Re: Breast Cancer...Some Ideas

["Franz Schoenhofer" <franz.schoenhofer@chello.at>]

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: JPreisig@aol.com <JPreisig@aol.com>
An: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
Datum: Samstag, 24. Februar 2001 03:58
Betreff: Breast Cancer...Some Ideas


>Greetings to all you rad-safers:
>
>From: JPreisig@aol.com
>
Please refute and/or shoot holes in the
>following ideas as you deem necessary.


This is no problem, because you neglect some most basic evidence, which
shows that your "explanation" is not possible. This evidence is not on the
cellular level, but concerns macroscopic, radioecological evidence.

>
>     Breast Cancer seems to be a lifetime disease, taking many years to
reach
>final stages.   I assume that breasts are somewhat different from the rest
of
>the
>human body.  The human body consists mostly of water, while breasts are
>formed of water, fat (carbon and water) and other things.


For instance proteins......., fat does not contain water, chemically fats
are compounds made from carbon, hydrogen and oxygen. I do not think that the
elemental composition of breasts is so much different from the rest of the
body, but I am not an expert in anatomy.

I believe that larger breasts
>(possibly
>due to family genetics) are pre-disposed to cancer, although I have no data
>in hand to prove this.
>
So, why do you claim it, if you have no evidence? In German we have a
saying, translated literarilly as "Believing means now knowing".


>     I believe one (primary???) cause of breast cancer may be due to cosmic
>radiation (neutrons/protons/hadrons) interacting with the breasts.  I
believe
>one possible reaction for producing breast tumors, is neutron on Carbon-12
>followed by neuton on Carbon-13, thereby producing C-14.

I do not have the correct mechanism of formation of C-14 by cosmic radiation
at hand, but so much I remember that it its origin is a reaction involving
nitrogen. I am not a nuclear physicist either, so I cannot judge whether a
neutron capture of C-12 to produce C-13 is at all possible. But if it could
be produced, the production rate would be extremely low. From this extremely
low potential C-13 concentration another neutron capture should produce
C-14? At what rate? Any human tissue contains carbon, may it be blood,
muscle, fat, brain or whatever. So first of all your claim that C-14 could
be produced predominantly by cosmis rays in breasts is ridiculous.

Do Cancerous
>breasts (i.e. the tumors) have elevated levels of Carbon-14???

It is not understandable, why breasts of a woman suffering from breast
cancer should contain more C-14 than of one not suffering from it. The
production rate from cosmis radiation must be exactly the same in every
woman, according to your theory. You have yourself confirmed that you do not
have any evidence that the size of the breast would be a factor in risk.

>     Clearly, one could use MCNP, LAHET, FLUKA,MARS and/or other Monte
Carlo
>computer codes to do hadron/neutron/proton transport studies on the
>interactions with breasts of various dimensions.  I am not in professional
>position right now to do such studies.  Perhaps in the future.


Who knows, if you put your queer theory forward to the right antinuclear
groups and some other green groups you might get a few million dollars of
funding.


>
>     We seem to do pretty well in treating (via lumpectomy, mastectomy,
>chemotherapy and/or radiation) breast cancer, provided the cancer is
>detected early on.

You seem to have not followed the latest developments of treating breast
cancer. At least in Europe these -ectomies are the very last treating
methods, if everything else fails.

Perhaps, in addition to X-Rays, one could design
special
>NMR and CAT-scan equipment designed specifically (i.e. reduced in size
>and dose) for breast imaging.


The occurrance of breast cancer and its consequences are so severe, that I
am absolutely convinced that the big companies involved in imaging have been
working on these questions for many years. If they had been successful, they
would have since long marketed these equipments. I do not think that they
need your advice.

Finally to put your queer theory into the right perspective:

That the dose from cosmic rays is heavily dependent on the elevation and
that therefore women living at higher altitudes would be subject to
significantly enhanced breast cancer risk and occurrance has been pointed
out by a fellow RADSAFEr already.

The C-14- as well as the T-concentration in human tissue is dependent on
their concentrations in nutrition. C-14 is incorporated into plants via
photosynthesis, is consumed by humans from vegetables and fruits, is
consumed by animals, transferred to meat and milk and finally consumed by
humans. In the early sixties the C-14 concentration in the atmosphere was
due to the atmospheric nuclear tests compared to nowadays concentrations
higher by a factor of two. If your theory were correct (and LNT holds), the
breast cancer incidence would have been twice as high than it is nowadays.
The T-concentration was then higher by some orders of magnitude.

I believe that your "theory" omits the most simple facts likle cosmic ray
flux and evidence from the historical C-14 (and T) concentrations.

I noticed that you have not indicated your affiliation, from which one in
most cases can guess the scientific background. Your e-mail address shows a
private one - as is mine. I hope that your contribution does not follow the
same intentions as the "Norman" once did. And in case you regard my
contribution as aggressive, I will not apologize - two years ago a good
friend of mine contracted breast cancer, so I know a little about it and
especially about the psychological problems associated with it. She is
absolutely well again after agonizing months. I find it disgusting and
totally unscientific to claim such "simple" solutions and explanations like
the size of breasts.


Franz



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