When oh when will a movement begin to start fundamental research and preventive measures in the environment that work? How many of us have to die horribly, humiliaitingly, fleeced by the people supposed to be taking care of us?
Gentle reader,
I am in the position of Austen’s Emma: I wish I were not so accurate. You will recall the other day I wrote an unshakably firm demonstration that we are indeed seeing an epidemic of cancer. It’s not true that the numbers dying just go to show we are not dying of other diseases; huge increases in death rates from cancers of all sorts, new cancers, younger and younger people developing and dying of cancer destroys the complacent myth the medical establishment, the corporate polluters want us to accept. A story in the Guardian is about how the rate of cancer is expected to increase 70% — that’s SEVENTY per cent — in the next twenty years.
Alas though it is fatally flawed: the argument is that the individual is to blame: we are living this rich life style — are we? who is this? not the 99% in many countries. Well, we are having bad habits — you know what the poor are (smoking cigarettes, drinking because not employable). Not a word about the environment, about the percentage of carcinogens everywhere unearthed, about the new chemical basis of our industries since the mid-20th century. The bulk of Epstein’s book, The Politics of Cancer Revisited is taken up by this story of a movement from wood, steal, natural products to coal, how oil is produced, and our increasingly radioactive environment:
showing how industries have changed the basis of their chemical compounds and how they make industrial level products and produce agricultural surplus to make large profits … the same patterns, from asbestos, to plastics, vinyl chloride, benzenes (a terrible poison producing among other things asplastic anaemia, red dyes #2 and 40 (coal tar dyes which the FDA in effect refused to do anything about for decades), from dangerous pesticides, to chemicals in water, to saccharin (which I used to use in coffee, and which the ACS defended as of “safe on the basis of human experience” and wanted by people — you could not get them to ban it), toxic effects of new chamicals everywhere.
This story reminds me of one I saw in the New York Times — of all places. We are giving ourselves cancer! You see patient’s predilection for tests, their cowardice, has led to an over-use of CT scans. That is what is killing us! Where do you think this comes from? the insurance companies are starting to lose money as the gov’t refuses to pay so the medical establishment sees they will have to bear some of the costs; ergo, they need to frighten customers into refusing these tests — they it is which are causing the rise in cancer.
What’s interesting is both stories — somewhat unusually — are admitting the frightening rise in cancer rates everywhere. It is not a pervasive condition brought on by powerful groups of people –which would be a credible explanation for such a huge phenomena. Oh no. R
No one in either story mentions Fukushima. This is the sort of thing that is causing the cancer epidemic — things like that Keystone Pipeline President Obama now thinks “in our national interest.” Fine phrase, natural interest, like national security. Not in the interest of the health and life of the average person at all.
The runoff from the Japanese plant will mingle with radiation released by other atomic stations, such as Diablo Canyon in California. Under normal operations, Diablo Canyon discharges more radiation into the sea, albeit of a less dangerous isotope, than the Fukushima station, which suffered the worst nuclear accident since Chernobyl.
“There’s a point to be made that we live in a radioactive world and the ocean just has radioactive isotopes in it,” said Ken Buesseler …
Last week formaldehyde was found in the water West Virginians are asked to drink and wash in: it causes cancer in respiratory tracts of human beings. Now who put the formaldehyde there? who protected the pollution against environmental protections, agency testing?
They call themselves the Freedom Industries
Finally from (see comments): Aljazeera America:
Announcing the findings of the World Cancer Report 2014, WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) called on governments to make much better use of vaccines and preventative public health policies as treatment alone cannot stem the disease.
The agency warned that the rate of cancer was growing “at an alarming pace” worldwide and new strategies were needed to curb the sometimes fatal and often costly disease.
“It’s untenable to think we can treat our way out of the cancer problem. That alone will not be a sufficient response,” Christopher Wild, IARC’s director and co-editor of its World Cancer Report 2014, told reporters at a London briefing.
“More commitment to prevention and early detection is desperately needed… to complement improved treatments and address the alarming rise in the cancer burden globally.”
The World Cancer Report, which is only produced roughly once every five years, was released on the eve of World Cancer Day on Tuesday and involved a collaboration of around 250 scientists from more than 40 countries.
Sylvia
Under the Sign of Sylvia II 
The worst offenders when it comes to overuse of CAT scans, are ER docs. Dave has deplored the diminished utilization of hands-on physical exams, and over-reliance on radiology. Part of this is laziness (takes much less time to order an X-ray than to do a thorough physical exam), part is due to fears of litigation. As you know, my mother was a victim of Parkinson’s-related Dementia (and how much of the increase in neurological disease is due to our poisoned environment?) and, unable to verbally communicate, was subjected to four abdominal CTs in a two week period. Each time she was proclaimed to have nothing wrong with her. If she had received a thorough physical exam, it would have been determined she was suffering from Cholycystitis, or an infected gall bladder. After four months
Of what I’m sure was a living hell, they finally removed her gall bladder, which finally relieved her symptoms
Sorry for the broken-up comment; my iPad posted it prematurely.
