Nielsen et al (10 Sept) cite stress as an important factor in breast
cancer and they believe it[breast cancer] is "a hormone dependent disease
with a clear positive relation to high endogenous concentrations of
oestrogen." The emphasis upon stress, diet, exercise, yoga, family
history, etc., tend to cloud the issue (intentionally?). It has long been
known that breast tissue is highly effected by ionizing radiation. This
fact was demonstrated by Ian MacKenzie in 1965 when he found that women
who had fluoroscope examinations for tuberculosis had a 24-fold greater
risk of breast cancer as compared to others who were not irradiated(1).
This study was confirmed in 1969 by Myrden and Hiltz(2). Then, in 1970, a
paper by Tamplin and Gofman(1963-associate director, Lawrence Livermore
Natl. Lab and director of its Biomedical Research Div) quantified the dose
-response for radiation-induced breast cancer(3). In 1971, Segaloff and
Maxfield, in a radiation/oestrogen experiment, concluded, "radiation alone
could be the causative agent in the rising incidence of breast
carcinoma"(4). This was the first study to document a synergistic response
but it was ignored by cancer "experts" who were playing ball with the
embryonic nuclear power industry.
Despite the best efforts by independent investigators (Nobel laureate
H.J. Muller,Ernest Sternglass, John Gofman,Rosalie Bertell,Alice
Stewart,Brian MacMahon,Baruch Modan,Rudi Nussbaum,Chris Busby,Inge Schmitz
-Feuerhake, Alexey Yablokov, to name a few) to focus on radiation health
effects, the radiation connection was too hot to handle. How could the
National Cancer Institute(NCI) distribute a booklet to its cancer centers
in 2003 (What You Need to Know About Breast Cancer)proclaiming "No one
knows the exact causes of breast cancer"? How could the NCI and cancer
specialists around the world ignore the work of these respected scientists
or later papers published in major medical journals that disproved this
claim?
A 1996 paper by Mary S. Wolff(Mt. Sinai School of Medicine)that
stated, "In women, strong links have been established between breast
cancer risk and ionizing radiation"(5). Or the commentary by five cancer
experts on risk factors-- "With the notable exceptions of ionizing
radiation and inherited genetic damage, none of the established risk
factors for breast cancer directly causes the disease"(6). John W. Gofman
published an extensively referenced book(340 references)in 1996 that
identified medical X rays as the primary cause of the skyrocketing
incidence of breast cancer(7), representing the best historical account of
the disease.
Incredibly, on 27 July 1996, NCI director Richard Klausner, speaking
at Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi's town hall meeting, noted, "As far as I am
aware, all of the data we have to date on low-level ionizing radiation
does not demonstrate an increased risk"(transcript sent to this writer).
He must have known of the preliminary results of the NCI-funded U.S.
Scoliosis Cohort Study. Published in the low circulation journal
Spine(8),it found an average of 24.7 X rays and a mean cumulative dose of
10.8 cGy(a very low dose) resulted in a 69% increase in breast cancer
mortality, a jarring revelation to the radiation community.
In 2004, the Breast Cancer Fund published a booklet on the primary
causes of cancer, i.e., radiation and its synergistic co-action with
chemicals. Six prominent scientists reviewed the document, the first one
to reference the Segaloff-Maxfield study and another later paper
demonstrating synergism by Calef and Hei(Establishment of a radiation and
estrogen-induced breast cancer model. Carcinogenesis 2000;21:769-776). The
Fund's conclusion:
"Exposure to ionizing radiation is the best-established environmental
cause of human breast cancer"(9)and it urged an investigation into the
synergistic interaction of radiation and chemicals, a necessary component
in cancer prevention, risk analysis, and The Precautionary Principle.
References
1. MacKenzie I. Breast cancer following multiple
fluoroscopies. Brit J Cancer 1965;19:1-8.
2. Myrden JA, Hiltz JE. Breast cancer following multiple fluoroscopies during artificial pneumothorax treatment of pulmonary tuberculosis. Canadian Med Assoc J 1969;100:1032-1064.
3. Tamplin AR, Gofman JW. Radiation-induced breast cancer.
Lancet 1970;1:297.
4. Segaloff A, Maxfield WS. The synergism between radiation
and oestrogen in the production of mammary cancer in the
rat. Cancer Research 1971;31:166-168.
5. Wolff Ms, Collman GW, Barrett JC, Huff J. Brreast cancer
and environmental risk: epidemiological and experimental
findings. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol 1996;36:573-596.
6. Davis DL, Axelrod D, Bailey L, Gaynor M, Sasco AJ.
Enviro Health Perspect 1998;9:523-529.
7. Gofman JW. Preventing Breast Cancer: The Story of a
Major,Proven, Preventable Cause of this Disease(2nd ed).
San Francisco:Committee for Nuclear Responsibility,1996.
8. Doody MM,Lonstein JE, Stovall M, Hacker DG, Luckyanov N,
Land CE. Breast cancer mortality after diagnostic
radiography:findings from the U.S.Scoliosis Cohort Study.
Spine 2000;25:2052-2063.
9. Evans N(ed). State of the Evidence:What Is the Connection
Between the Environment and Breast Cancer? San Francisco:
Breast Cancer Fund/Breast Cancer Action, 2004
Rapid Response:
Stress and Breast Cancer: Another Smoke Screen?
