This is Breast Cancer Awareness Month. We should call it “Pollution Impact Month.”

Sadly, around 40,000 American women die from breast cancer each year. Of these, only about 30% of cases can be explained by known risk factors like genetics.[1]

Research now tells us pollution accounts for a large number of the rest.[2]

Three times as many Americans die From breast cancer as are shot by others – but little government attention is focused on prevention.

October is national breast cancer month, full of fund-raising marches of people noting their concern by wearing pink ribbons, and raising money to search for a cure.

Why do we march for a cure, and not prevention?

Studies from all over the world show that women who live in areas of high air pollution develop twice as much breast cancer as women who live in areas with clean air. As China has become more industrialized, its air and water pollution have become legendary – and its breast cancer rates are skyrocketing.[3] ,[4]

The key suspect in the polluted air is nitrogen dioxide – created by burning fossil fuels, mostly automobile gasoline. Several Canadian studies have found that the chances of developing breast cancer at a relatively young age increased by 20% if a woman lives in an area with high nitrogen dioxide.[5] [6]The higher the amount in the air, and/or the longer the woman lives in areas with high pollution, the more her chances of developing breast cancer rise.

There is another factor associated with air pollution that increases the risk of breast cancer. Doctors know that women who have what is called “dense breast tissue” are at higher risk for breast cancer than other women. In studies done around the world, dense breast tissue has been found to be caused in part by air pollution. [7]

A lot of this research has been done in countries with national health insurance, because the governments are searching hard for ways to invest in the prevention of disease, instead of just healing it. America is not behaving this way.

In 2017, U.S. government spending on cancer research, adjusted for inflation, is at its lowest rate since 2001. [8] On top of that, the current administration has submitted a 2018 budget calling for an additional one billion dollars in cuts.

                                            

 

When we think about pollution, in addition to mental images of polar bears on melting icebergs, or fish kills, we must also call up the images of the bare chest of a woman with the scars of a breast removed – because that is also a pollution problem that must be solved.

If we control the pollution, not only will the polar bear and fish be saved, so will our loved ones.

Maybe the horror of those images would make people ask why the North Carolina legislature ordered the removal of half of all bought-and-paid-for air quality monitors in the state over the last 3 years.[10]

It is time to recognize that the cost of prevention is far cheaper than the cost of curing – and that if our society regulated pollution more, we would spend less on healthcare.

Do you want to fix the federal deficit by lowering healthcare spending? Stop pollution. One in eight American women (the number who get breast cancer), will thank you.

And we will need fewer pink ribbons.

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2974696/
[2] https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/282929.php
[3] http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2017-09/15/content_32023649.htm
[4] https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article/100/19/1339/952083/Increasing-Breast-Cancer-Incidence-in-China-
[5] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25454241
[6] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28595043
[7] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5382391/
[8] https://www.cancer.gov/about-nci/budget
[9] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/03/01/white-house-proposes-cutting-epa-staff-by-one-fifth-eliminating-key-programs/?utm_term=.3e929a791a8b
[10]http://www.charlotteobserver.com/opinion/editorials/article26139331.html

print

Article by Francis Koster Ed.D.

no replies

Leave your comment