The Truth About Breast Cancer

• Seventy percent of women with breast cancer have no family history and no other risk factors

.

• Mammograms do not protect against breast cancer, and actually deliver ionizing radiation directly to breast tissue. 

• Anyone can print a pink ribbon on a product label and say they're donating to the fight against breast cancer.

• Many of the corporate sponsors of the Pink Ribbon Campaign manufacture products with ingredients linked to breast cancer.   

*  *  *  


Many women will tell you that breast cancer runs in their family. But researchers estimate that less than 10% of breast cancer cases are related to genetics. 

The truth is that breast cancer may run in families because families share their environment - the air they breathe, the water they drink, the food they eat and the products they use.  

For years, women have walked for the cure, urged their mothers and sisters and friends to get their mammograms, and purchased pink ribbon products that claim that a percentage of their sales will be donated to breast cancer research.

But with all that walking, urging and purchasing, the incidence of breast cancer has increased. The American Cancer Society predicts that more than 230,000 new cases will be diagnosed this year. More than 40,000 will die. A woman's chance of developing breast cancer in 1940 was 1 in 22.  Today it's 1 in 7. 

The fact is, women are getting the wrong message about breast cancer. The message they need to hear it that we can take steps to reduce our risk of breast and other cancers, that we have choices for different (less risky) screening techniques, that we need to protect our young pre-teen daughters when they are most vulnerable, and that our voices together can make a difference in this fight.

Lying to the EPA

The Scotts Miracle-Gro company has agreed to pay millions of dollars in criminal fines for misleading the public, lying to the EPA and knowingly contaminating their bird seed products with pesticides known to be toxic to birds. 

Professional applicators and homeowners using pesticides are more aware than ever about the potentially serious health effects of pesticides, in humans, pets and wildlife. Because of this, many more people are reading warning labels on pesticide products and trying to use them responsibly. When a product manufacturer lies about such inherently dangerous products, it is truly a criminal act.

Last week, Scotts Miracle-Gro pleaded guilty to eleven criminal violations of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The $12.5 million dollar fine was the largest criminal penalty under FIFRA to date. Scotts admitted falsifying pesticide registration documents, selling pesticides with misleading and unapproved labels and distributing unregistered pesticides, in addition to applying toxic and potentially lethal insecticides to its wild bird food products. 

Although everyone should avoid pesticide exposures, children, pregnant women and the chronically ill are particularly vulnerable. Children take in more pesticides relative to their body weight than adults and have immature organ systems that are more vulnerable and less able to detoxify the chemicals contained in pesticides. They are also disproportionately exposed because of their behavior, playing in the grass and on floors and engaging in typical hand- to -mouth behavior. Childhood malignancies associated with living in households where pesticides are used include neuroblastoma, Wilm's tumor, Ewing's sarcoma, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and cancers of the brain, colorectum and testes.

Along with other environmental health groups, we work very hard to educate the public about the links between common environmental toxins and human health and encourage non-toxic solutions to pest problems whenever possible. If someone decides to use a pesticide, the label should clearly indicate proper handling as well as the potential short term and long term health effects of the product even when used according to the label. It is highly irresponsible for a manufacturer of these poisons to ignore or even intentionally challenge federal laws intended to protect the public.

Pennsylvania

Until you see it for yourself, you can't fully appreciate what fracking does to a community. As Patti and I drove deep into the hills of Pennsylvania just south of the New York border, the first thing we noticed was the trucks on the road.

It's not just that they're really big. It's that there are so many of them. One after another, they race along tiny back roads, gears grinding, exhaust stacks belching and engines roaring as they head to or from fracking sites carrying steel tubes, diesel engines, silica sand, fracking chemicals, fresh water or toxic waste - destined for who knows where?

White pickup trucks dart around the countryside like large beetles carrying men in hard hats with grim expressions. (White, signifying purity, seems to be the color of choice for oil and gas companies and their ubiquitous security teams that keep onlookers and other undesirables - like us - far away from actual fracking sites.)

All over Susquehanna County, large swaths of forest and pastures are being hacked out and excavated to make way for giant pipelines used to connect the gas wells with sprawling compressor sites miles away. These gashes in the landscape serve as an apt metaphor for what's going on inside the community, as fracking - and the money it might bring to some - has divided families, neighbors and towns in a battle over the right of some to endanger the environment for all.

We met some truly amazing individuals on our visit  to Susquehanna County - brave, inspiring individuals who are standing up for what's right, refusing to back down in the face of almost inconceivable odds. We were humbled to be in their presence and witness their strength of character.

We're creating some radio spots featuring the voices of the people we met in Pennsylvania. We hope their stories can inform the debate on fracking in New York. 

Creating Science

In his recent mini-documentary "Is the Sky Pink?," filmmaker Josh Fox touches on one of the key reasons why government is so often stymied in its efforts to protect public health.  So long as there is a "debate" over something, regulation and legislation can be postponed until the science becomes "clear."  

And so long as there are scientists and academic institutions ready to abandon ethics when money comes along, "debates" can be manufactured to suit the circumstances, and efforts to protect public health can be delayed indefinitely.

A recent article in Bloomberg News illustrates how oil and gas companies engaged in fracking have paid research scientists and even state universities to literally create science that supports fracking.  The practice gives new meaning to the term "creationism."

