Breast Month - Awareness Or Deception?
Are Americans being lied to about the causes of cancer, breast and otherwise? This article summaries findings of those who say we are.
BREAST MONTH - AWARENESS OR DECEPTION ?
October is national Breast Cancer Awareness Month and no matter where you look, no matter where you turn, there are women everywhere wearing soft pink. Why, even this morning at breakfast, atop the multi-grain English muffin package was a pink and fuscia plastic wrapper, embellished with an illustration of wheat.
Along with fall foliage and pumpkins, October is the month when the nation's thoughts turn to pink ribbons, decorated muffin packages, and t-shirts (or actually, what's inside them). Luckily for women in the US, getting the focus *on* breasts isn't exactly a problem, as few could argue that America's fascination with the female form has reached an "augmented" high.
Nowadays, thanks to the Goddess of Implants who dutifully performs her magic upon the moneyed chests of Tinsel Town, one can hardly even turn on the TV or open a magazine without just happening to notice celebrity busts sticking out... everywhere. As a certain wealthy heiress socialite might say, right now breasts are "hot"!
Courtesy of the advertising, television, and Hollywood film-making industries, breast worship thrives because, as advertisers have known since before the days of the first black and white TV commercial, sex sells. So, in this abundantly breast-centric culture, it's completely understandable that Americans reverently participate in a collective, ritualized annual effort to protect these highly-valued natural (and not-so-natural) resources.
Yes, like clockwork every October, we've become programmed to wear pink and participate in fund-raising efforts in the name of breast cancer "research" and "cure". All this annual breast talk is undoubtedly a "PC" way for researchers, health care professionals, politicians, and even clergy to spend time paying tribute to female mammary health - in a most respectable, proper fashion, why of course.
An entire month devoted to breast-talk every year can only be considered, as Martha would say, a "good thing." And fortunately for every woman who owns a pair (and those that love them) pink-related endeavors bring breast cancer into heightened awareness. One could say October As Breast Love Month "expands" the typical focus from the primary American benefit of breasts-as-eye candy (with allowances for an obligatory, cursory mention of breasts as sustenance for les enfants) to the critically sobering issue of women's health and very survival.
So for one month out of twelve, Americans cry out in grateful unison, Long live American breasts! Talk of breast cancer "cure" becomes all the rage and anyone who's anyone seems to want to climb on board the Save A Breast Campaign! Why recently, even the progressive social justice activist, Reverend Jesse Jackson, with characteristic respectful tone and appropriate decorum, shared his concern about breast health, paying special attention to the fact that breast cancer affects a disproportionate number of women of color.
No doubt for anyone who has ever loved someone with breast cancer, such articles that raise general overall awareness must be gratifying to read. So to be technical about it, there is absolutely nothing incorrect about what Reverend Jackson had to say. Even his political (Democratic) solution, a call for universal health care to allow all women to be treated for this horrible disease, is a solid suggestion worthy of national implementation. No sick person in America should be denied medical care due to inability to pay.
So it's not what Rev. Jackson put in his column that's problematic, but rather, what he leaves out. According to his article, the causes that contribute to breast cancer that lie outside genetics are: obesity, alcohol consumption, and lack of physical activity. According to the group Breast Cancer Action, however, seventy percent (70%) of people with breast cancer have none of the known risk factors. link to www.bcaction.org
Many individuals generally assume that contracting breast cancer is simply a matter of it being "in the genes" or due to controllable "life style" factors alone. After all, even The US National Institutes of Health (part of the US government) offers the risk factors of age, race, and lifestyle factors. Many research scientists, however, have been telling us for years that there are additional breast cancer risk factors that women are not hearing about, such as environmental toxins and radiation.
The information the US government provides the general public about breast cancer risks is vague. It appears they would like to make it seem as if nothing is conclusive and all the evidence is up in the air. On the National Cancer Institute website, the desired hocus pocus of breast cancer risks and determining what is "useful" for women to know is spun quite well: "Other risk factors for breast cancer have been identified or proposed but are not included in the Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool for several reasons: because evidence that these factors contribute to breast cancer risk is not conclusive, because researchers cannot determine whether these factors add useful information to factors already in the model, or because data on other risk factors was not available in the research data used to develop the model. Such risk factors include: age at menopause, use of birth control pills, high body mass index, a high-fat diet, alcohol, radiation exposure, and environmental pollutants."
This is, after all, precisely what our government - that both supports and encourages nuclear power as well as the manufacture, testing, and use of radioactive uranium weaponry - would like us to believe. In addition to what we produce for our own military's use, the United States is the largest exporter of weapons in the world, selling more weapons than the next 14 countries combined. In 2004 alone, the US exported $18.5 billion in arms. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_trade Holy hot rocks! That's certainly a whole lot of uranium to be mined, stored and manufactured before it ever makes it into jets headed overseas.
