How to avoid common cancer-causing agents

Recently, the American Cancer Society (ACS) published its first position statement on environmental cancer-causing agents, calling attention to the need for more research on the full impact of all the chemicals floating around in our environment.

The details
People generally associate "environmental factors" that cause cancer with air and water pollutants. However, there are over 100,000 chemicals used in the consumer products that we come in contact with every day, and only a fraction have ever been tested for safety. It's these chemicals the authors would like more attention to be paid to, considering that, the authors note, the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer has evaluated just 935 chemicals since it started looking at cancer-causing agents in 1969.

Most of these threats are occupational exposures, which contribute to 2.4 to 4.8 percent of all cancer deaths in this country, but the general population is still exposed at much lower levels. To protect all individuals, the ACS is calling for tighter regulatory standards on both occupational and general exposures, based on sound scientific research that should be better funded, and for greater public disclosure of chemicals being used so that individuals can make informed decisions. The society is also calling for more detailed research on a chemical's cumulative-exposure risk, as well as how that risk is influenced by dosing and timing, and for monitoring the accumulation of these chemicals in humans and in the food chain.

What it means
"The environment as it influences health is far more broad than the public may think," says Jonathan Samet, MD, MS, professor in the department of preventive medicine at the University of Southern California's Keck School of Medicine and co-chair of the ACS Subcommittee on Cancer and the Environment, which authored the report. Unfortunately, he adds, cancer-causing agents are often shrouded in uncertainty. "Cellphones are particularly salient examples of environmental exposures that are now ingrained in modern life, yet there's an uncertainty of whether they're a cause of brain cancer," he says.

The ACS is concerned about the environment and cancer, but "there's definitely a need for better and more efficient ways to test for toxicity." The report, he adds, was intended to put environmental pollutants into the broader context of cancer prevention, which, along with more stringent testing of chemicals, includes cutting down on tobacco use, improving diet and exercise, and employing vaccines against infections that cause cancer, such as hepatitis B and the human papillomavirus (HPV).

Despite the stew of chemicals we encounter on a daily basis, there are ways to protect yourself from their carcinogenic effects:

Stop smoking
Smoking contributes to 30 percent of all cancer-related deaths in the general population, the authors note, making it the most controllable source of cancer-causing agents. There's plenty of free help available for quitting; start by talking to your doctor or calling the ACS at 800-ACS-2345.

Have your home tested for radon
Radon, a colorless, odorless gas that seeps into homes via cracks in foundations, is the leading cause of non-smoking-related lung cancer in the U.S. It's a byproduct of the natural breakdown of uranium in soil, and some regions of the country have higher instances than others. Visit www.epa.gov/radon to learn if you're in a high-risk area for radon poisoning.

Get vaccinated or screened
The ACS says that 17 percent of cancer deaths are caused by viruses and other infections. Make sure you follow the screening guidelines that are appropriate for your age, gender, and health status. And get your kids the proper screenings, too. Hepatitis B vaccines are generally part of a child's routine vaccination schedule, but the HPV vaccine is administered around the time a girl turns 12. Whether or not you choose to get your kids vaccinated, teach them the value of regular screenings that can catch these infections before they turn into cancer.

Eat organic
Pesticides have been linked to childhood leukemia and breast cancer, among other problems. Choose food that's grown with organic techniques whenever possible, and you'll keep suspect chemicals out of your body. Voting organic with your dollars also decreases the amount of agrichemicals that end up in our water and soil.

Clean naturally
Like pesticides, harsh chemicals in cleaning products have been linked to a wide variety of health problems and some are suspected of causing cancer. Since cleaning companies aren't required to tell you what's in their products, the simplest way to avoid cancer-causing agents is to make your own cleaners using natural ingredients like vinegar. You should also avoid home care products that contain chemical fragrances, which may be listed as "parfum" or "fragrance" on the label.

Many high-risk women reject breast MRIs

CHICAGO - As many as 42 percent of women who are at intermediate or high risk of getting breast cancer decide not to get recommended MRI screening, even if it is offered for free, U.S. researchers said on Tuesday.

A quarter of the women in the study who were offered the free screening test decided not to get it because they feel claustrophobic in the tunnel-like scanners. But many also said they declined because of costs involved if the test reveals something that needs to be followed up.

Some said they simply could not spare the time.

"Very early on we were surprised to notice that very few women would accept that invitation, even though it would be no cost to them," said Dr. Wendie Berg, a breast imaging specialist at American Radiology Services in Lutherville, Maryland, and Johns Hopkins University, whose study appears in the journal Radiology.

Her team studied the reasons why high-risk women who are recommended for the more sensitive MRI breast screening test do not get it.

Magnetic resonance imaging, or MRI, can help identify early breast cancer in high-risk women who tend to develop cancer earlier than women at average risk.

For the study, they identified 1,215 women who were at intermediate or high risk for breast cancer and were taking part in larger clinical trial.

All of the women were at increased risk for breast cancer, but even in a group of high risk women, who have a 25 percent greater lifetime risk of breast cancer because of they have known or suspected genetic mutations in the BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes, the willingness to undergo a breast MRI was limited.

"About 20 percent of our patients fall into that category," Berg said. "We would have expected virtually 100 percent participation in the study."

Berg said the chief reason women gave for not wanting a breast MRI was because they feel claustrophobic in the tunnel-like machines.

"That has been a common issue in MRI of the breast and other areas as well. It is usually something that can be overcome with sedation but it is still an issue," she said.

Of the 512 women who declined, 25.4 percent refused because of claustrophobia, 18.2 percent cited time constraints, 12 percent cited financial concerns if the tests identifies any cancers or has false-positive results, 9.2 percent said their doctor would not refer them and 7.8 percent said it was because they were not interested.

Women who are at high risk for breast cancer currently are recommended to get a yearly mammogram and an MRI test.

Berg said the study points to the need for alternative ways of screening high-risk women, including training more experts in breast ultrasound, a quicker, more convenient test.

More than 400,000 women in the world die from breast cancer each year.

Maine to consider cell phone cancer warning

AUGUSTA, Maine - A Maine legislator wants to make the state the first to require cell phones to carry warnings that they can cause brain cancer, although there is no consensus among scientists that they do and industry leaders dispute the claim.

The now-ubiquitous devices carry such warnings in some countries, though no U.S. states require them, according to the National Conference of State Legislators. A similar effort is afoot in San Francisco, where Mayor Gavin Newsom wants his city to be the nation's first to require the warnings.

Maine Rep. Andrea Boland, D-Sanford, said numerous studies point to the cancer risk, and she has persuaded legislative leaders to allow her proposal to come up for discussion during the 2010 session that begins in January, a session usually reserved for emergency and governors' bills.

Boland herself uses a cell phone, but with a speaker to keep the phone away from her head. She also leaves the phone off unless she's expecting a call. At issue is radiation emitted by all cell phones.

Under Boland's bill, manufacturers would have to put labels on phones and packaging warning of the potential for brain cancer associated with electromagnetic radiation. The warnings would recommend that users, especially children and pregnant women, keep the devices away from their head and body.

The Federal Communications Commission, which maintains that all cell phones sold in the U.S. are safe, has set a standard for the "specific absorption rate" of radiofrequency energy, but it doesn't require handset makers to divulge radiation levels.

The San Francisco proposal would require the display of the absorption rate level next to each phone in print at least as big as the price. Boland's bill is not specific about absorption rate levels, but would require a permanent, nonremovable advisory of risk in black type, except for the word "warning," which would be large and in red letters. It would also include a color graphic of a child's brain next to the warning.

While there's little agreement about the health hazards, Boland said Maine's roughly 950,000 cell phone users among its 1.3 million residents "do not know what the risks are."

All told, more than 270 million people subscribed to cellular telephone service last year in the United States, an increase from 110 million in 2000, according to CTIA-The Wireless Association. The industry group contends the devices are safe.

"With respect to the matter of health effects associated with wireless base stations and the use of wireless devices, CTIA and the wireless industry have always been guided by science, and the views of impartial health organizations. The peer-reviewed scientific evidence has overwhelmingly indicated that wireless devices do not pose a public health risk," said CTIA's John Walls.

James Keller of Lewiston, whose cell phone serves as his only phone, seemed skeptical about warning labels. He said many things may cause cancer but lack scientific evidence to support that belief. Besides, he said, people can't live without cell phones.

"It seems a little silly to me, but it's not going to hurt anyone to have a warning on there. If they're really concerned about it, go ahead and put a warning on it," he said outside a sporting good store in Topsham. "It wouldn't deter me from buying a phone."

While there's been no long-term studies on cell phones and cancer, some scientists suggest erring on the side of caution.

Last year, Dr. Ronald B. Herberman, director emeritus of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, sent a memo to about 3,000 faculty and staff members warning of risks based on early, unpublished data. He said that children should use the phones only for emergencies because their brains were still developing and that adults should keep the phone away from the head and use a speakerphone or a wireless headset.

Herberman, who says scientific conclusions often take too long, is one of numerous doctors and researchers who have endorsed an August report by retired electronics engineer L. Lloyd Morgan. The report highlights a study that found significantly increased risk of brain tumors from 10 or more years of cell phone or cordless phone use.

Also, the BioInitiative Working Group, an international group of scientists, notes that many countries have issued warnings and that the European Parliament has passed a resolution calling for governmental action to address concerns over health risks from mobile phone use.

But the National Cancer Institute said studies thus far have turned up mixed and inconsistent results, noting that cell phones did not come into widespread use in the United States until the 1990s.

"Although research has not consistently demonstrated a link between cellular telephone use and cancer, scientists still caution that further surveillance is needed before conclusions can be drawn," according to the Cancer Institute's Web site.

Motorola Inc., one of the nation's major wireless phone makers, says on its Web site that all of its products comply with international safety guidelines for radiofrequency energy exposure.

A Motorola official referred questions to CTIA.