Prevent Cancer Now

Banning minors from tanning beds is true cancer prevention

bradford — Mon, 14 May 2012 00:04:20 +0000

By PCN Staff

You may not realize it but in Canada more-and-more kids are regularly using tanning beds – often several times a week! Many know about the dangers of ultraviolet (UV) radiation, but peer pressure and concern for looking healthy far outstrip the risk. A recent Ipsos Reid poll of almost 1,500 Ontario students found that 21% of Grade 12 students were using tanning beds! These numbers are far too high, and, if unchecked, will lead to countless preventable cases of cancer in this generation of youth.

For most young people, appearance was the motivation behind their tanning (61 per cent said they look better with a tan). Many also said they chose to use tanning beds because their friends do it, and there is a disturbing ‘tanorexia’ myth at play that tanning makes them look skinnier!

Tanning salons directly – and very effectively – target youth through advertising online, in yearbooks and in schools, especially before prom and graduation. Of course the advertising doesn’t mention that tanning beds greatly increase the risk of melanoma, which can be a highly invasive cancer that can be difficult to treat.

Just recently new data emerged showing a spike in skin cancer among young adults, with tanning beds implicated as a factor. So why isn’t every province adopting precautionary measures?? It’s not only the right thing to do from a health and moral standpoint, it’s good public policy. A healthy population is a productive one, and every case of cancer we can prevent will save our already-burdened health care system hundreds of thousands of dollars.

So what’s happening across Canada? Here’s a run-down:

Nova Scotia has a ban in place since November 2010 on children under 19 using tanning beds
B.C. will introduce regulations this year that will make it illegal for children under 18 to use tanning salons
An Ontario Private Members Bill (tabled last week) looks to ban those under 18 from tanning
France and the U.K., have restrictions on youth tanning
New South Wales, Australia will ban tanning beds outright by 2014

ALL CANADIAN MINORS SHOULD BE RESTRICTED FROM TANNING BEDS

The World Health Organization has declared both kinds of ultraviolet radiation as Class 1 cancer-causing agents — the same carcinogenic rating given to tobacco and asbestos. Last year, an estimated 5,500 Canadians were diagnosed with melanoma and about 950 were expected to die from the disease. More than 74,000 were told they had other types of skin cancer.

An increasing number of medical and health groups, including the Canadian Dermatological Association and the Canadian Medical Association, are calling for a ban on minors using tanning beds. Let’s join them and TAKE ACTION today!

Hand written letters will make a difference!

If you live OUTSIDE British Columbia or Nova Scotia please drop-off or mail a hand-written letter explaining your concerns about teen tanning and expressing your support for a provincial ban.

If you ARE FROM British Columbia or Nova Scotia please send a hand-written letter and express your support for your government’s leadership on this important issue. Your Premier is setting an example for Canada and the world and they deserve our praise and support.

Please send us an email and let us know!

We know it is a lot easier to just click a link and send a pre-written email. But the reality is politicians will value your hand-written letter much higher than an email (no matter how well written).

As this is an extremely important issue – one that we can win – we urge you to Take Action and send your letter before you forget! You can find full contact information for your Premier and Health Minister here and your MPP/MLA here. If you have time please also send a hand-written letter to your provincial Health Minister and MLA/ MPP.

Please also consider making a donation to Prevent Cancer Now today. You can be assured your donation will go to towards true prevention initiatives like this one. We need you more than ever. Future generations need you.

RELATED:
Skin cancer warnings ignored, CBC Mews, May 11, 2012

Also in the Spring 2012 Issue of An Ounce …

Published: May 14th, 2012

Could women be dialing in breast cancer by carrying a cell phone in their bra?

bradford — Sun, 13 May 2012 23:56:55 +0000

By Devra Davis, PhD, MPH

Donna Jayne is a busy California mother of three dealing with the constant demands of being a conscientious wife and mother. This has kept her on the go, and on her cell phone… a lot.

For more than six years, this vegetarian and runner drove her children everywhere with her cell phone tucked into her sports bra. She used her hands-free headset and was on the phone for four to five hours a day. Often, her chest or ear would redden, but she thought little of it.