Why would other risk factors such as ionizing radiation be kept a secret? William H. Taft, U.S. State Department attorney, candidly offered one reason in 1981 when he said, "The mistaken impression [that low-level radiation is hazardous] has the potential to be seriously damaging to every aspect of the Department of Defense's nuclear weapons and nuclear propulsion programs. . . . It could adversely affect our relations with our European allies."
Dr. John Gofman of The Committee for Nuclear Responsibility has a quite different point of view, however, concerning what biological effects of low-level ionizing radiation should be shared. http://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/synapse.html#quote1 In his opinion, "ionizing radiation is not like a poison out of a bottle where you can dilute it and dilute it. The lowest dose of ionizing radiation is one nuclear track through one cell. You can't have a fraction of a dose of that sort. Either a track goes through the nucleus and affects it, or it doesn't. So I said "What evidence do we have concerning one, or two or three or four or six or 10 tracks?" And I came up with nine studies of cancer being produced where we're dealing with up to maybe eight or 10 tracks per cell. Four involved breast cancer. With those studies, as far as I'm concerned, it's not a question of "We don't know." The DOE has never refuted this evidence. They just ignore it, because it's inconvenient. We can now say, there cannot be a safe dose of radiation. There is no safe threshold. If this truth is known, then any permitted radiation is a permit to commit murder."
It appears to be bad politics to talk about ionizing radiation's murderous effect on America's breasts. It is, apparently, good politics, however, to discuss what one's state has done to try to help women along the lines of breast cancer. As Jesse Jackson defends the politicians of Illinois in his column, "Various states are starting to move, with Illinois taking the lead. It's the only state where people on Medicaid can get a mammogram. Also, the state has raised more than $3 million through its lottery -- a novel idea known as the Ticket for the Cure -- to fund breast cancer research as well as early detection and other patient services."
One can't help but wonder, however, why Rev. Jackson is making such a big deal of these measures? If one lives in a state with 800 radioactive materials licenses, 15 nuclear power reactors, a depleted uranium manufacturing and storage depot, and the largest government-owned weapons manufacturing arsenal in the western world, wouldn't it be only natural that such a state would feel at least somewhat obligated to do a little something to treat its sick and dying patients? If the Illinois legislators are so big on helping women detect and treat breast cancer, isn't it perhaps possible that, unlike the Reverend, they've know about these power plants, reactors, and uranium munitions sites for many years - and possess somewhat of a guilty conscience?
But let's just assume that the Reverend was merely weary the day he wrote about breast cancer and fell asleep before finishing his research. Giving special allowances to a man of God, we can agree to be gracious and give the very busy political activist the benefit of the doubt - that he has read nothing about the numerous uranium radioactive violations and leakages of nuclear power plants and other such dangers to human health within his own state. http://www.wise-uranium.org/epusa.html#METROP
Reverend Jackson, in his busy, sleepy state would certainly be in good company. Many individuals and organizations are putting the prevention of breast and other cancers solely on the shoulders of American women to take better care of themselves, do monthly self-exams, get radioactive mammograms regularly, and make more sound "lifestyle choices".
American women are also very busy and sleepy, often wearing many hats. And when they do get a few precious moments of free time, how many sit and scour the Internet for new scientific and medical research journal articles in an effort to find out about risk factors of possible diseases for themselves? How many women even realize that, with the exception of melanoma skin cancer, breast cancer is the most common cancer among women in the United States? And with a 1 in 8 chance of developing invasive breast cancer in every woman's lifetime, are we to be left with the notion that about all we can do is eat well, exercise, get our annual radioactive physician-prescribed dose of "detection" and merely keep our fingers crossed that we will be spared the dreaded cancer diagnosis?
By the end of this year alone, roughly 274,900 new cases of breast cancer (invasive and carcinoma in situ) will be diagnosed in women throughout the United States. Although counter-intuitive, the grim fact remains that North American women - arguably among the wealthiest and better educated in the world - also have the highest rate of breast cancer. In fact, by the end of 2006, approximately 41,000 women will have died in the United States due to just this one form of cancer alone.
With everyone so focused on treating women with breast cancer and finding a cure, one would think that there might be plenty of preachers and other national political figures interested in exposing the known factors that sickens close to 300,000 and kills over 40,000 women in the US each year. We must simply ask oneself who in the world profits by keeping these dangerous radiological risk factors quiet - when blowing the whistle loudly on this epidemic's actual true causes would annually protect literally hundreds of thousands of lives?
