Cancer and the environment

[bham]

In the absence of a section on health, I post here.

Cancer and the environment
Annie Sasco, epidemiologist at Inserm
"In the face of cancer, there are elements that the individual cannot control"

THE WORLD 01.04.08

An epidemiologist and doctor, Annie Sasco has worked for more than twenty years at the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). She is now director of research at Inserm (unit 897-Bordeaux), responsible for the epidemiology team for cancer prevention.

Question: In his report of February 18, the national academy of medicine notes a decrease in the number of breast cancers since 2005 and attributes it to the lesser use of hormone replacement therapy (HRT). Scientific studies implicating the side effects of HRT date back to the early 2000s. Can we measure the impact of less use of these treatments so quickly?

Reply : Hormonal products can have two types of action. Either be a carcinogen in the traditional sense of the term, that is to say capable of inducing a mutation in DNA, or be an excellent growth factor, thus promoting the growth of cells, in particular cancer cells. As this is a relatively short-term promotional effect, this may explain that, if HRT is suppressed in women who, because of their age, are likely to have in their bodies some cancer cells (this which does not mean that all of them will get cancer), we are achieving a rapid drop in the number of cancers.
In some individuals, cancer cells may remain quiet in their corner, controlled by the body. But if they are helped to grow by giving them growth factors they will wake up. However, the cancer that arrives is not necessarily linked only to HRT. There are always several factors, but HRT can promote the onset of breast cancer.

Q: The academy takes a position in favor of chemoprevention for women who are - for genetic reasons - at very high risk for breast cancer. What do you think ?

A: I think it is urgent to wait and that, in any case, it cannot be a solution for the whole population. Growing medicalization is not the only solution. Currently, we are witnessing a slippage: we are treating people who are not yet sick to prevent them from getting sick. This is true in many pathologies (hypertension, cholesterol, etc.). The problem is that we are not sure that we are actually preventing the onset of the disease and that drugs, perhaps effective, but aggressive, with side effects are being used. Even when non-hazardous drugs such as vitamins (betacarotene, alpha-tocopherol) were offered to prevent lung cancer in smokers, it didn't work.
It has been noted that people who develop lung cancer have lower levels of vitamins in their blood. The idea then was to give them a vitamin supplement. A first trial carried out fifteen years ago in Finland showed that those who were given vitamins had more lung cancer than those who were given nothing. It is never neutral to modify, by pharmacological means, the contributions of people. It's the same in food. You have to be naive to believe that with a few chemical molecules inserted into capsules you reproduce all the effects of a class of food. It is to look for ease under the pretext that it is easier to prescribe than to proscribe.

Q: How to improve prevention against cancer?

A: Saying that you shouldn't smoke, drink as little alcohol as possible, eat a balanced diet, preferably without too much pesticide residue and various pollutants, exercise, it's all very good. But there are other elements that the individual cannot control: the air he breathes, the water he drinks, the place where he lives, exposure to electromagnetic fields. We should be more drastic, especially on pesticides. Today, when we eat a normal meal, in France, we are exposed to residues of 21 pesticides. We should further eliminate from our way of life and from our environment the compounds which we know with certainty or which we strongly suspect to be carcinogens for human beings. But we come up against commercial interests. This is a matter of political decisions which each of us can influence.

Q: But recent studies show that the role played by the environment (water, air, food) is extremely minimal, less than 1%, in the causes of cancer ...

A: The figures available reflect what has happened over the past XNUMX years. Forty years ago, there were far fewer pesticides or electromagnetic fields in our environment. Cell phones and Wi-Fi did not exist. Cancer is a long-term side effect. It takes twenty or forty years to get cancer. The effects of the cell phone, for example, are just beginning to be noticed. We bathe in the waves. Whether it is food, ionizing radiation, electromagnetic fields, dioxins, or even certain cosmetics, should we wait for absolute certainty? Or say that we should still be careful because we have data in animals and some on humans which are not really reassuring. For cosmetics, you should know that it is not the price that makes the difference in quality.

