10 Misconceptions on the Link Between Environmental Factors and Cancer
As a cancer epidemiologist, I’ve spent a lot of time researching the links between environmental contaminants and cancer. One of the pitfalls of the Digital Age is that people come across a lot of information that isn’t based on sound scientific evidence or is, at best, anecdotal. That’s dangerous, because conjecture and falsehoods that masquerade as fact can hamper efforts to prevent and treat cancer.
Here are some common misconceptions:
1. Getting cancer is almost completely out of your control.
While genetics and bad luck play a role, many cancers are caused by other factors, some of which you can control.
Smoking, poor diet and lack of exercise are major contributors to the development of cancer. Another 20 percent of cancers, according to the World Health Organization (WHO), are believed to be caused by environmental factors such as pollution, infections and radiation.
The bottom line: You certainly can’t avoid every potentially dangerous exposure, but as many as half of cancers may be preventable.
2. “Everything” causes cancer.
Almost every day, you may read a news story suggesting that items in your home or substances in your food are linked to cancer or otherwise bad for your health. Recent headlines trumpeted the risks of eating red and processed meats. The constant onslaught of warnings can be overwhelming. But not all chemicals, pollutants or guilty pleasures will lead to cancer. The International Agency for Research on Cancer, a research arm of the WHO, has looked into nearly a thousand suspected causes of cancer. Of those suspicious substances and activities, they have concluded that just about half are known or potentially carcinogenic (117 known, 74 probable and 287 possible carcinogens).
Keep in mind that dose plays a key role. Smoking one cigarette probably won’t hurt you, but smoking for years is a clear health hazard.
3. Exposure to a known carcinogen will give you cancer.
Government agencies and international health bodies classify a substance as a “known carcinogen” when strong evidence demonstrates that it can cause cancer. Officials at these institutions base their determinations on the strength of scientific evidence. But a person exposed to a known carcinogen is not 100 percent certain to develop cancer, not by a long shot.
Let’s compare asbestos and processed meats. Both are known carcinogens based on many scientific studies that consistently show they can cause cancer. In both cases, the strength of the evidence is consistently high. But there’s a difference. Asbestos is a potent carcinogen. Substantial exposure dramatically increases a person’s risk of getting mesothelioma, lung and other cancers. On the other hand, eating processed meats only modestly increases your chances of getting cancer.
4. Natural products are safe and synthetic products are harmful.
Arsenic, asbestos, formaldehyde, radiation and tobacco occur naturally and are known carcinogens. The word “natural” on a food label or consumer product is meaningless. The government does not issue standard guidelines for the term, in contrast to “organic,” which can be displayed only by certain foods meeting strict government standards. Arm yourself with information. Read labels, consult Environmental Working Group’s guides and resources, know what you’re buying and don’t assume everything that says “natural” is harmless.
5. Chemicals that the body absorbs and retains for a long time are more dangerous than those that are quickly excreted or metabolized.
The hazard of a substance is determined not just by the degree of exposure but also how it interacts with the body. Sometimes a chemical that isn’t dangerous can metabolize into a compound that is carcinogenic. Nitrates and nitrites in food and water can metabolize during digestion into carcinogenic N-nitroso compounds. Other chemicals such as benzene, pesticides and heavy metals are excreted quickly from the body, but they are still carcinogenic. The chemicals that persist in the body can act as a constant source of exposure and may even pass from mother to child, which are additional concerns.
6. The cancer risk you accumulate is irreversible.
Your ability to turn back the clock on cancer risk depends on the exposure. Certain harmful exposures, such as to radiation, damage cells so seriously that the body cannot recover fully. Other substances can accumulate in the body and act as a source of continuous exposure. However, damage from many environmental exposures can be partly reversed by eliminating or significantly reducing the exposure. The Surgeon General’s report on tobacco concluded that quitting smoking at any age reduces a smoker’s risk of cancer by up to 50 percent in just five to 10 years. That’s powerful evidence that it’s never too late to make healthy lifestyle changes.
7. Mammograms cause breast cancer.
The risk associated with the very small amount of radiation emitted during a mammogram is minuscule for most patients. It’s equivalent to a few weeks of the natural background radiation you experience from the elements in the earth, cosmic radiation and even your own body. A small percentage of the carbon that makes up the body is the isotope carbon-14, which is unstable and emits radiation. Women who are pregnant should avoid mammograms and X-rays that their doctors don’t consider necessary. Radiation could harm the developing fetus. Consult your health care professional to determine if a mammogram or any other medical screening is appropriate.
