I used to give a presentation on breast cancer prevention some years ago, and I just realized I’ve never blogged about this subject. Though years have passed and, sadly, little has changed in information on environmental connections to cancer, much of what I learned is still not well known by the public.
I recall reading somewhere that breast and prostate cancers are suspected to have similar causes, both being hormone-related cancers, so this information will be of interest to the guys too. I’ve always thought it was better to prevent cancer than to have to treat it… and the strategies to prevent cancer may help to prevent a recurrence in someone unfortunate enough to have already been diagnosed with it.
The causes of cancer have eluded us for generations, despite the “war on cancer” announced so many years ago. This may be because the cause, as understood by many researchers is likely to be a combination of factors that add together. These likely include genetics (less than 10% of breast cancers), exposure to cancer-causing chemicals or “carcinogens” (sometimes causing problems years after exposure), a poorly functioning immune system (that does not repair cell damage efficiently enough) and perhaps diet and other lifestyle factors.
However, little research money appears to be allocated to finding the causes, with much more going to early detection and treatment. I guess you’d want this, if you had cancer, but wouldn’t we all rather not get it in the first place? Of course, with much research money being supplied by manufacturers, the fact that preventing disease doesn’t result in income could also be a factor in where research dollars are spent… It’s up to government to take the lead in prevention and environmental research.
And it’s up to us to push them to do it!
My story…
I’ve known too many friends and family members who’ve been diagnosed with cancer. Unfortunately, the incidence continues to increase, even as treatments become more targeted and successful. But, like much I blog about, I have personal reasons for taking a particular interest in this subject.
My story started back 25 or 30 years ago when, for some unknown reason, I started having problems with some “lady parts”—lumps in the breast (fortunately all non-cancerous), bad PAP tests that required cryosurgery. Like most people, I just assumed these things were random occurrences and never thought to search for a cause. No one asked about my lifestyle or medications, to check for a change that might have been connected to my problems.
Tupperware parties were popular then, and I had bought a wonderful set of plastic cups with the “sipper seal” that prevented many spilled milk days in our house. After my kids outgrew the kiddie cup stage, the idea hit me that they would make great coffee cups—ones that would fit into the tiny cupholders in my car. No more spilled coffee on my way to work!
Eventually my coffee started to taste more and more like plastic, as the hot beverage broke down components in the plastic cup. Finally, one day it tasted so bad I pulled over and dumped it out and stopped using the cups for my coffee. A few months afterward, all my health problems went away.
A support group event
I didn’t associate the health events with my plastic consumption until a friend who was a breast cancer survivor invited me to an event her support group was hosting, a year or so later. It would have been the late 1990s. They presented a documentary film created in 1997 called “Exposure: Environmental Connections to Breast Cancer”, hosted by Olivia Newton-John, also a breast cancer survivor.
The 55-minute film interviewed cancer researchers and clinicians, and the award-winning producer and director were there for a discussion afterward. My friend and I bought a VHS copy of the film and I started giving a presentation based on the documentary’s research to any groups of women who wanted to listen.
The information in the film is still relevant now, over 20 years later, and many of the strategies for avoiding known carcinogens still seem to be surprising to many. This is just another example of the lack of “knowledge translation” I talked about last week. I’ll post a link to the film in the references, so you can check it out yourself if you’d like.
Plastic and cancer
So, back to plastic. One of the researchers in the film talked about an experiment they were doing with breast cancer cells. They had placed the cells in a plastic test tube with no nutrients or hormones to help them grow. They should have been just lying there quietly but, instead, they were growing like crazy. Something in the plastic was feeding the cancer cells. It was a revelation to the researchers—the first realization that something in plastic was hormonally active.