“Carrying my cell phone in my bra as a holster caused my breast cancer,” says Donna, who thought it would be completely safe to do so. As a matter of fact, she never even thought about whether it would be safe or not. Why would she? There are no labels, directions or cautions listed anywhere on a cell phone. If they weren’t safe, wouldn’t somebody have said something by now? Keeping the cell phone close to her body was a necessity.

Until one night, while lying next to her husband in bed, she felt a pulsing over her right breast. “I probably pulled a muscle while lifting weights,” she thought to herself. She mentioned it to her husband, who “felt it and freaked.” This prompted her to set the appointment with her OB. At first, he said it was probably nothing. Later, a biopsy announced the frightening diagnosis: invasive carcinoma with ductal and lobular features.

Donna was devastated. Her family was in shock. Her dedication to a healthy lifestyle made the diagnosis even more perplexing. She ate well, exercised and had no family history of cancer. She even took the DNA test that showed she did not have the so-called “breast cancer gene.” She also kept herself well connected to family and friends. Could it be that the connection she used, via a cellular phone, is the very reason that she is now faced with cancer?

Her husband was the first to notice how close the tumors were located to where she would commonly store her cell phone. The first doctor dismissed this link, saying there were no studies correlating cell phone radiation and breast cancer. Later, she met Dr. John West, a renowned physician with over 30 years of surgical and medical experience. He was noticing a pattern of patients coming to him with tumors in very odd locations, and he brought up the cell phone factor. Two other physicians agreed that the cell phone use is a likely cause for Donna’s tumors. “As a physician, I have reason for concern,” says Dr. West.

And what of all those women tucking their cell phones into their bras? Our bodies are truly electric. Electric impulses allow our muscles to move and our minds to think. But the steady, low electrical impulses that keep us alive may be disrupted by the pulsed signals that power today’s small microwave radio cell phones.

Physicists like Michael Shermer note in Scientific American that cell phone radiation is too weak to break ionic bonds that hold together our DNA and living cells. But microwave cell phone radiation from cell phones is constantly streaming back and forth to towers, and can cause cancer and other diseases by increasing the production of damaging free radicals in the bloodstream and weakening cell walls and cellular defenses.

Millions of young women around the world are putting phones next to their chests, not realizing what some may think is sexy for a moment could turn out to be dreadful decades later. If the physicians who have contacted me are correct that their young breast cancer cases came about from holding cell phones at the chest, that warm tingle from the cell phone pressed to the bosom could presage breast cancer in the future. Experimental studies show that cell phone radiation accelerates the growth of breast cancer cells. It’s time to get a headset, and take those phones out of your pockets and bras.

Far better to be safe now than sorry years later.

Devra Davis is the founder of the Environmental Health Trust, an organization dedicated to providing basic research and education about environmental health hazards and promote constructive policies locally, nationally and internationally. Dr. Davis lectures at Georgetown and Harvard, and is the Founding Director of the Center for Environmental Oncology and University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute. Her new book Disconnect (selected by TIME magazine as a top pick) provides shocking detail about cell phone radiation and your health.

Also in the Spring 2012 Issue of An Ounce …

Published: May 14th, 2012

We need your help

bradford — Sun, 13 May 2012 23:54:21 +0000

By Jake Cole

If you’re like me, you get a plea for money nearly everyday from some well-meaning organization. If you’re like me, you turn most of them down. You can only do so much.

So here I am, asking you to donate some money to our cause, cancer prevention. Why should you react to this request any differently?

Consider this:

Cancer is our #1 killer
Nearly half of us will get it. The treatments are brutal. Only 60% of those who get it will survive 5 years
Only 2% of our cancer expenditures go to preventing cancer
At least 80% of cancers are preventable
But few of us know how to prevent it

We are one of the few organizations that are trying to actively identify what actually causes cancer and how to prevent it! We try to get the latest information on cancer prevention and spread that information around. We try to influence our health systems, our governments and our major businesses to do more to prevent cancer. We can do a much better job of all that but we need financial assistance from people like you if we can hope to be more effective.

Please consider making a donation today to this worthy cause. We need you!

Jake Cole has been a longstanding advocate of health promotion and is Co-Chair of Prevent Cancer Now

Also in the Spring 2012 Issue of An Ounce …

Published: May 14th, 2012

PEI: Pesticide Exposure Island

bradford — Sun, 13 May 2012 23:52:56 +0000

By Sharon Labchuk

PHOTO: Potato producer spraying pesticides next to tourist cottages. Note the children’s playground equipment in the background.