Nielsen et al (10 Sept) cite stress as an important factor in breast
cancer and they believe it[breast cancer] is "a hormone dependent disease
with a clear positive relation to high endogenous concentrations of
oestrogen." The emphasis upon stress, diet, exercise, yoga, family
history, etc., tend to cloud the issue (intentionally?). It has long been
known that breast tissue is highly effected by ionizing radiation. This
fact was demonstrated by Ian MacKenzie in 1965 when he found that women
who had fluoroscope examinations for tuberculosis had a 24-fold greater
risk of breast cancer as compared to others who were not irradiated(1).
This study was confirmed in 1969 by Myrden and Hiltz(2). Then, in 1970, a
paper by Tamplin and Gofman(1963-associate director, Lawrence Livermore
Natl. Lab and director of its Biomedical Research Div) quantified the dose
-response for radiation-induced breast cancer(3). In 1971, Segaloff and
Maxfield, in a radiation/oestrogen experiment, concluded, "radiation alone
could be the causative agent in the rising incidence of breast
carcinoma"(4). This was the first study to document a synergistic response
but it was ignored by cancer "experts" who were playing ball with the
embryonic nuclear power industry.
Despite the best efforts by independent investigators (Nobel laureate
H.J. Muller,Ernest Sternglass, John Gofman,Rosalie Bertell,Alice
Stewart,Brian MacMahon,Baruch Modan,Rudi Nussbaum,Chris Busby,Inge Schmitz
-Feuerhake, Alexey Yablokov, to name a few) to focus on radiation health
effects, the radiation connection was too hot to handle. How could the
National Cancer Institute(NCI) distribute a booklet to its cancer centers
in 2003 (What You Need to Know About Breast Cancer)proclaiming "No one
knows the exact causes of breast cancer"? How could the NCI and cancer
specialists around the world ignore the work of these respected scientists
or later papers published in major medical journals that disproved this
claim?
A 1996 paper by Mary S. Wolff(Mt. Sinai School of Medicine)that
stated, "In women, strong links have been established between breast
cancer risk and ionizing radiation"(5). Or the commentary by five cancer
experts on risk factors-- "With the notable exceptions of ionizing
radiation and inherited genetic damage, none of the established risk
factors for breast cancer directly causes the disease"(6). John W. Gofman
published an extensively referenced book(340 references)in 1996 that
identified medical X rays as the primary cause of the skyrocketing
incidence of breast cancer(7), representing the best historical account of
the disease.
Incredibly, on 27 July 1996, NCI director Richard Klausner, speaking
at Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi's town hall meeting, noted, "As far as I am
aware, all of the data we have to date on low-level ionizing radiation
does not demonstrate an increased risk"(transcript sent to this writer).
He must have known of the preliminary results of the NCI-funded U.S.
Scoliosis Cohort Study. Published in the low circulation journal
Spine(8),it found an average of 24.7 X rays and a mean cumulative dose of
10.8 cGy(a very low dose) resulted in a 69% increase in breast cancer
mortality, a jarring revelation to the radiation community.
In 2004, the Breast Cancer Fund published a booklet on the primary
causes of cancer, i.e., radiation and its synergistic co-action with
chemicals. Six prominent scientists reviewed the document, the first one
to reference the Segaloff-Maxfield study and another later paper
demonstrating synergism by Calef and Hei(Establishment of a radiation and
estrogen-induced breast cancer model. Carcinogenesis 2000;21:769-776). The
Fund's conclusion:
"Exposure to ionizing radiation is the best-established environmental
cause of human breast cancer"(9)and it urged an investigation into the
synergistic interaction of radiation and chemicals, a necessary component
in cancer prevention, risk analysis, and The Precautionary Principle.
References
1. MacKenzie I. Breast cancer following multiple
fluoroscopies. Brit J Cancer 1965;19:1-8.
2. Myrden JA, Hiltz JE. Breast cancer following multiple fluoroscopies during artificial pneumothorax treatment of pulmonary tuberculosis. Canadian Med Assoc J 1969;100:1032-1064.
3. Tamplin AR, Gofman JW. Radiation-induced breast cancer.
Lancet 1970;1:297.
4. Segaloff A, Maxfield WS. The synergism between radiation
and oestrogen in the production of mammary cancer in the
rat. Cancer Research 1971;31:166-168.
5. Wolff Ms, Collman GW, Barrett JC, Huff J. Brreast cancer
and environmental risk: epidemiological and experimental
findings. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol 1996;36:573-596.
6. Davis DL, Axelrod D, Bailey L, Gaynor M, Sasco AJ.
Enviro Health Perspect 1998;9:523-529.
7. Gofman JW. Preventing Breast Cancer: The Story of a
Major,Proven, Preventable Cause of this Disease(2nd ed).
San Francisco:Committee for Nuclear Responsibility,1996.
8. Doody MM,Lonstein JE, Stovall M, Hacker DG, Luckyanov N,
Land CE. Breast cancer mortality after diagnostic
radiography:findings from the U.S.Scoliosis Cohort Study.
Spine 2000;25:2052-2063.
9. Evans N(ed). State of the Evidence:What Is the Connection
Between the Environment and Breast Cancer? San Francisco:
Breast Cancer Fund/Breast Cancer Action, 2004
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests