CAUSE BREAST CANCER...ALERT Read & Pass on

MAMMOGRAMS CAUSE BREAST CANCER
(AND OTHER CANCER FACTS YOU PROBABLY NEVER KNEW)

By Dawn Prate
News Target
Monday, August 15, 2005


http://www.NewsTarget.com/010886.html


Breast cancer is the leading cause of death among American women between the
ages of 44 and 55. Dr. Gofinan, in his book, Preventing Breast Cancer, cites
this startling statistic along with an in-depth look at mammographic
screening, an early-detection practice that agencies like the American
Cancer Society <http://www.cancer.org/> recommend to women of all age
groups. According to most health experts, catching a tumor in its early
stages increases a woman's chances of survival by at least 17 percent.


The most common method for early detection is mammography. A mammogram is an
X-ray picture of your breast that can reveal tumor growths otherwise
undetectable in a physical exam. Like all x-rays, mammograms use doses of
ionizing radiation to create this image. Radiologists then analyze the image
for any abnormal growths. Despite continuous improvements and innovations,
mammography has garnered a sizable opposition in the medical community
because of an error rate that is still high and the amount of harmful
radiation used in the procedure.


Effectiveness of Mammography


Is mammography an effective tool for detecting tumors? Some critics say no.
In a Swedish study of 60,000 women, 70 percent of the mammographically
detected tumors weren't tumors at all. These "false positives" aren't just
financial and emotional strains, they may also lead to many unnecessary and
invasive biopsies. In fact, 70 to 80 percent of all positive mammograms do
not, upon biopsy, show any presence of cancer.


At the same time, mammograms also have a high rate of missed tumors, or
"false negatives." Dr. Samuel S. Epstein, in his book, The Politics Of
Cancer, claims that in women ages 40 to 49, one in four instances of cancer
is missed at each mammography. The National Cancer Institute (NCI)
<http://www.cancer.gov/> puts the false negative rate even higher at 40
percent among women ages 40-49. National Institutes of Health
<http://www.nih.gov/> spokespeople also admit that mammograms miss 10
percent of malignant tumors in women over 50. Researchers have found that
breast tissue is denser among younger women, making it difficult to detect
tumors. For this reason, false negatives are twice as likely to occur in
premenopausal mammograms.


Radiation Risks


Many critics of mammography cite the hazardous health effects of radiation.
In 1976, the controversy over radiation and mammography reached a saturation
point. At that time mammographic technology delivered five to 10 rads
(radiation-absorbed doses) per screening, as compared to 1 rad in current
screening methods. In women between the ages of 35 and 50, each rad of
exposure increased the risk of breast cancer by one percent, according to
Dr. Frank Rauscher, then-director of the NCI.


According to Russell L. Blaylock, MD, one estimate is that annual
radiological breast exams increase the risk of breast cancer by two percent
a year. So over 10 years the risk will have increased 20 percent. In the
1960s and 70s, women, even those who received 10 screenings a year, were
never told the risk they faced from exposure. In the midst of the 1976
radiation debate, Kodak, a major manufacturer of mammography film, took out
full-page ads in scientific journals entitled About breast cancer and
X-rays: A hopeful message from industry on a sober topic.


Despite better technology and decreased doses of radiation, scientists still
claim mammography is a substantial risk. Dr. John W. Gofman, an authority on
the health effects of ionizing radiation, estimates that 75 percent of
breast cancer could be prevented by avoiding or minimizing exposure to the
ionizing radiation. This includes mammography, x-rays and other medical and
dental sources.


Since mammographic screening was introduced, the incidence of a form of
breast cancer called ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) has increased by 328
percent. Two hundred percent of this increase is allegedly due to
mammography. In addition to harmful radiation, mammography may also help
spread existing cancer cells due to the considerable pressure placed on the
woman's breast during the procedure. According to some health practitioners,
this compression could cause existing cancer cells to metastasize from the
breast tissue.


Cancer research has also found a gene, called oncogene AC, that is extremely
sensitive to even small doses of radiation. A significant percentage of
women in the United States have this gene, which could increase their risk
of mammography-induced cancer. They estimate that 10,000 A-T carriers will
die of breast cancer this year due to mammography.


The risk of radiation is apparently higher among younger women. The NCI
released evidence that, among women under 35, mammography could cause 75
cases of breast cancer for every 15 it identifies. Another Canadian study
found a 52 percent increase in breast cancer mortality in young women given
annual mammograms. Dr. Samuel Epstein also claims that pregnant women
exposed to radiation could endanger their fetus. He advises against
mammography during pregnancy because "the future risks of leukemia to your
unborn child, not to mention birth defects, are just not worth it."
Similarly, studies reveal that children exposed to radiation are more likely
to develop breast cancer as adults.


Navigating the Statistics


While the number of deaths caused by breast cancer has decreased, the
incidence of breast cancer is still rising. Since 1940, the incidence of
breast cancer has risen by one to two percent every year. Between 1973 and
1991, the incidence of breast cancer in females over 65 rose nearly 40
percent in the United States.


Some researchers attribute this increase to better detection technologies;
i.e., as the number of women screened for breast cancer rises, so does the
number of reported cases. Other analysts say the correlation between
mammographic screening and increases in breast cancer is much more ominous,
suggesting radiation exposure is responsible for the growing number of
cases. While the matter is still being debated, Professor Sandra Steingraber
offers ways to navigate these statistics. According to Steingraber, the rise
in breast cancer predates the introduction of mammograms as a common
diagnostic tool. In addition, the groups of women in whom breast cancer
incidence is ascending most swiftly -- blacks and the elderly -- are also
least likely to get regular mammograms.


The majority of health experts agree that the risk of breast cancer for
women under 35 is not high enough to warrant the risk of radiation exposure.
Similarly, the risk of breast cancer to women over 55 justifies the risk of
mammograms. The statistics about mammography and women between the ages of
40 and 55 are the most contentious. A 1992 Canadian National Breast Cancer
Study showed that mammography had no positive effect on mortality for women
between the ages of 40 and 50. In fact, the study seemed to suggest that
women in that age group are more likely to die of breast cancer when
screened regularly.


Burton Goldberg, in his book, Alternative Medicine, recommends that women
under 50 avoid screening mammograms, although the American Cancer Society
encourages mammograms every two years for women ages 40 to 49. Trying to
settle this debate, a 1997 consensus panel appointed by the NIH ruled that
there was no evidence that mammograms for this age group save lives; they
may even do more harm than good. The panel advises women to weigh the risks
with their doctors and decide for themselves.


New Screening Technologies


While screening is an important step in fighting breast cancer, many
researchers are looking for alternatives to mammography. Burton Goldberg
totes the safety and accuracy of new thermography technologies. Able to
detect cancers at a minute physical stage of development, thermography does
not use x-rays, nor is there any compression of the breast. Also important,
new thermography technologies do not lose effectiveness with dense breast
tissue, decreasing the chances of false-negative results.


Some doctors are now offering digital mammograms. Digital mammography is a
mammography system in which x-ray film is replaced by solid-state detectors
that convert x-rays into electric signals. Though radiation is still used,
digital mammography requires a much smaller dose. The electrical signals are
used to produce images that can be electronically manipulated; a physician
can zoom in, magnify and optimize different parts of breast tissue without
having to take an additional image.


..........


REFERENCES:


THE EXPERTS SPEAK ON MAMMOGRAMS AND BREAST CANCER:
http://www.NewsTarget.com/010886.html


-----------


PREVIOUS NHNE NEWS LIST ARTICLES:


BREAST CANCER IS LINKED TO USE OF ANTIBIOTICS (2/18/2004):
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nhnenews/message/6774


X-RAYS 'CAUSE HUNDREDS OF CANCER CASES A YEAR' (1/30/2004):
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nhnenews/message/6682


DEODORANTS PLUS SHAVING LINKED TO BREAST CANCER (1/26/2004):
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nhnenews/message/6665


DEODORANTS COULD LEAD TO BREAST CANCER (1/13/2004):
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nhnenews/message/6589


EXERCISE MAY CUT BREAST CANCER RISK (9/11/2003):
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nhnenews/message/5930


MOTHERS WHO DON'T BREASTFEED 'AT GREATER RISK OF BREAST CANCER' (7/18/2002):
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nhnenews/message/3435


BRA THAT DETECTS BREAST CANCER (5/27/2002):
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nhnenews/message/3215


S.F. BAY AREA HAS WORLD'S HIGHEST BREAST CANCER RATE (1/31/2002):
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nhnenews/message/2646


SOUND WAVES COULD REPLACE BREAST BIOPSIES (8/4/2001):
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nhnenews/message/1739


CAN WEARING A BRA KILL YOU? (7/28/2001):
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nhnenews/message/1729


MORE ON WHAT CAUSES BREAST CANCER (5/22/2001):
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nhnenews/message/1504


WHAT CAUSES BREAST CANCER? (5/21/2001):
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nhnenews/message/1500