Even the most conservative health professionals recommend we reduce our exposure to pesticides. And many Canadians have – after forcing their provincial governments to ban cosmetic lawn pesticides. But in Prince Edward Island, the most intensively sprayed province in the country according to Environment Canada, people inhale a cocktail of cancer-causing agricultural pesticides with every breath.

It’s been that way for decades and in spite of citizen agitation, massive fish kills, bad press and high cancer rates, government continues to support and subsidize farmers and the agriculture industry. The main crop in PEI is potatoes and much of it is processed into greasy, fattening, heart-clogging frozen products like french fries and sold under the McCain and Cavendish Farms brands.

The problem with potatoes is their susceptibility to potato blight when they’re grown in industrial monocultures. Blight spores floating in the air will land on leaf surfaces and if the weather conditions are warm and humid – typical of PEI summers – the spores proliferate and kill the plants. Industrial growers deal with this by keeping potato plants continually coated in a layer of pesticide so that blight spores are killed on contact.

These pesticides are three fungicides and represent 80% of PEI agricultural pesticide use, by weight of active ingredient. All three – mancozeb, chlorothalonil and metiram – are classed as carcinogens by various agencies, including the State of California on its list of “Chemicals Known to the State to Cause Cancer or Reproductive Toxicity”.

Compounding the problem is the population density of PEI. Everyone lives near a potato field. In the late 1980’s when subsidies were rampant, the number of potato acres increased by 70%. All of a sudden potatoes were grown in municipalities, next to schools, daycares and tourist cottages, and near almost every home in rural PEI. Fields are sprayed more than 20 times most summers, mainly to keep plants coated in poison.

The spray blows around on the wind and vapourizes from leaf surfaces for days after spraying so the air remains contaminated throughout the growing season. Environment Canada tested the air and found it was laced with pesticides, even in their control area on the end of a wharf away from potato fields. Chlorothalonil, especially, was found everywhere and in very high concentrations.

Inhalation isn’t the only avenue of exposure. Because the spray drifts and contaminated soil blows in the wind, the chemicals can end up in dust inside homes and on playground equipment, outdoor furniture, lawns and clothes on the line.

PEI is 100% dependent on groundwater for drinking water but the soil is sandy and overlies fractured sandstone bedrock, making the water highly vulnerable to contamination from above. Virtually all PEI groundwater is contaminated with nitrate, mostly from chemical fertilizer applied to potato fields. It’s been a serious problem for decades but government refuses to rein in the agriculture industry. Even if the use of chemical fertilizer ended today, it would take decades for the water to clear up. A Royal Commission on the Land in 1990 called nitrates in PEI water a “ticking time bomb”. Increasingly, exposure to nitrate-contaminated water is linked to cancer risk.

One doctor, new to the province, tried to draw attention to the high level of rare childhood cancers he observed in his patients in western PEI, a heavily sprayed potato region. He said in a Globe and Mail interview that he had never seen anything like the cancer in PEI. He eventually left the Island in frustration and sadness when government and the medical community gave him the brush off.

People in cities are worried about the amount of pesticide that might be on their food – and rightly so. But here in rural PEI, we breathe the poison right off the sprayers. Our drinking water is contaminated with nitrates and there is no reason not to believe that pesticides are also making their way into our water.

Successive PEI governments enable the contamination of our air, water, soil, and food with cancer-causing chemicals. They brag about building new cancer treatment facilities, but in May the sprayers will be out again, bold as brass, spraying their toxic loads into the air we breathe, knowing that government backs them every step of the way.

Sharon Labchuk is the coordinator of Earth Action and leader of the Green Party of PEI. Sharon is also a former member of the PCN Board.

Also in the Spring 2012 Issue of An Ounce …

Published: May 14th, 2012

Why men and women with breast cancer should avoid ELFs

bradford — Sun, 13 May 2012 23:50:44 +0000

By Magda Havas, BSc, PhD

The ELFs in the title do not refer to little green men but rather to extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields that are produced when we use electricity.

In 2001, the International Agency for Research on Cancer–IARC, classified low frequency electromagnetic fields as a possible human carcinogen. They based this classification primarily on studies showing that children who lived near power lines had a greater risk of developing leukemia.

However, if you look at the scientific literature, the evidence that extremely low frequency (ELF) fields contribute to breast cancer is much more powerful and convincing than it is for childhood leukemia. For that reason it is important that men and women–with a family history of breast cancer or those recovering from breast cancer–avoid these fields.

What does the science show?

Occupational Epidemiological Studies: Scientific studies document a higher rate of breast cancer among both men and women who are occupationally exposed to high electromagnetic fields. This includes electric utility trades, railway workers, engine drivers, welders, as well as telephone installers, repairers, and line workers and possibly textile workers who use industrial sewing machines. The longer the exposure, the greater the risk. The risk seems to be greater for premenopausal than postmenopausal women and for women with estrogen receptor-positive (ERP) breast cancer.

In Vitro Studies: Studies with human breast cancer cells (MCF-7) exposed to magnetic fields showed that these cells grew faster when exposed to 12 mG (strength of the magnetic field) than when exposed to 2 mG. Normal physiological concentrations of melatonin reduced the cancer growth, but therapeutic levels of tamoxifen were not nearly as effective when the cells were exposed to the magnetic field.

In Vivo Studies: Studies with laboratory rats showed that fields from 1 to 1000 mG resulted in a greater incidence of tumors, more tumors, larger tumors and a shorter latency period. Interestingly higher magnetic fields (1000 to 5000 mG) showed a beneficial effect indicating that mammary tumors in rats may be sensitive to high magnetic fields just as they are sensitive to ionizing radiation.

What is the mechanism?

The estrogen-melatonin-EMF link has been described by others (see review by Havas 2000) and is a plausible explanation of the mechanism involved. For estrogen receptor-positive (ERP) breast cancer cells, estrogen is like a fuel that promotes cell growth. One of the concerns for postmenopausal women taking estrogen supplements is that the estrogen may stimulate proliferation of pre-existing breast cancer cells.

When melatonin levels in the body are low, estrogen levels are elevated and this can stimulate breast cancer growth. Light and low frequency EMFs can reduce the melatonin production in the body and that is why light-at-night should also be avoided by those who have ERP breast cancer. Melatonin is a powerful antioxidant that inhibits the proliferation of cancerous cells. Anything that interferes with melatonin production interferes with the body’s ability to fight cancer and there is evidence that magnetic fields interfere with melatonin production.

The action of tamoxifen, one of the drugs used to treat breast cancer, is impaired in a 12 mG magnetic field. Results have been replicated around the world and extended to other cell lines including human glioma (brain) cells. Exposure to high electromagnetic fields may block the potential of this drug and thus reduce the effectiveness of chemotherapy for breast cancer treatment.

What produces ELFs?

Devices that use or distribute electricity generate low frequency electric and magnetic fields. This includes power lines, transformers, and substations outside the home as well as appliances that you plug into an electrical outlet. Electrical wiring within the home can also be a source of high EMFs.

Older homes that still have knob and tube wiring as well as homes that are improperly wired can generate high magnetic fields (levels above 5 mG). The best way to determine if you are exposed is to measure the magnetic field using a Gauss meter. Inexpensive Gauss meters are available (see info below).

Electric appliances generate two different fields: an electric field and a magnetic field. The electric field is generated as long as an appliance is plugged into an electrical outlet. The magnetic field is generated only when the appliance is turned on and a current is flowing. While both fields have been linked to cancers, the magnetic field is the one that has received the most scientific attention.

The strength of the magnetic field and the amount of time you are exposed are both important parameters when it comes to protecting your health. Hair dryers, power tools, and your electric stove generate high magnetic fields but are used for short periods. Computers, electric alarm clocks near your bed, electric blankets, and the heater in a waterbed, generate low magnetic fields, however you are exposed for longer periods each day.

Your bedroom should have the lowest EM fields since your body is regenerating during the night and you don’t want anything to interfere with that regeneration.

What can you do to minimize your exposure?