Dr. Janette Sherman, who specializes in internal medicine and has written extensively on toxic agents and radiation, "points out ecological studies showing that women living near nuclear power plants suffer from elevated numbers of breast cancers. These studies, by their nature, are suggestive and not conclusive. But there is ample reason to believe that all nuclear power plants leak radioactivity routinely into local air and water and that any exposure to ionizing radiation increases a woman's danger of breast cancer. Both radiation from nuclear energy production, improper storage of nuclear waste products, as well as dust from weapons and ammunitions using uranium enriched or depleted armaments are causing wide-spread background levels of radiation in areas of recent war activities". http://hawaiihealthguide.com/healthtalk/display.htm?id=484
Dr. Sherman speaks about three sources of radiation that cause breast cancer coming from: (1) nuclear energy production, (2) improper storage of nuclear waste products, and (3) dust from uranium weapons (some call this nuclear product Depleted Uranium or DU). All three of these sources of radiation sources are abundantly present all throughout the United States.
Likewise, the work of Dr. Jay Gould, from the Cancer Prevention Coalition,
shows that breast cancer mortality in counties with nuclear materials has increased at 10 times the national rate from 1950 to 1989. His findings show that counties "near military reactors, such as Hanford, Oak Ridge and Savannah River, have registered the greatest increases, ranging from 27 to 200%. Dr. Gould charged NCI [National Cancer Institute] with "misrepresentation of such findings."
So if we are not getting all the facts from our government, are we at least getting the straight truth from the non-profit organizations that purport to care about breast health? The Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation www.komen.org lists exposure to radiation during youth as one of the causes of breast cancer. The National Breast Cancer Coalition http://www.natlbcc.org/ includes many environmental pollutants as well as ionizing radiation. The American Cancer Society www.cancer.org , however, fails to present the research on radiation as an environmental hazard and does not properly educate women about all cancer risks by listing only radiation for prior cancer treatment and "environmental pollutants" such as pesticides and PCBs. Some of these cancer organizations have ties to certain medical interests (such as radiologists who benefit) as well as chemical, manufacturing, and pharmacological industries.
If one digs deeper, however, one finds far more disturbing details about the hush-hush man-made epidemic on a global scale. In addition to these other radiological risk factors that the mainstream media increasingly leaves out, geoscientist and world-renown expert on radiation, Leuren Moret, cites another, fourth contributor of ionizing radiation in the atmosphere http://www.animatedsoftware.com/poifu/poifu.swf as the result of nuclear bomb tests performed inside the United States. Along with the tests that were conducted in Nevada from 1945 to 1992, there are still military sites that perform radioactive uranium weapons testing within our country and off our coast to this very day.
In addition, many Americans are oblivious to the low levels of radioactive substances that are emitted quietly into the environment in the form of 103 nuclear power plants with 155 reactors and 227 research reactors in existence. Add to that 59 uranium mining, storage, research and development, manufacture, and testing facility sites all over the country and you can see why the United States is one big cancer-infested radioactive soup bowl.
Breast cancer risk factors may also appear to have noble and benign implications, such as those caused by many seemingly innocuous sources, including radiation used for testing purposes within medical facilities. There are, however, other ways that money is made in the uranium business. Since January, 2005 to the present day the nuclear industry has generously provided more than $289,500 in campaign contributions, courtesy of the NEI [Nuclear Energy Institute]. In the four years from 2001 to 2005, energy corporations contributed an additional $115 million to federal politicians in campaign contributions.
While we're calculating monies earned by those in the radioactivity bonanza, let's not forget the profits from the originators of the source of the components of the nuclear industry, uranium mining. According to uranium geologist David R. Miller, http://prweb.com/releases/2006/10/prweb454332.htm "re-starting many of the uranium mining projects abandoned over the past two decades could produce more than 25 million pounds of 'yellowcake' by 2016. This could bring depressed towns in Wyoming , New Mexico, and Utah about 4,000 high-paying mining jobs. 'For every direct mining job, about seven new service jobs are also created,' said Miller. He forecast that over the next 20 years, 'The uranium industry could spin off $20 billion in cash flow to U.S. uranium producers.'"
With the creation of these nifty new uranium mining-related jobs, one wonders if pre-paid funerals and caskets will be part of the benefit package for those who have to work inside the mines? It's almost seems as if government and industry alike are looking for ways to seriously sicken and kill ever increasing numbers of people - on purpose!
Speaking of knowingly sickening people, many thousands of US soldiers and their families have fallen ill and died from exposure to uranium in the process of manufacturing and using radioactive uranium bombs and weapons since 1945. If we factor in to military-related casualties those exposed to radiation via medicine and the nuclear energy industry? One can only ponder how phenomenally high the illness and death casualties truly are. Nuclear-Anything, while admittedly quite financially lucrative, comes at a great cost to life itself - with ramifications almost too horrifying to fathom.
According to Admiral Vishnu Bhagwat, Former Chief of the Naval Staff, India,
http://www.thepowerhour.com/articles/du_effects.htm , "the US Government admitted in Nov. 2002, that every living person in the US between 1958-63 was exposed to this fall out [from nuclear weapons testing] resulting in cancer, gene mutation, heart disease, autism, diabetes, Parkinsons, ALS, asthma, chronic fatigue syndrome , hypothyroidism in new-borns, obesity and learning disabilities. One out of twelve children in the US is disabled. The fall out did not stop at the US borders. It travelled around the world, as atmospheric dust and remains even in the biosphere/ sub-orbital space today. High breast cancer rates have been co-located in the proximity of nuclear power plants in the west and more so in the east coast areas of the US."
Not until women - and those who love them - are empowered with all the information we need to stop the continued use and promotion of uranium-related radiation can we begin to put a dent in preventing these cancers that adversely impact life itself. In the words of one of the world's premiere nuclear radiation experts, Dr. Rosalie Bertell, "There is no safe exposure level of radiation. Cancer and other diseases can be caused by any amount of radiation no matter how low the dose."
Dr. Bertell has also calculated the risk to the world's population from radiation-induced cancers. As a result of human-generated nuclear activity, she came up with the following numbers of cancers worldwide: bomb production and testing: 385 million; bomb and plant accidents: 9.7 million; routine discharges from power plant: 6.6 million; 5 million of these in nearby populations); total fatalities: 175 million. Also factored in are an additional 235 million with genetic damage, causing a range of diseases, and 588 million children born with malformations. [Note: These calculations were stated in 2002, before the war on Iraq was launched. The numbers today are, of course, actually far greater].
The incidence of all types of cancer in the United States is currently running at alarmingly high rates, affecting nearly one in 2 men (44%) and more than 1 in every 3 women (39%). http://www.expertclick.com/search/outsideurl.cfm?groupID=1309 It is, therefore, imperative that all Americans study the role that our government, courtesy of the support for the nuclear power industry - and the US Military, as part of our federal government, is playing... not just with regard to women with breast cancer but also its effects on men and children, who are also at serious risk for assorted cancers and a multitude of other diseases, as well.
Only through widespread education can we protect ourselves from these often-hidden risks of developing cancer as well as other many other diseases that many scientists are linking to radiation. Leuren Moret states, "We are now in a global diabetes epidemic since 1991 as a result of global contamination from depleted uranium."
We must do a much better job of preventing breast cancer, other cancers, diabetes, and various other diseases linked to radiation that are on the rise at alarming rates. But these risks are not going to be reduced unless more people find out about their cause - and work not just merely for a treatment and a cure, but rather, to prevent cancer by reducing these preventable risk factors. Increased levels of radiation at the hands of both industry and the US government are absolutely, positively within our power and ability to control.
To become involved in the solution, following are some important online videos that explain radiation's correlation with cancers and other diseases. Additional resources are also listed below. Join with others who are now spreading the word that breast cancer as well as other diseases can be reduced - but only if we are ready and willing to step up the plate and say no more to purposeful uranium poisoning.
"If this truth is known", as Dr. John Gofman has said, "then any permitted radiation is a permit to commit murder."
Global Nuclear Cover Up: Four (4) Online Videos with radiation expert, Leuren Moret:
"Poison Fire USA" Animated Map of Sources of Radiation in US
"Radiation: From Bikini Island to Long Island" By Janette D. Sherman, M.D.
For more of Dr. Janette Sherman's work:
"Radiation Causes Breast Cancer" By Stephanie Hiller
"Breast Cancer and the Environment" October 2003 Updated September 2006
Background Paper by the National Breast Cancer Coalition Fund
"The Symbolic Disease of Our Time", BREAST CANCER,
A Report By Dr Morag Parnell http://www.scottishbreastcancercampaign.org/morag.html
"DU: A Scientific Perspective/ An Interview With Leuren Moret, Geoscientist"
By W. Leon Smith/Nathan Diebenow
link to www.axisoflogic.com
"Breast cancer meeting fails people of Hunters Point, San Francisco, Marin County"
by Bob Nichols http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/01/28/17987821.php
Cathy Garger is a freelance writer, antiwar activist, and a certified personal coach. An Associate Member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and founding Auxiliary member of Veterans for 9/11 Truth, Cathy has a B.S. in Psychology and can most often be found educating people about the synthetic "War On Terror" and the real reasons her government engages in wars. Living in the shadow of the national District of Crime, Cathy is constantly nauseated by the stench emanating from the nation's capital during the Washington, DC, federal work week. Cathy can be contacted at email@example.com .
contribute to this article
add comment to discussion