8. Cell phones, Wi-Fi, microwaves, power lines and airport X-ray machines will cause cancer.
Cell phones, Wi-Fi, microwaves and power lines emit non-ionizing radiation, which is less energetic and doesn’t penetrate the body to the same degree as cancer-causing ionizing radiation such as X-rays, sunlight and the radiation from uranium. The WHO considers cell phone radiation a possible carcinogen based on a suspected association between cell phone use and brain cancer. Holding the phone a few millimeters from your body can drastically reduce exposure. EWG recommends hands-free devices and texting. Although little or no evidence supports a conclusion that Wi-Fi signals, microwaves and power lines cause cancer, it’s a good idea to keep wireless routers a few feet from places where people spend long periods of time. Airport screening devices use either low-dose X-rays or non-ionizing radiation. It takes about 1,000 trips through an airport X-ray scanner to equal the radiation exposure from one medical chest X-ray.
9. Artificial turf sports fields cause cancer.
Scientists have detected several carcinogens in ground-up tire rubber, also known as crumb rubber, used as infill and cushioning in artificial turf. Heavy metals, PCBs and other volatile compounds have shown up in some turf. Air measurements over turf, especially in indoor facilities, have found excessive amounts of certain volatile chemicals. Researchers do not know whether worrisome chemicals in turf migrate into the body through contact with skin or breathing. No data exists at this time to say that artificial turf causes cancer, but scientists are just beginning to explore the question. In the meantime, you should play on artificial turf in well-ventilated areas, avoid hand-to-mouth contact while playing and limit direct contact between turf and skin.
10. Residential pesticides are safe.
Many of the pesticides suspected to cause cancer in farm workers are being sold for residential use. Some evidence exists that exposure to pesticides can increase the risk of cancer, even though people tend to apply pesticides less frequently and at lower doses around the home than would be done on farms. Children may be particularly susceptible to damage from pesticides. Scientific studies have shown that children exposed in the womb and in infancy to pesticides face increased risk of childhood cancers such as leukemia and brain tumors.
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
- 29 Wildfires Blaze Across the West, Fueled by Drought and Wind ... ›
- Large Wildfires Scorch Forests in Drought-Stricken Southwest ... ›
Accessibility to quality health care has dropped for millions of Americans who lost their health insurance due to unemployment. mixetto / E+ / Getty Images
Accessibility to quality health care has dropped for millions of Americans who lost their health insurance due to unemployment. New research has found that 5.4 million Americans were dropped from their insurance between February and May of this year. In that three-month stretch more Americans lost their coverage than have lost coverage in any entire year, according to The New York Times.
- Trump Plans to End Federal Funding for COVID-19 Testing Sites ... ›
- 'Unfathomable Cruelty': Trump Admin Asks Supreme Court to ... ›
On hot days in New York City, residents swelter when they're outside and in their homes. The heat is not just uncomfortable. It can be fatal.
- Extreme Heat-Stressed Locations Could Increase by 80% - EcoWatch ›
- African Americans Are Disproportionately Exposed to Extreme Heat ... ›
- Extreme Heat Is Killing Americans While Government Neglect ... ›
Fracking companies are going bankrupt at a rapid pace, often with taxpayer-funded bonuses for executives, leaving harm for communities, taxpayers, and workers, the New York Time reports.
- Plunging Oil Prices Trigger Economic Downturn in Fracking Boom ... ›
- Fracking Boom Bursts in Face of Low Oil Prices - EcoWatch ›
- As Fracking Companies Face Bankruptcy, U.S. Regulators Enable ... ›
A report scheduled for release later Tuesday by Congress' non-partisan Government Accountability Office (GAO) finds that the Trump administration undervalues the costs of the climate crisis in order to push deregulation and rollbacks of environmental protections, according to The New York Times.
- Under Trump, EPA Workers Seek Bill of Rights to Allow Them to ... ›
- Trump Adds 'Tasteless Insult to Injury' by Pushing Fossil Fuel ... ›
By Kristen Fischer
It's going to be back-to-school time soon, but will children go into the classrooms?
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) thinks so, but only as long as safety measures are in place.