Outdoor Source: Don’t buy a home near high voltage transmission lines or a substation. A distance of at least 100 meters from transmission lines is necessary before the fields drop to background levels. Electricity distribution lines on city streets also generate a strong magnetic field. A bedroom on the second floor a few meters away from one of these distribution lines is not an ideal bedroom for anyone and certainly not for someone fighting cancer. In communities where the distribution lines are buried underground, high magnetic fields are measured immediately above these lines and near the box transformers on front lawns. The magnetic field drops off quickly with distance from these sources, so as long as children are not playing on top of these transformers, the magnetic field need not be a serious concern.
Indoor Wiring: If you have an older home or a home with some “homemade” wiring, contact a qualified electrician to check and fix any wiring problems. You can determine this to some extent if you use a gauss meter and measure the magnetic field in the middle of a room. Ideally levels should be below 1 mG. By turning on lights and other appliances if the magnetic field jumps significantly in the middle of a room you may need to have this checked. The electric panel has a high magnetic field that drops significantly within 1 to 2 meters. For this reason the electric panel needs to be kept away from beds and places where people spend hours each day. The magnetic field penetrates walls so a panel on the other side of the wall near your bed is not a good idea.
Appliances: Appliances that emit a high magnetic field are mentioned above. Keep your distance from these appliances as much as possible to minimize exposure. With an electrical blanket, warm up your bed and then unplug the blanket before you go to sleep. This eliminates both the electric field and the magnetic field. Turning the blanket off but leaving it plugged in eliminates only the magnetic field. With an electric clock near your bed, move it far enough away so you cannot turn it off. Better yet, get a wind-up or battery-power clock to wake you up in the morning.
Distance is your best friend when it comes to avoiding magnetic fields. The strength of the magnetic field decreases with distance, so placing a few inches or feet between you and an electric device will decrease your exposure.
On demand switches available. For those whose bedroom has a high magnetic field (greater than 1-2 mG) due to the wiring within the bedroom, you can turn the electricity off to the bedroom room at the electric panel or install an “on-demand” switch that will do this automatically. This allows you to sleep in a low magnetic field environment.
Shielding magnetic fields. It is possible to shield magnetic fields using mu metal, an aluminum alloy but this product is expensive and needs to be done professionally with proper monitoring.
Alternating magnetic fields: According to the Austrian Medical Association (2012) levels of alternating magnetic fields at or below 0.2 mG are within normal limits; between 0.2 and 1 mG are slightly above normal; between 1 and 4 mG are far above normal; and above 4 mG are very far above normal.

Useful resources:

Austrian Medical Association, 2012. Guidelines of the Austrian Medical Association for the diagnosis and treatment of EMF-related health problems and illnesses (EMF syndrome). Consensus paper of the Austrian Medical Association’s EMF Working Group.
Havas, M. 2000. Biological effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic energy: A critical review of the reports by the US National Research Council and the US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences as they relate to the broad realm of EMF bioeffects. Environ. Rev. 8: 173-253.
WHO, 2002. IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. Volume 80. Non-ionizing radiation, Part 1: Static and Extremely Low-Frequency (ELF) and Electric and Magnetic Fields, World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, IARC Press, Lyon France, 445 pages.
Gauss meter: A popular meter to measure the magnetic field that is easy to use is the Trifield meter. It is available at www.lessemf.com (U.S.) or at www.emfsolutions.ca (Canada) for about $200.
On-demand switches: www.safelivingtechnologies.ca (Canada)
Mu-metal for shielding magnetic fields: www.lessemf.com (U.S.)
For more information visit www.powerlinefacts.com and www.powerwatch.org.uk.

Magda Havas is an Associate Professor at Trent University, Peterborough, ON, Canada. for more information visit: www.magdahavas.com

Also in the Spring 2012 Issue of An Ounce …

Published: May 14th, 2012

It’s time for McGill to stop colluding with the asbestos industry

bradford — Sun, 13 May 2012 23:44:58 +0000

By Kathleen Ruff

More than a century ago, women factory inspectors in the UK reported that asbestos was causing terrible lung disease (asbestosis) amongst workers exposed to it. Over the first six decades of the 20th century, however, mining and use of asbestos soared, even as the medical evidence became increasingly clear that asbestos was causing not only asbestosis, but also mesothelioma and other deadly cancers. For most of the 20th century, Canada was a leading world exporter of asbestos, with the industry centered in Québec. A major player was Johns-Manville Canada, which owned the mine – now called Jeffrey mine – at the town of Asbestos, the largest open-pit asbestos mine in the world.

