Women may not be getting the relief they need because of the overuse of antibiotics in food animals,” said Dr. Margaret Mellon, Director the Food and Agriculture Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists. “When urinary infections do not respond to standard antibiotic treatments, the delays in finding an effective antibiotic can prolong the course of the disease and sometimes lead to trips to the emergency room.”

The new research, appearing in the January 15 issue of the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases, identified E.coli bacteria from animal guts that are highly similar to the multi-drug resistant bacteria previously associated with an outbreak of urinary tract infections in women in California. The identification of the bacteria in food animals strengthens the case that antibiotic-resistant urinary tract infections have a food animal origin.

“If resistant UTI’s are indeed originating in animal systems, then women’s health is threatened by the overuse use of animal antibiotics,” said Mellon.

Link