Chapter K1. 'Advanced' Topics (Part III)
  11. Switch  Religions? -     Jewish  women  are  recognized  by  cancer
      researchers  to  be at a  higher BC risk than average; part of this
      increased risk  is  genetic  ( Ashkenazi Jews ) but not most of the
      risk.  Mormons and  Seventh  Day  Adventist  are recognized to have
      a reduced BC risk.  Should  Jewish  women  become  Mormons and move
      to Utah?  No.  Seventh  Day  Adventists are known for their healthy
      diet and Mormons  tend  to  abstain  from alcohol  and  tobacco and
      have larger than normal families (also younger age of first birth).
      How  about  exercise  differences  between  religious groups?  Some
      researchers should examine this unexplored area.

      Lyon JL, et al. Cancer incidence in Mormons and Non-Mormons in
        Utah During 1967-75, JNCI, 1980; 65:1055-1061
      Phillips R, et al., Mortality Among California Seventh-Day
        Adventists for Selected Cancer Sites, JNCI, 1980; 65:1097-1107

  12. Toxic Environment  is  the  'real'  cause of cancer, right? - When
      researchers want to  increase  a rat's odds of contracting cancer,
      what to they do?  Very  often,  they give the rats a carcinogen (a
      cancer  causing  chemical)  such as DMBA.  Oncologists give cancer
      patients chemotherapy, toxic chemicals that tend to be more lethal
      to  rapidly  multiplying  cells (such as cancer cells) than normal
      cells.  Any possible  side-effects from 'chemo'?  Yes, one of them
      is cancer; (but, if  oncologists  can  prove  that the 'all-cause'
      mortality  is  substantially  lower  from  using  'chemo' than not
      using  it,  they  have  a  good  argument  in  favor  of 'chemo').
      Highly polluted cities  have higher 'all-cause' mortality that low
      pollution cities.  There  is  no  question that toxins in the air,
      land, and water  cause cancer (and many other maladies). Question:
      for every 100  cancers, how  many  are caused by toxins/pollution?
      There are some who claim (speculate would be more  accurate)  that
      the percent of  cancers due to pollution lies between 50% and 80%.
      There  is  no  strong  published  support  for such claims.  Since
      it is known  that  pollution is causing substantial health damage,
      COST/EFFECTIVE  cleanup  should  continue, if not  accelerate.  To
      discuss  anything  intelligently,  one  must  define  one's terms.
      What does the  term  'environmental toxin' include and what should
      it  EXCLUDE?     People  who  directly  poison  themselves  ( e.g.
      'first-hand'  smoking  of  cigars  or  cigarettes ) can  not claim 
      'environmental' cancer, since  they  have  absolute  control ( and
      knowledge) over this  source  of toxins. Thus environmental  poll-
      ution  is  toxins  in  the  air, water,  land, &  food  over which
      people  have  little or no control. Are women's cancers mostly due
      to the  environment? The  four leading  fatal  female  cancers are
      (in decreasing  frequency  order):    1. lung  2. breast 3. colon/
      rectal 4. pancreatic   Lung  cancer kills more U.S. women than any
      other specific cancer. Main  cause: first-hand  cigarette smoking;
      thus, NOT  environmental.  Breast  cancer: as shown in this entire
      document women  can  reduce  their BC risk by at least 80% via the
      RED Triangle (early  first  birth, at  least one additional birth,
      breastfeeding,  vigorous  exercise, late  menarche, optimum  diet,
      no  synthetic  estrogen, etc.).               Colon/rectal cancer:
      can  be  reduced about  50%  via  high  fiber  and  optimum  diet;
      Exercise is  also  effective in reducing the risk of colon cancer.
      Pancreatic  cancer:  no  BOOZE  and  an  optimum  diet  are key in
      reducing the risk of pancreatic cancer. 

      It is  clear  that  the  environment  does NOT cause a majority of
      women's cancers.  So, should  you  draw  most of your air from the
      tail pipe of a belching car?  Probably  not.  Still  not convinced
      that polluted  environment  is not the  dominant  cause of cancer?
      Then  you  will  have  to  'explain  Utah'.  Utah  and  Nevada are
      neighboring states  with  similar climates,  incomes,  demography,
      etc. Are the  cancer rates  about  equal?  NO!  A 'recent'  U.  of
      California study says that  middle-aged  Utah residents  have only
      34 percent the  normal  cancer death rate,. (Toronto Star, Dec. 6,
      1989). Victor Fuchs's book (Who  Shall Live?, page 54) gives  us a
      clue why Nevada people are not as healthy as Utah people:
        diseases caused by tobacco and alcohol in Nevada (Utah = 100%)
          age        males      females
          30-39      590%       443%
          40-49      111%       296%
          50-59      206%       205%
          60-69      117%       227%
      Utah women have better 'reproductive factors'  than  Nevada  women
      (and definitely a better National Basketball team, The Utah Jazz).

      Another challenge  to 'the  environment  is the main enemy' crowd:
      The  average  Japanese  lives  longer  that  the average American.
      Japanese women have about an 80%  lower risk of breast cancer than
      U.S.  women.  Is  Japan's  environment  cleaner that of  the  U.S.
      environment?   NO!  However,  the  Japanese  for  over two decades
      have  started  to  'westernize'  their diet and their cancer rates
      are higher than they were in the 1950s.

      Dr. Samuel S. Epstein  is  a  strong  believer that  environmental
      toxins are a major cause of cancer.  You are invited to visit  his
      website for more infomation about toxins and cancer: