Re: RADSAFE digest 3135

[Steven Dapra <sjd@swcp.com>]

April 30

	Thank you, Norm, for your reply to my posting.  (I invite you to continue
to make postings to RADSAFE.)  You wrote (within the dashes):

"----- The term "Huge" increases come from RPHP and the NJ Breast Cancer
Coalition from
public events. No I don't have specific citations. Is 53% over 39 years
huge? To every
woman who has breast cancer it sure is. And with other cancers going down,
with other
diseases being conquered, why is this one rising? So yes, I'd still say
"huge".
--------"

	I do not wish to downplay the seriousness of breast cancer (or any type of
cancer) but to extend your reasoning, an increase of only one case over a
39 year period would be classified as a "huge" increase.

	Why is breast cancer increasing?  Improper diet -- high fat diets are a
known risk factor for breast cancer, as are drinking alcohol, and obesity.
Women (and men too, I'm sure) drink a lot more now than they did 30 or 40
or 50 years ago.  It is a well-known fact that obesity is a national
problem in both genders and all ages.  This has been reported in the
popular press.

	There seems to be some discord over whether cancer rates are going down or
up.  I have heard a local anti-nuker say publicly that cancer is increasing
at an "exponential rate."  I realize that this characterization means
nothing without knowing the exponent, but the obvious and intended
implication of the speaker was that cancer rates were rising rapidly.  In
fact, this "exponential" claim was made by the prime organizer of that
Environmental Cancer seminar I referred to in an earlier posting.

	"----- Good that sr-90 got in there. This is one of the basic points of
the TF Project, not that radiation causes breast cancer rises by itself,
but that it acts in synergy with these other toxins ------"

	The claim of synergy between radiation and chemicals continues to crop up.
 Is there research to buttress this?  Citations?

	"---- I don't know where reactors would be in N Mex, unless he's including
Los Alamos.  And it's still an increase, when one would think there would
be a decline. -------"

	My comment about reactors was tongue-in-cheek.  There are no power
reactors in NM to produce the emissions that Gould alleges are the cause of
increased breast cancer.  Why would one "think there would be a decline" in
breast cancer?  Perhaps the actual rate of incidence was remaining the same
and the perceived increase was due to better diagnosis.  And the increase
could be partially attributed to diet and increased use of alcohol.  The
main point is, why must the increase in breast cancer automatically be
attributed to radioactive emissions, especially in  the absence of any
epidemiological data to support this claim?

Steven Dapra
sjd@swcp.com





************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html