Keeping Schools Safe<p>What will safer schools look like?</p><p>In a <a href="https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2766822" target="_blank">JAMA article</a> published last month, <a href="https://www.jhsph.edu/faculty/directory/profile/1781/joshua-m-sharfstein" target="_blank">Dr. Joshua Sharfstein</a>, a pediatrician and professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, outlined suggestions — many of which are similar to AAP's.</p><p>Remote learning protocols must stay in place, especially as some schools stagger home and in-building learning. If another shutdown needs to occur, children will rely on distance learning completely, so it must be easy to switch to, he said.</p><p>He suggested giving parents a daily checklist to document their child's health. Kids should be screened quickly on arrival and be given hygiene supplies. Maintenance staff should use appropriate PPE and have regular cleaning schedules. A notification system should be in place if a case is identified, Sharfstein recommended.</p><p><a href="https://www.albany.edu/rockefeller/faculty/erika-martin" target="_blank">Erika Martin</a>, PhD, an associate professor of public administration and policy at University at Albany, said nutrition assistance and health services should be included. She called for tutoring programs with virtual options as well as technology access.</p>
Supporting Staff<p>Teachers and staff will be affected by safeguarding measures, noted <a href="https://directory.sph.umn.edu/bio/sph-a-z/rachel-widome" target="_blank">Rachel Widome</a>, PhD, an associate professor of epidemiology and community health at University of Minnesota.</p><p>"In order for all of the in-school precautions to work well, we'll be asking a lot of teachers and staff," Widome told Healthline. In addition to their usual workload, they'll now be asked to monitor mask-wearing, ensure children are keeping distance, and be aware of any symptoms.</p><p>Along with Sharfstein, Widome called for an increase in financial support. More employees will likely be required so teachers and staff members can keep up with the added demands.</p>
Should Kids Go Back?<p>While these guidelines may help get some schools to reopen, many people don't think children should go back to school over fears they could contract the disease and spread it to other vulnerable family members like grandparents, infant siblings, or their parents.</p><p>In a <a href="https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2020/07/08/peds.2020-004879" target="_blank">Pediatrics</a> commentary, <a href="https://www.md.com/doctor/william-raszka-md" target="_blank">Dr. William V. Raszka, Jr.</a>, an infectious disease specialist at The University of Vermont Medical Center, argued that schools should open because school-aged children are far less important drivers of COVID-19 than adults.</p><p>But he says the risk and benefit is not equal among all students ages 5 to 18.</p><p>"Elementary schools are arguably higher priority for face-to-face schooling, since younger children are at lower risk for infection and transmission, and since parental supervision of younger children's distance learning may be particularly challenging," added Sorensen, who penned a <a href="https://jamanetwork.com/channels/health-forum/fullarticle/2767411" target="_blank">June article in JAMA</a> with reopening tips. "That means middle and high schools are more likely to emphasize distance learning."</p><p>Specific student populations, such as special education students and students with disabilities, would also benefit greatly from more time spent in face-to-face environments, Sorensen said.</p>
What Parents Can Do<p>Parents should ask for and receive frequent updates from schools about plans for the fall. They should also be informed about plans if and when COVID infections are identified, Sharfstein said.</p><p>"I'd like to see parents investing now, during the summer, in doing things that can slow and stop the spread of the virus in their communities," Widome said.</p><p>"Now is a good time for kids to practice wearing masks and get used to them as they may be wearing them for longer stretches if school starts up in person," Widome suggested.</p><p>She recommends parents try different mask designs and materials to see what children are more comfortable wearing.</p><p>"If you are using cloth face coverings, it's good to have extras on hand," Widome added.</p><p>Parents should model healthy behavior at home and while out in public — another thing that could affect how well children adapt to reopening practices, Sorensen said.</p><p>"Children may want to know more about face coverings," added <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/leescott/" target="_blank">Lee Scott</a>, chairwoman of the Educational Advisory Board at <a href="https://www.goddardschool.com/" target="_blank">The Goddard School</a>. "Dramatic play, such as creating or wearing a face covering, may help some children adjust to this concept." Schools can also show children photos of what faculty members look like in their masks so the students are familiar with that appearance.</p><p>Johns Hopkins University recently released its eSchool+ Initiative, a slew of resources surrounding education during the pandemic. These include a <a href="https://equityschoolplus.jhu.edu/reopening-checklist/" target="_blank">checklist for administrators</a>, report on <a href="https://equityschoolplus.jhu.edu/ethics-of-reopening/" target="_blank">ethical considerations</a>, and a tracker of <a href="https://equityschoolplus.jhu.edu/reopening-policy-tracker/" target="_blank">state and local reopening plans</a>.</p>
- Trump Admin Rejects CDC Reopening Guidelines - EcoWatch ›
- How Do You Stay Safe Now That States Are Reopening? - EcoWatch ›
- Florida Breaks U.S. Daily Record With Over 15,000 New ... ›
By Eoin Higgins
Over 300 groups on Monday urged Senate leadership to reject a bill currently under consideration that would incentivize communities to sell off their public water supplies to private companies for pennies on the dollar.
<div id="fea63" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="9a6f211c2bc5aedd34837944cb8eeedf"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1281000111481294849" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Water in Illinois is overwhelmingly public. Why is Tammy Duckworth sponsoring a bill that aims to change that? https://t.co/1V36Kkd99s</div> — The American Prospect (@The American Prospect)<a href="https://twitter.com/TheProspect/statuses/1281000111481294849">1594249201.0</a></blockquote></div>
- DNC Ignores Progressive Climate Activists - EcoWatch ›
- Who's a Climate Champion and Who's a Climate Disaster? - EcoWatch ›