Chemicals and Cancer

When I first heard the news about John Travolta’s and Kelly Preston’s son tragically passing, I felt such a sorrow for them. I remembered how years ago Kelly Preston was one of the first moms responsible for bringing to the attention of other parents how serious an issue it is to be exposed to dangerous chemicals. Her son Josh, you see, developed his disorder as a result of exposure to toxic chemicals. Now some 14 years later we are just scratching the surface in our ability to educate all people as to the danger of chemicals in the products we bring into our home every day!

This article will begin to connect the exposure to chemicals to the dreaded free radical disease of cancer. The intention is not to frighten you but rather to awaken those people who are open to creating safer indoor air environments about the importance of doing so now.

A few years ago, Bill Moyers with the help of Dr. Phil Landrigan, MD, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, created a PBS special which shocked those of us who were amazed to learn about the harmfulness of chemical exposures in utero. Subsequently, many of us ordered a film produced in Canada entitled, Toxic Brew, which focused upon chemical exposures in our homes and their effects upon our health. Armed with conviction, a group of us were exhorted to research and share information like this with every woman and man that we were fortunate enough to reach. I direct you to my previously written articles on body burden found on www.greenforwhatmatters.com We encourage those of you who have a connection to our vision of creating healthier greener lives to share this information freely with others and when they ask the question: “how can I create a safer home?”, we ask you to refer them back to us .We have a proven solution.

According to the research done at the Lowell Center for Sustainable Production,” the single greatest factor for cancer is age, but today, cancer rates are “age adjusted.” Simply put, in each age group from children to seniors, cancer rates show a significant increase over the past three decades”. To quote their findings: “in 1950, about one in four Americans could expect a cancer diagnosis. Today, nearly one in two men and more than one in three women can be challenged by a cancer diagnosis in their lifetime.”

As for kinds of cancers that have increased: “melanoma by 690%,female lung and bronchial by 685%, prostate by 258%, non Hodgkin’s lymphoma by 249%.brain cancer by 136% and breast cancer by 90%.

“The growing burden of cancer on children may provide some of the most convincing evidence of the role of environmental and occupational exposures in causing cancers.”(1)

Epidemiologic studies have consistently linked higher risks of free radical disease for children to parental and childhood exposure to particular toxic chemicals, including solvents, pesticides, petrochemicals, dioxins and certain industrial by-products. Recently, research has also identified the risks found in personal care products including skin care and cosmetic products.

When Rachael Carson‘s book, “Silent Spring” was published in 1962, many people read for the first time about the seriousness of the consequences of contaminating our food chain from the increase of pesticide use. The Lowell Report quotes Carson as asking, “how could intelligent beings seek to control a few unwanted species by a method that contaminated the entire environment and brought the threat of disease and even death to its own kind?”

What is your response to those words spoken almost two generations ago?
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) lists probable, possible, and known toxins found in personal care products. IARC lists chemicals known as parabens and phthalats, in those products that have been linked to breast cancer. Yet parabens and phthalates continue to be found in consumer personal care products and in the shopping carts of uninformed people.

I have travel in many circles and I have heard people often say, “I don’t need to be concerned with this issue because I think positive and no toxic product will ever impact my immune system and cause disease.” While I am all in favor of thinking positively and affirming the positive, I question how this approach is any different than the perspective that says, “There are chemicals all around us, what good would it do to change my habits in my home if I am surrounded by chemicals everywhere else?”

Ours is a call towards personal and generational responsibility.
As Sandra Steingraber, author of Living Downstream, an ecologist looks at Cancer and the Environment writes: “it’s not whether the dangers are found in dump sites, or the workplace or the water, food or air, but I am more concerned that the uncertainty over details is being used to call into doubt the fact that profound connections do exist between human health and the environment. And I am more concerned that uncertainty is too often parlayed into an excuse to do nothing until more research can be conducted.”

According to Greenpeace, since 1992, the number of corporations claiming to embrace” sustainable” practices has risen sharply; however, the irony here is that many of these businesses manufacture greener products while adding “insult to injury” by actively lobbying behind the scenes against regulations that would have reduced pollution. Greenpeace believes that such “double speak” companies warrant a “greenwashing” tag.

It’s important when choosing green products to support those companies that are completely embracing green practices from manufacturing to marketing.

As for the connection between Cosmetics and Breast cancer, IARC and NTP (National Toxicology Program of the National Institutes of Health) have delineated carcinogens into known, probable or possible categories.
Their reports identify toxic chemicals in nail-polish,or nail polish remover,fragrances,creams,lotions, shampoos, and conditioners,lipsticks,sunscreens,mineral makeup, soaps, toothpaste, mouthwash, haircare, mascara, and foundations.

Imagine what good we accomplish when we seek to inform men and women about the value of replacing toxic products with non toxic ones?

In closing I leave you with this thought taken from the Lowell Report for Environmental & Occupational Causes of Cancer:

“Certainly, more research is called for – and it should be funded by those who produce or emit synthetic chemicals. In the meantime, the least toxic alternative should always be used. The right of the people to know what they are exposed to must be protected.”(3)

“It is TIME for what matters”.