Last week, Grassroots compiled and delivered to NY Governor Cuomo a Digest of Independent Science on Fracking. By "independent," we mean just that - studies and reports that were conducted by scientists for whom the word integrity still has meaning, and who respect the role of honest science in helping to inform - rather than obfuscate - the public discourse. 

We salute their work, and sincerely hope that the Governor will take the time to read through the Digest we delivered to him. If he does, he'll know exactly what to do about fracking in New York. 

What Does the DOH Know About Fracking?

On April 25, 2011 Grassroots filed a Freedom of Information Law request with the NYS DOH, asking for all communications between the DOH and the DEC on the issue of human health effects related to fracking. We were hoping to receive this information during the DEC's public comment period, since health issues have dominated much of the public discussion. (The comment period ends January 11th).

The DOH failed four times over the past eight months to meet their own response deadlines, most recently on December 23rd. The delay now stands at 256 days.

We believe the DOH is engaged in effective denial of our request in violation of the law. Given that DEC Commissioner Martens has testified that the DOH was "intensely involved" with the DEC on the issue of fracking, and given the high degree of public interest over human health issues related to fracking, this decision by the DOH to withhold information vital to the public interest is deeply troubling.

We are appealing the DOH action, but it will take time to go through the legal process required before court action can be initiated. In the meantime we encourage all of those who share our concerns to call Dr. Nirav Shah, the Commissioner of the DOH at (518) 474-2011 and demand release of the information.

The Case Against Fracking

Recent Op-Ed pieces in prominent newspapers have suggested that with proper regulatory oversight, hydraulic fracturing or "fracking" can be accomplished safely in New York, reducing our dependence on foreign oil and bringing much needed economic benefits to hard-hit areas of the state. If the issue was that simple, and if the statements were true, surely everyone would be in favor.

But the facts don't support these statements, and the issue is not as simple as the TV ads would have citizens believe. Fracking is an inherently dangerous and destructive extreme form of energy extraction that brings with it a myriad of serious environmental and economic problems. Now that we have the opportunity to see how fracking has actually impacted citizens in Pennsylvania and other states, we can more easily distinguish fact from fantasy and make smarter choices for New York.

It's an undisputed fact - although seldom acknowledged by those who make their fortunes by selling energy - that we have the ability to reduce our dependence on foreign oil anytime we want. Dollar for dollar, watt for watt, when it comes to looking for new sources of energy, nothing comes even remotely close to the energy reserves available to us through conservation. No cost, no pollution, no need for government oversight or environmental concern. All that is required is better planning and smarter thinking.

But what about the economic benefits of fracking? Scholarly studies have come down on both sides. Those not sponsored by the gas industry tend to highlight the temporary nature and low-skill level of jobs associated with fracking, and the fleeting economic benefits communities may experience. After all, this highly technical and dangerous work requires highly trained workers who generally come from out of state to work on the rigs, then move on. Local folks may be needed to pour the coffee or flip the burgers, but once the frackers are done, so are those jobs.

What few politicians will admit is that the real economic benefits of fracking accrue to them personally, in the form of large campaign contributions from oil and gas interests. A recent study by Common Cause revealed that gas industry has spent $20 million on the campaigns of current members of Congress. New York politicians have received hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions, according to public sources.

And let's not overlook the real and measurable impacts fracking wreaks on the environment. Contaminated air, for example, is an absolute certainty with fracking, not the potential result of some future accident. The exhaust from thousands of diesel trucks, added to that of generators, pumps and support equipment significantly pollutes the air quality not only in the immediate surrounding area but for hundreds of miles downwind. Exposure to diesel exhaust is a proven cause of both asthma and lung cancer. In areas of Wyoming near fracking operations, air pollution has been measured at levels higher than in downtown Los Angeles.

Environmental concerns also include potential contamination of public water supplies (as has already happened in Dimock, Pennsylvania), the dumping of toxic fracking sludge in remote wooded areas (as happened last week in Pennsylvania) and the transportation of radioactive wastewater to Long Island for processing in local water treatment plants, as contemplated by New York's Department of Environmental Conservation.

Despite the calm assurances of the oil and gas industry and their supporters, we've seen what can happen when industry promises that inherently dangerous activities will be made safe by rigorous oversight.

Exxon promised to carefully transport oil through Prudhoe Bay. BP promised that they would drill safely in the Gulf of Mexico. The engineers at Fukushima promised their safety systems would protect the public. In each case, government regulations were in place to protect us. In each case, they failed.

So here we go again. Money is flowing to politicians, and the airwaves are filled with happy talk about our newfound energy wealth. Will we learn this time, or will we repeat the mistakes of the past? Will New York become a center for green energy and a source of true economic growth, or will we mortgage our children's future so that a few people can make a killing in a dying industry?

How Green Is My Town?

We're really excited to re-introduce How Green Is My Town?, a simple checklist for towns across America to measure their progress on issues related to climate change, sustainability and environmental health.

It's much more than just a checklist of course. How Green Is My Town? is a blueprint for action and a gateway to hundreds of good ideas from all over the country.

For instance, does your town have a comprehensive environmental policy, or is it a patchwork of initiatives divided among various departments? If it's the latter, chances are good that your town is missing an opportunity (or is it responsibility?) to be part of the solution.

But not to worry. How Green Is My Town? has a simple policy any town can adopt right now, plus links to governmental agencies and non-profit organizations that are ready to help your town get started.

Sixty four questions. Sixty four solutions. All in one place.

So, how is your town doing in it's effort to be green? Now you can find out. Visit How Green Is My Town?