Hello all,
I'm a non-academic Canadian lurker on this list since Feb/00.  I'm fairly
new to environmental/political activism, & this list is one of my resources,
from which I've been learning & passing on lots of info.  I've really been
enjoying the discussions, except for the occasional degeneration to name
calling & judging each other, etc.  (Please!!!)

My interests in the list are 2 fold.  I work for
www.sustainablebusiness.com, & personally, I have recently organised an
email info/lobbying network (The Sustainable Action Network) for which I
research & compose action letters, & send them to the network to use as
templates.  It's growing exponentially & many seem to like the idea.

This post is directed to John Foster:
John, I really enjoy your posts & Cdn. perspective on issues.  I have
received a request (see below) from one of my network recipients, who is a
Masters student in Environment & Resource Studies at the University of
Waterloo in Ontario, regarding a May 24th post of yours that I had
forwarded.  Can you help me out here with some contact info for her?

Also, thanks for the www.trees2k.org you included with one of your posts; I
sent it out too.

Yours naturally,
Cindy MacDonald
[log in to unmask]

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2000 10:46 AM
To: Cindy MacDonald
Subject: Re: women, antiperspirants, radiation & breast cancer


Hi Cindy,

Thanks for this message. I have a question for whoever is doing the
research on aluminum in antiperspirants. Do you know the proper email
address for me to send it to?

Cheers, Mary Jane

On Tue, 6 Jun 2000, Cindy MacDonald wrote:

> If you are a woman, or you love one, here's some info:
>
> >>*Anti-perspirants have been identified as the leading cause of breast
> cancer.
>
> One of my graduate student friends began a discussion on this statement.
> There is some scientific evidence that the use of 'anti-perspirants' are
> associated with an elevated risk of breast cancers in women. Our
> observationally based hypothesis was this:
>
> 1.      Women tend to shave their underarms and they also tend to have
less
> armpit hair than men;
>
> 2.      The underarms are a part of the body that perspires; and
therefore,
>
>
> 3.      If the 'anti-perspirant' stops perspiration, and contains
something
> toxic, then the underarm will absorb the toxic something.
>
>
> Now logically it would be assumed that there is an antibacterial agent in
> the anti-perspirant, right? This is true. One of the chemicals in most
> 'anti-perspirants' is an aluminum oxide compound (active agent that
> suppresses perspiration). Now what is the problem with that?
>
> The problem is that aluminum oxide is a notorious collector of
'radioactive
> particles' that are found in the atmosphere and hydrosphere. The aluminum
> simply 'collects' the radionuclides and stores them until they are
absorbed
> into the lymphatic system of the womans breast region. That is the logical
> explanation why so many women are being predisposed to breast cancer,
> besides strontium 90 in cows milk. The underarm area is area of lymphatic
> nodes that operate to expell some bodily substances (much like tears)
before
> they reach the kidneys I believe.
>
> The solution is to not use 'anti-perspirants' since the active agent  one
of
> the substances collects radionuclides. This is one reason why aluminum
> roofing materials were not very safe during the atmospheric bomb tests of
> the 1960's and the 1970's, they simply mopped up the fallout. One needs to
> recall that strontium 90 has a molecular affinity to aluminum.
>
> Anyway I am not an expert on this material.  Dr. John Goffman is the
expert.
> His research has revealed that between 50 and 75 % of female breast
cancers
> in the US are caused by radiation routinely released by nuclear power
> facilities and the atmospheric bomb tests carried out in  New Mexico, and
> Arizona. Most people do not understand this fact.
>
> If one takes a look at the Cancer Atlas in the US for instance, it soon
> becomes apparent that the location of most of the cancers is situated in
the
> most industrialized regions of the US. In fact on average there is twice
the
> risk of getting cancer if a person lives in an industrialized region. And
> the relationship increases even in the industrial areas of the US as you
get
> nearer to the polluting facility on average. What some detractors may say
is
> that poorer people tend to live down wind or down stream of polluting
> facilities like pulp mills, nuclear facilities and therefore are unable to
> spend adequate funds on health and nutrition, etc.
>
> Actually there is some truth to this hypothesis. If anyone ever went to
> Birmingham, Alabama, in the late sixities, they would soon see where all
the
> rich folk live. Or if they went to Lima, Peru, they would go upwind to La
> Molina to get a break from the toxic phlegmn inducing smog associated with
> diesel smoke that chokes the windless desert. It does not take a knowledge
> of climates and science to soon understand where to live where there is
> pollution.
>
> So if one were to look at the disadvantaged, the relationship between
> health, income, and location of residence you will soon see the links and
> interactions that compound the incidence of cancer in industrial regions.
> That is one reason why all samples the Puget Sound sole (bottom fish) have
> cancer. For nearly 5 decades the chlorine bleaching process that has been
> utilized in the Puget Sound and Georgia Straight area has released an
array
> toxic subtances into the food chain. Various congeners of dioxin (the
second
> most deadly substance known in nature) have accumulated in the ecosystem.
> Interestingly enough it was Greenpeace the 'blew the whistle' on the pulp
> industry when they released information that was leaked to Paul Merril
> (coauthored "Bitter Fog") and his wife Carol Van Strum. The information
was
> obtained from samples that the USEPA had obtained in the midwest states.
> Anyway I think that the release was very damaging to the credibility of
the
> pulp industry since the information could have been released to the
general
> public so that they could do something more constructive and immediately
> beneficial. So anyway when industry tries to protect profits versus
> protection of the environment, it loses credibility, and the government
> loses credibility for suppressing the information.
>
> Obviously the Toxic Release Inventory that is published was created to
avoid
> this from happening, and in Canada we now have a similar system of
reporting
> of 'transfers' and 'releases' of toxic substances.
>
> Check out the "Taking Stock" report at www.cec.org
>
> This site is report on what companies in Mexico, Canada and the United
> States are doing the most polluting. The report may surprise since it is
not
> the conventional industries like the chemical industry, the petroleum
> industries any longer, it is the forest products industries that are doing
> most of the polluting. Up in the top five category we have Weyerhaesuer
Can.
> Ltd and Weyerhaeser in the US. They release vast quantities of urea
> formaldehyde and methanol in the production of OSB, etc. (oriented strand
> board). One needs to understand that urea formaldehyde is extremely toxic
> and is a known carcinogen, and then figure out how it ends up into
people's
> homes? I am extremely allergic to urea foam products and especially to
> certain artificial fabrics which I have to avoid since I get tremendous
> 'runny nose', sneezing, etc.
>
> Taking Stock is a report by Committee on Environmental Cooperation
associate
> with the NAFTA (free trade agreement between Canada, Mexico and the US).
>
> Most environmental pollution is carried down wind or downstream, and the
> other route is withing food and manufactured items (transfers) rather than
> releases. So you see getting away from it (the toxic sludges) in this
world
> is not easy, and some believe it is no longer possible. The majority of
POPs
> of current concern are highly volatile substances that are readily broken
> down by degradation in ultraviolet light, the aquatic and soil
environment,
> however in the cold arctic and nivean environments of mountains, they
simply
> accumulate in the organism and the ecosystems  due to condensation and
> volatilization. Toxaphene, PCBs, DDT, and other persistant organic
> pollutants have never been used in the Arctic, but that is where they are
> found at concentrations that have never been so high, especially in the
> organs of whales, seals, and bears. We call this effect of recurrent
> 'volatization' and 'condensation' the 'grasshopper effect'. Some PCBs were
> used in the Canadian Arctic but the majority of the PCBs come from
southerly
> climes. PCBs are still used in China as is toxaphene, DDT in South
America.
> So the end of the story has not yet been told on the 12 most deadly
biocides
> made by man. PCBs are stored in the fat of mammals and impact the immunity
> of animals, etc.
>
>
> This is one reason why the Principle of Precaution must be taken. If one
> were to apply the principle of "Innocent Until Proven Guilty" with respect
> to "Grasshopper" pesticides and biocides, we would all end up dead, except
> of course those people living upstream, or upwind, and eating organic
foods
> sitting on organic wooden chairs.
>
> chao,
>
> john foster
>



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%