Me in reply: Not a problem; only do remember the CT Scan is a red herring. We are not dying from, the huge increase in cancer rates is not from CT scans.
They are one part of our overexposure to radiation. Once it was common for shoe stores to have X-ray equipment; they’d X-ray your kids’ feet for sizing, and the parents thought it was just great. It was only when the kids began getting thyroid cancer it was realized this wasn’t such a good idea. Once dentists would X-ray their patients, without screening (in the form of a lead blanket-like shield), at every visit. My husband refused to allow the kids to be xrayed at all until the dentists got the shields and then only if they had a reason; he feels all routine X-rays of children are a bad idea. The dentists were outraged, but he did have some authority to speak, as a radiologist. We switched dentists to a group not so wedded to X-rays. If a doctor has radiology equipment (including ultrasound) be aware this is used equipment, bought from radiology departments that are discarding it after buying more up-to-date equipment. Doctors buy it as another revenue source.
I don’t say no, only that the focus on it instead of Monsanto and other corporations, on the corruption of the FDA and US Cancer society, twists what we should pay attention to. My father used to say that the X-rays were the doctor’s tools so like his degree he should pay for it; that they didn’t suggested to him they were using it as revenue.
Again from Jill: Here is where the 70% figure came from: You find things in Al Jazeera the western media omits. 22 million cancer deaths a year within the next 20 years.
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/2/3/cancer-cases-expectedtoriseby70overnext20years.html
Elaine:
Fukushima – brief article highlighting history of nuclear disasters and the denial and secrecy surrounding the details:
http://www.nationofchange.org/50-reasons-we-should-fear-worst-fukushima-1391444405
Has the world gone nuts or what?
What is astonishing is no general movement has emerged. People are just not identifying with one another; there needs some central organizing cause and fundamental research and preventive measures (which means fight these companies) doesn’t hack it.
Newspapers and the media collude as they get advertisement money or are owned by these companies.
Sylvia
Anyone who participates in fundraising walkathons should be aware of how the money raised will be spent. Example: the Susan Koman focus is primarily on research? Nothing wrong with that, but if you wish your money to go to poor women getting mammograms, this is not the organization is not for you. Cancer prevention and cancer treatment are two different issues, funded by different foundations. A lot of money is tied up with the issue of cancer. And it is fractured, diluting effectiveness. I mightily wish the causes of cancer would be better addressed. But organizations like Monsanto and DuPont have an interest in diverting your focus away from their part in poisoning our environment, and toward “runs for a cure”.
From Diane R:
I’m not surprised cancer rates are soaring. One disturbing trend in this country is legislating to make it difficult to get medical information–eg, a gag rule in Pa (now in limbo, thank God, as unconstitutional, but not home free yet as the Governor is still backing the law) that forbids doctors to tell parents their children’s symptoms might derive from fracking OR to discuss these cases with other doctors. As somebody pointed out, epidemiology becomes impossible under these circumstances.
On the same lines, it’s difficult to access the medical risks of fracking because there’s been so little funding to study them. As somewhat noted, never have we embarked on a technology the effects of which have been so understudied. How much else are we not being told?
This is the complete opposite of the situation at end of the 19th century, when, according to Latour’s pasteurization book, governments felt a compelling interest in curing disease and keeping populations alive. Now, with 7 billion people, I imagine the interest swings the other way.
Diane Kendig: True. Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma, the cancer my sister died of, used to be contracted mostly by elderly men and now it is by middle-aged women. And it is definitely on the rise. The constant promotion of how breast cancer rates have gone down (accompanied by a lot of little pink ribbons) is in great part due to the fact that doctors have learned to cut out big chunks of the survivors’ bodies, something they can’t do with systemic cancers.
11 minutes ago · Like
Me: Further I’m told that the five year faultline other kinds of cancers are said to offer; that is, if the cancer does not return or metatasize in 5 years it probably (note the lack of certainty) won’t. In the case of breast cancer it can come back any time after the five years and then it kills by metatasizing.
Julie Taddeo: Cancer has become so common that we now have Barbies for it. Please, start demanding your local and national leaders to improve our environment and eliminate the toxic chemicals in our food, plastics, air, and water that are killing all of us– 4 year olds should not be getting cancer!
https://www.change.org/petitions/mattel-please-make-enough-ella-chemotherapy-barbies-for-all-kids-with-cancer?utm_source=action_alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=47973&alert_id=tJUhjQSWyd_STQaUlNVrw
Me: to Julie “The petition appears to be asking for more Barbie dolls with cancer, not for fundamental research or preventive methods.
Julie: I know– I saw this petition and was shocked that cancer is so common now that we have Barbies for it. I signed it because if it helps little kids cope with their treatment, I’m for it, but I also hope people will see how grotesque it is that we need such a doll in the first place.
Me: I thought so: it’s valuable to call attention to a child developing cancer.Again the myth is cancer is a disease of old age; maybe it once was, but no more. I know of3 cases of children: one a ten year old developed leukemia; it’s in remission just now; another a 9 year old developed leukemia and now she’s 13 it’s come back; a friend with a 19 year old niece, still alive after years of (agonizing sometimes) treatment..