|
8 & 9 September 12, 2008 - | lesscancer The headline is we need to play it safe with all environmental exposures where there just is not enough data to understand impacts to human health. Sadly today we have 46 children every school day in this country that are diagnosed with cancer. Scientists now believe that many of these childhood cancers are linked to cancer causing environmental exposures. Environmental contaminants such as pesticides and certain chemicals, in addition to radiation, may contribute to an increased frequency of some childhood cancers. Every day, 1,500 men, women and children die of cancer in the United States and while finding a cure can never be underestimated, we must expand our understanding of what can cause cancer to act intelligently on serious strategies for prevention. We must widen our focus beyond treatment and while the cure is critical cancer should not be an expected stage of life. 6 September 12, 2008 - 11:25am | nella this article at face value. I've seen too much evidence linking heredity and cancer. Sure there are environmental causes (smoking, asbestos, etc.) But please don't disregard the importance of your family background. At least not based on this rather shallow article.
5 September 12, 2008 - 11:17am | hannah6 What a stupid statement. Cancer among Alaska Natives is rising. How does that mean Alaska causes cancer? Alaska is a big place...ALL of Alaska causes cancer? I can't worry about this right now, I'm still waiting for the bird flu we were supposed to be all worried about a couple of years ago. This was a very badly written article. Unfinished. Slopped out. I am curious, for example, why does Kansas cause cancer?
September 12, 2008 - | lesscancer http://www.environmentaloncology.org/files/file/Publications/Newsletters/2008-Fall-News.pdf 3 September 12, 2008 - | mecuipeta2 A review of the obituaries published in the Anchorage Daily News over the last 3 years reveals the fact that a huge proportion of deaths can be attributed to cancer. Old age is the least cause. The cancer deaths occur to younger and younger people. If it were any other disease, it would be called an epidemic. But, the industrial, military, and healthcare industries must be protected against all blame for causing human mortality. Meanwhile, the federal Republican government cuts funding and denies scientific methods to seek treatment and cure for all cancers. At the same time, various "private" organizations beg for money to pour down the rathole of failed research of the same methods, over and over again with the same negative results. The health of the citizenry is the responsibility of all government without religious prejudice. Fund drives by the "societies" for the past 60 years has resulted in nothing except draconian cures which are more likely to kill than cure. The Vietnam strategy of killing the patient in order to save it. Until intelligence determines the search for cure, the citizenry will continue to die from the full-scale government-protected operations of the military/industrial complex. 2 September 12, 2008 - | mike45 What does the military just go around to 10 or 20 places per year, dump stuff and move on? That number seems far fetched.
September 12, 2008 - | alta56 alaskannanook is right-700 sites not far fetched
During the war, there was not much oversight.
September 12, 2008 - | alaskannanook were built by the military. It is not that the military goes around to 10 or 20 places per year....they have been there already from the past. Most of Alaska land is own by the government. I have been to many places in Alaska and just about every place I have been to has or had military posts from world war II. The Glenn and Alaska Highways was built by the military and they had buried many things including trucks and jeeps along the way. Alaska still has barrels of Agent Orange that is buried in the land. People found out about it 6 years ago and they still do not know what to do with. Well....they do know what to do with it, it just cost a lot of money to get rid of it. There is only two places in the US that can dispose it. I have done a lot of research, because many of my friends and family has cancer that live in small villages up north. These people do not have diets and life styles like people that live in the cities. These villagers hunt for their food. Many of these natives do not smoke, do drugs or drink and have cancer. 1 September 12, 2008 - | steveconn The next Alaska gold rush will be a clean up of those 700 toxic sites. This economic and health benefit needs to be pushed by astute leaders. Attention: John Shively and Mat Nicolai.
|
|
12-6-08 Chemical pollutants likely culprits in rising birth defectsCOMPASS: Other points of view By ROXANNE CHAN and SARAH PETRAS Published: August 25th, 2008 As public health professionals, we are concerned about the high rates of birth defects in Alaska and possible links to environmental contaminants. As reported last month in the Daily News, the fact that "Alaska infants are twice as likely to be born with major birth defects as infants in the U.S. as a whole" cannot be explained simply by cigarette smoking, alcohol consumption, maternal age and diet. The article did not discuss the growing body of scientific evidence that suggests environmental contaminants are linked to birth defects and other harmful reproductive health effects in both males and females. Even though many people think of Alaska as pristine, Alaska has over 2,000 toxic waste sites. They include over 700 formerly used military defense sites, countless open dump sites throughout rural Alaska, and five major military sites that are designated among the most hazardous sites in the country (known as Superfund sites) -- two of which are in Anchorage. These sites contain hazardous materials that are linked to a range of adverse health effects, including birth defects. Alaska and the circumpolar Arctic are also subject to pesticides and industrial chemicals that originate from thousands of miles away, traveling northward via oceanic and atmospheric currents and eventually settling in cold climates. These chemicals accrue in the north because the cold climate and fat-based food web favor retention of these persistent toxics. Even toxic chemicals that have been banned in the U.S. (such as the insecticide DDT and class of industrial chemicals known as PCBs) continue to accumulate in the Arctic and sub-Arctic. Contaminants threaten the health of northern peoples who rely on traditional diets of fish and marine mammals. Research demonstrates that industrial chemicals, pollutants, and pesticides cross the placenta as readily as residues from cigarettes and alcohol. A review of scientific studies revealed contaminants such as solvents, heavy metals, and pesticides are linked to birth defects such as heart abnormalities, oral clefts (lip and/or palate) and neural tube defects (incomplete development of the brain, spinal cord and/or protective coverings of these organs). Exposure to plasticizers (used in consumer products) is linked to feminization of baby boys. PCBs and fine particulate matter are linked to low birth weight. A recent study in Alaska found that women from villages with "hazardous" open dump sites were more likely to deliver preterm or low birth weight babies. High levels of man-made chemicals in the blood of pregnant women may also contribute to the newly discovered gender imbalance in the Arctic. Nationwide, the number of males being born is declining. Twice as many girls than boys are born in some Arctic villages in Greenland and Russia, and in some Greenland villages near the Thule American military base no boys are being born at all. We call upon Governor Palin and our public agencies to protect public health by: • Phasing out persistent, bio-accumulative chemicals, especially those that cause cancer, genetic harm, endocrine disorders, immune and neurological damage; • Enacting laws that prevent the release of toxic chemicals from military and industrial sources; • Establishing protective standards for environmental cleanup; • Preventing the use of harmful pesticides in schools, hospitals, parks, and neighborhoods; • Establishing purchasing policies that eliminate use of PVC plastics and chlorine-bleached paper; and • Establishing bio-monitoring and health tracking systems. To ensure the future health of Alaska's peoples and environment, it is imperative that we act now to prevent exposure to chemicals that harm the most vulnerable population -- developing children.