Q: It might do a lot of things that we are supposed to pay attention to ...

A: I don't want to distress people. But it is legitimate to ask these questions. The increase in the number of cancers is partly linked to the aging of the population and to screening (it is caricatured for the prostate), but this is far from explaining everything. On November 27, at Qinghua University in Beijing, Nicolas Sarkozy himself declared: "Public opinion demands that we act together to end the pollution cancer scandal". I fully agree.

(Interview by Sandrine Blanchard)

[chris06]

A few years ago, not so long ago when people died for lack of antibiotics, where boilers spit out black clouds of smoke (certainly not ecological ), where locomotives did the same, where factories spit out polluting waste in rivers and other rivers ...

For some time now, he's been in tune with the times ) to tell us about the pollution inside homes, effects may be because it is only for the most part carcinogenic assumptions of mobile phones and other modern tools.

It is all the same to note that we live longer and longer despite the horrible pollution that surrounds us, the cancers that run in to jump on us around the corner

Before there was no cell phone, no factory etc ... and life expectancy was not huge.

What is certain is that immortality does not exist and that for many people who talk about these subjects in the media, it is also a way for them to be talked about ...

[jonule]

it sucks as a remark, as much to say that cancer was invented too!
we cannot control statistics, and above all encourage them to produce them!

it's a bit like veiling your face or hiding your eyes ...

[bham]

A few years ago, not so long ago when people died for lack of antibiotics, where boilers spit out black clouds of smoke (certainly not ecological ), where locomotives did the same, where factories spit out polluting waste in rivers and other rivers ...
Before there was no cell phone, no factory etc ... and life expectancy was not huge.

You are partly right, life expectancy was shorter and you could die from the flu, tetanus, tuberculosis .... etc. The organisms were probably also more resistant.

For some time now, he's been in tune with the times ) to tell us about the pollution inside homes, effects may be because it is only for the most part carcinogenic assumptions of mobile phones and other modern tools.
It is all the same to note that we live longer and longer despite the horrible pollution that surrounds us, the cancers that run in to jump on us around the corner ...

Yes still partly true, we live longer and longer despite all this. But without wanting to live 200 years, why then insist on having a care medicine and a healthy lifestyle?
Where people used to die from a lot of diseases that we managed to eradicate, today we die, in part, from the anarchic development of our own cells. The goal is not to live as long as possible but to live well. In addition, cancers cause significant suffering and just as significant costs of illness, and this affects both children and the elderly.
To address the problem of pesticides, they are used to fight against insects, unwanted grasses, molds and therefore to increase production, guarantee the conservation of fruits and vegetables (by fungicides). This in theory makes it possible to have healthy fruits and vegetables in abundance. In reality, the consumer indirectly pays for these treatments by buying his fruits and vegetables to, ultimately, risk developing cancers, a source of pain and costs for the community.
The various current pollutions, if they can be less "radical" than the old pollutions, are nonetheless aggressive and disturbing for organisms which then develop more or - serious diseases, in any case disabling.

What is certain is that immortality does not exist and that for many people who talk about these subjects in the media, it is also a way for them to be talked about ...

What we talk about in the media is generally based on scientific studies that are published regularly. I don't think researchers want to be "sucked" by studies that have taken months of research and analysis. They make observations, try to look for cause and effect relationships, why, for example, are there more and more allergies, which is a reaction of the body to disturbing elements.
Again, the goal is not necessarily to become immortal but to live better. For my part, I do not want my children to suffer the harmful effects of products or techniques that could disrupt the functioning of their body.
Otherwise, you might as well not make kids.

[chris06]

What we talk about in the media is generally based on scientific studies that are published regularly. I don't think researchers want to be "sucked" by studies that have taken months of research and analysis. They make observations, try to look for cause and effect relationships, why, for example, are there more and more allergies, which is a reaction of the body to disturbing elements.
Again, the goal is not necessarily to become immortal but to live better. For my part, I do not want my children to suffer the harmful effects of products or techniques that could disrupt the functioning of their body.
Otherwise, you might as well not make kids.

You know when the first railway lines were built, scientists (yes!) Said that the train caused miscarriages in cows ... It is not because a scientist says something that you have to swallow his words ... As for the media, they seek to be sensational; scare people in particular and apparently it works ...

Currently, we are advancing a lot when in reality it is based on nothing.

There are more and more allergic children ... It is not surprising when we see the aseptic environments in which they live. So necessarily organizations are not used to defending themselves and well they do not defend themselves. People are so afraid of microbes that they clean everything with anti-bacterial products and you see the result. When I think some people are walking around with antibacterial gels on them

[bham]

... It is not because a scientist says something that one must swallow his words ... As for the media, they seek to do in the sensational; scare people in particular and apparently it works ...
Currently, we are advancing a lot when in reality it is based on nothing.
There are more and more allergic children ... It is not surprising when we see the aseptic environments in which they live. So necessarily organizations are not used to defending themselves and well they do not defend themselves. People are so afraid of microbes that they clean everything with anti-bacterial products and you see the result. When I think some people are walking around with antibacterial gels on them

Yes there is truth in what you say but is this a reason to say: it could be worse, all this pollution is rubbish, everything is under control? And cancers are linked to something.
"based on nothing": yes impact studies are sometimes contradictory but in general the conclusions of the studies overlap.

[chris06]

Yes there is truth in what you say but is this a reason to say: it could be worse, all this pollution is rubbish, everything is under control? And cancers are linked to something.
"based on nothing": yes impact studies are sometimes contradictory but in general the conclusions of the studies overlap.

But no, scientific studies are not necessarily true because their conclusion is the same. The example I gave earlier for the railway and miscarriages of cows was validated by the whole scientific community and that did not prevent it from being false.

Nobody says pollution is rubbish. Simply put, it has always existed in one form or another.

You seem to be frightened by cancer because in almost all your words, we find this word. Cancer exists and the same has always existed simply medicine did not know how to identify it in particular because of a lower life expectancy than today. We know that some cancers are genetic (and yes unfortunately we can be programmed to develop one), certain factors play an important role because proven: tobacco, alcohol, sun in particular, certain cancers are linked to certain professions (again all people working under the same conditions will not develop one. So would genetics play a role there too?).

I know lots of people who are afraid of everything but on the other hand go on vacation to countries where hygiene is more than questionable and there without any mood (come back with diseases that will require lifelong care ) or are roasted in the sun for whole days ...

In short, we have responsible behavior but not unreasonable fear.

In short, it is certain that you have to make an effort and try to live in the least polluted environment possible but you cannot live in a bubble. You have to live as simply.

[boubka]

we live longer and longer ....... old people yes, for our generations we know nothing!
who will see

[bham]

You seem to be frightened by cancer because in almost all your words, we find this word.

In all my words? we see that you are new; on almost a thousand messages that I posted on this forum, the word cancer seems to me to appear very rarely.

In short, we have responsible behavior but not unreasonable fear.

I see that we have trouble understanding each other; in my approach, there is no unreasonable fear, just questions, worry justified on our environment, our food, our health and information that everyone is able to consider as admissible or not.

That you accept this health situation as not being worse in the end than before, that it has always existed, that studies ultimately do not demonstrate anything, that concerns you, but I suddenly find that it is a behavior that has not nothing responsible.

And so between "people who are afraid of everything" and those like you who are satisfied with the situation, it seems to me that there is a happy medium made of responsible questions.
Without these questions, we leave everything to do under the pretext that we cannot live in a bubble. So we feed cows with M ..., it gives mad cow, we pesticide at all costs, we tinker with genes, we make clones, ... etc.

[denis]

leave ...... he's a guy from monzanto!