Since then, plastics have been classified into safer or more harmful types. You may have noticed a number enclosed in a triangle of arrows on most plastic containers. This is a classification of the plasticers (chemicals that make plastic flexible) in the plastic into various types. Although safety recommendations vary slightly by source, most recommend 2, 4 and 5 as the safest, and 1, 3, 6 and 7 to be used in moderation and never reused. No plastics are recommended to be heated, including in the microwave, or used for hot food.
Here’s a chart from the David Suzuki Foundation:
So, you see, my plastic cup didn’t just make my coffee taste like plastic, it was delivering a hormonally active substance into my body daily, that was making me sick. The worst part is that these chemicals are fat-soluble… they dissolve in oils and fats and are stored in the fatty tissues of the body. Now, 25 years later, I expect they’re still hiding in my body. Losing weight could be expected to liberate these chemicals as my body converts to using up fat I’ve stored away over the years.
If you look closely at the packaging, you’ll notice that Styrofoam cups and plastic utensils are generally made of plastic #6, a plastic that should not be used with food. Of course, we can choose not to use these items, but why are they still being manufactured and sold? Our governments are often slow to create regulations that protect us!
As a hormone specialist pharmacist, I learned that the hormone, progesterone, “opposes” or balances the action of estrogen. It’s not a leap to expect that it would also counter the action of estrogen-like chemicals as well, although I’ve not seen studies that specifically looked at this—and I have to wonder why these studies haven’t been done. I still use a low dose of progesterone to try to prevent problems because of what I learned as a compounding pharmacist.
Cellphones
While searching for an online version of the Exposure video, I stumbled across case reports of breast cancer that appeared to be associated with storing a cellphone close to the breast. These cancers were unusual, occurring in young women, exactly beneath the area where they habitually carried their phone, sometimes with several different types of cancer occurring at once. These women had developed a habit of carrying their phone tucked into their bra for hours each day.
In the report, they pointed out that most cellphone manufacturers recommend holding your phone slightly away from the body (or using a Bluetooth headset), and not storing the phone close to the body, especially not against the skin. I think I’ll start carrying mine in the front pocket of my purse, farther away from my body, rather than in the back pocket so I can feel it vibrate (telling me I have a message or call). I’ll just turn up the volume instead! Microwave radiation drops quickly with distance… creating a small space or non-metal layer quickly makes a large difference in the strength of the radio waves.
However, it is noteworthy that these cases were in people who carried their phone in direct contact with the skin, in the same spot for many hours each day. Overall, cellphone use has not been demonstrated to increase risk of cancer significantly. (See Mayo Clinic reference below).
And more…
Of course, there are other environmental factors that are of concern that should be discussed–pesticides being one. Chemicals that are designed to kill pests could be expected to do us harm too, if we are exposed. How much is too much? Which (if any) are safer? A subject for a future blog, perhaps.
But I’d encourage you to watch the “Exposure” video (link below in the references) that delves into the subject… an hour well spent in my opinion (and I’ve watched it quite a few times!)
PS…
One thing that has changed since the documentary was made, is that mammograms use less radiation now, resulting in a safer test. The test is also less accurate when breast tissue is more dense, as it is in premenopausal women. Many jurisdictions (with the notable exception of the US) begin screening mammograms only at age 50 and perform them only every 2 to 3 years to minimize exposure and maximize benefit.
PPS…Faith restored
On the “good news” front, I just got an appointment for early next week to hopefully (finally!) find out what is causing my “falling through the cracks” symptoms. My faith in the Canadian healthcare system has been restored! Fingers crossed for a clear explanation of what’s going on and a plan to get things back to normal as quickly as possible…
References:
Women’s reproductive system as balanced estradiol and progesterone actions—A revolutionary, paradigm-shifting concept in women’s health—Science Direct
Exposure: Environmental Links to Breast Cancer (1997)—Culture Unplugged
Cellphones and Breast Cancer—Environmental Health Trust
Is there any link between cellphones and cancer?—Mayo Clinic
Photo credit: Ishan @seefromthesky on Unsplash
Jeannie Beaudin, Artist and Author 