|
1- douglucchetti
I've read that one out of five polar bears in Greenland is hermaphroditic. The alarm over the fate of a few polar bears who are experiencing their normally expected ice' seal hunting area melting and concerns over what is feared (though not proven) to be a catastrophic collapse, has eclipsed the greater issue of man made pollutants, primarily from China and the Russian far east creating a toxic soup over the northern polar region...all of it outside of the focus of the Kyoto protocol, and why I'm not very enthusiastic about it. I hate to think of Alaska's newborns as being the canary in the coal mine, but the comparison is unmistakable.
2-cat_train2
You mean chemical pollutants like alcohol, cannabis, LSD, heroin, cocaine, methamphetamines, copy fluid, steroids, MDMA, gasoline vapor, codeine, oxycontin, phencyclidine, glue, and crack cause birth defects? Who knew? I'll take you fools seriously when you clean up those toxic wastes first!!
3-DL1926
Alaskans Looking To Blame Federal Gov't for Their Bad Habits
Recording setting rates of smoking, drinking, and drug use by Alaskans is the obvious cause of Alaska's record number of birth defects. Instead of cleaning up their own personal bad habits, Alaskans prefer to look for deep pockets to sue like the federal government.
4-akh2oguy
You overlook things like chlorine and fluoride in our water, the multiple vaccines required to be given our children by the government, the plethora of hormones prescribed for every malady under the sun. How about all the dyes and food additives in our foods? We can look a lot closer to home instead of pointing the finger at the evil military and corporate conglomerates which the authors clearly want to vilify.
5-akartisan
You name yourself "public health professionals" and talk widely about toxins, but you fail to mention you are environmental activists, a fact which detracts from your credentials when you factor in the organization you work for. ACAT isn't a fair minded organization. If you believe your rhetoric, I recommend finding a new organization for whom you wave the flag.
6-clarity
It's amazing the amount of people who live in denial and refuse to accept and/or believe actual research that has been proven with cold, hard facts. You speak the truth, and we have much work to do to with education.
Those who reject this information are more than likely fearful of their own feelings of powerlessness.
If Sarah Palin truly wants to live up to her own challenge to all Alaskans to become more health-minded, here is a perfect opportunity to see if she can step up to the plate on this one.
But first things first - she backs the creation of a toxic mine to be built in the Pebble area. What a paradox for the guv.
7-graykeeper
Alaska does have a very large number of highly toxic sites some of which go back to the days of the Gold Rush. Very little is being done about them in our prodevelopmently oriented State. I fear the authors are very much correct and many citizens are too scared or ignorant to admit it. Spend a bit of time on the DEC and EPA websites if you don't believe it. Get an education.
8-SOelkers29
I'd like to point out that most of those 2,000 'toxic waste sites' are in fact only contaminated with #1 diesel fuel. Diesel is toxic in high levels of consumption, and when it is fresh, the vapors released contain benzene, a known carcinogen. However, many of these sites are thirty to fifty years old. Diesel breaks down in the environment over time (called natural attenuation) into it's basic building blocks, carbon and hydrogen. Once it's broken down it becomes, essentially, fertilizer and is not harmful to humans.
So although there are some toxic waste sites in Alaska that are dangerous to humans, and affecting them, it isn't nearly on the scale that these two ladies claim. If you really want to read about scary toxic stories look to West Virginia and Utah.
10-aklarro
Actually what we need is a perfect world
Only a perfect world will satisfy the paranoid amongst us.
While exposures to toxins is a real issue, I look to the writers to use common sense when reminding us that their world is micro-managed. If we look closely at any concern...medical, social or economic we can find tons of problems we never thought were possible
Point is, we do not need another layer of academic nurturing to cornhole our lives any further. Do your jobs as best you can and make the changes under your control when appropriate.
Fair Use for self study purposes
Copyright © 2002 - 2009 Margaret Diann Hursh as to my comments
10 September 13, 2008 - | mgiacoletti
Cancer risk
To the big three carcinogens (tobacco, benzene, and asbestos) add dioxin as the fourth. Since woodsmoke is 12 times more toxic than cigarette smoke and is the primary source of benzene and dioxin, should we be looking at the burning of wood as a principal contributor to the increase in cancer of all types? For reliable information: www.burningissues.org