Video1 - Dear Lyndon I thought you might like to read the...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Dear Lyndon, I thought you might like to read the comments of Dr. Sandra Steingraber, Author of Living Downstream, who was the keynote speaker on March 27, 1999, at the "Stop Cancer Ontario" conference. Dr. Steingraber spoke about the new science of endocrine disruptors and how it's not necessarily the dose, or even whether a toxin is a recognized carcinogen. Many scientists are now looking at 'windows of vulnerability' - and when we may be more susceptible to these toxic exposures, such as during stress, or prenatally or during puberty. Dr. Steingraber's topic was entitled: Everyday Carcinogens: Acting for Prevention in the Face of Scientific Uncertainty. Good morning from Boston, Massachusetts. As a new mom I'm really happy that this kind of technology exists that allows me to bring my message to you in Canada while still staying at home with my daughter. "Living Downstream" explores twelve lines of evidence linking cancer and the environment and is organized into twelve chapters. What I would like to do is talk to you about four of those lines of evidence fairly quickly just to give you a flavour of how I see these connections working. But what I want to do first is to kind of give away my main point right up front which is this. There is no one study that constitutes what we in the scientific community would call absolute proof of a connection between cancer and the environment. Instead, what exists are many well designed, carefully constructed studies that all together tell a consistent story. So I began to see that each of these studies is like a little piece of a jigsaw puzzle. By themselves they are provocative, but they really only make sense when you bring all the pieces together and look at how they form a kind of startling picture. And I think it's a picture that we ignore at our peril. The first line of evidence I want to discuss briefly comes from cancer registries and this is what measures the incidence of cancer in a population. Here in the US we don't have a big national cancer registry. Each state has its own registry. In Canada you do it differently and all the data are pooled together. And whether you look at the Canadian data or the US data, the overall picture is very similar. In other words, incidence trends in Canada and the US show a very similar picture. And what it does show is that non-tobacco related cancers have been rising in incidence among all age groups from infants up to the elderly, among all ethnicities and among both sexes. And these increases are definitely apparent since the early '70s. And if you take a longer view, you can see that they go back to about World War II. (When we started using your "registered" POISONS Lyndon!)
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Now changes in hereditary patterns can't account for these increases in cancer. We're not developing more tumors because we are now sprouting new cancer
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page1 / 11

Video1 - Dear Lyndon I thought you might like to read the...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online