By the 1960s, the asbestos industry was worried that it could no longer suppress the evidence about the harm to health caused by asbestos and that, as this fact became known, the industry’s continued existence was in jeopardy. Ninety-five percent of all asbestos sold in the 20th century was chrysotile asbestos, with all other forms of asbestos representing only 5%. Today only chrysotile asbestos is sold. Since it could not continue denying the deaths being caused by asbestos, the industry chose, as a survival strategy, to claim that it was other forms of asbestos that were hazardous and caused asbestosis, mesothelioma and other cancers, while chrysotile asbestos was virtually harmless, unless a worker was exposed to astronomically high levels of chrysotile asbestos fibres over a long period of time.

Thus was born the asbestos industry’s propaganda strategy, still practiced today, which claims that chrysotile asbestos can be “safely used” under “controlled conditions”. All reputable scientific agencies reject this propaganda as misleading, dangerous and false.

The industry realized that it needed to give an appearance of scientific credibility to its propaganda and in 1965 the Québec Asbestos Mining Association (QAMA) began to “seek alliance with some university, such as McGill … so that authoritative background for publicity can be had” . To give an added appearance of scientific credibility, QAMA decided also to create its own scientific front organization – the Institute of Occupational & Environmental Health in Montreal – that would be controlled by QAMA and would allocate funds to research projects approved by the asbestos industry. The purpose of the Institute was clear. It was to be “independent of any other institution – university of governmental – so that its policy can be determined by the needs of the industry.”

More than half of QAMA’s funds were provided by Johns-Manville. The Chairman of QAMA’S Institute of Occupational & Environmental Health was Karl V. Lindell, Chairman of Canadian Johns-Manville Co. Limited. The other members of the Institute’s Board of Directors were the presidents and vice-presidents of the leading Québec asbestos companies.

The key recipient of research funding from QAMA’s Institute of Occupational & Environmental Health was Professor J.C. McDonald, head of McGill’s Dept. of Epidemiology. As noted in QAMA’s minutes, a central attraction of funding McDonald’s research was the fact that the industry would have guiding control: “A first and unanimous recommendation was the carrying out of the epidemiological survey proposed by Dr. McDonald. The consensus of opinion seemed to point out that the QAMA should take into its own hands the ways and means to conduct the necessary research instead of doing it through universities or letting it fall in the hands of the Government. As an example, it was recalled that the tobacco industry launched its own program and it now knows where it stands. Industry is always well advised to look after its own problems.”

QAMA provided over a million dollars for McDonald’s research, which followed the health of 11,000 miners and mill workers in Quebec between 1966 and the late 1990s. McDonald’s research claimed that chrysotile asbestos was virtually harmless, unless workers were exposed to astronomically high levels of asbestos fibres, and that mesothelioma was essentially not caused by chrysotile itself but rather by tiny amounts of tremolite asbestos, that were present in some Quebec mines. McDonald did not, however, provide any data showing in which mines tremolite was present and in which mines it was not. According to McDonald, exposure of 45 f/cc (fibres per cubic centimeter pf air) of chrysotile asbestos fibres for 20 years would cause no harm to a worker’s health.

McDonald’s research was extraordinarily valuable to the asbestos industry in defeating efforts by unions in Québec and across Canada to obtain better safety regulations to protect workers from being exposed to high levels of asbestos fibres. In 1975, when asbestos miners and millers in Québec went on strike for better working conditions, the permitted exposure level (which was not even enforced) was 10 fibres of asbestos per cubic centimetre of air (10 f/cc), which is one hundred times greater exposure to asbestos fibres than is permitted across Canada, in the US and in Europe today and a thousand times higher than permitted in several European countries. The biggest obstacle the workers faced was McDonald’s research, which claimed that high exposure levels caused no harm.

McDonald’s service to the asbestos industry went to such an extent that he even personally intervened in foreign countries to oppose improvement of health and safety regulations to protect workers from asbestos harm. In 1972, the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) was holding hearings on the recommendation by the US National Institute for Occupational Safety & Health and the US trade union movement to lower permitted exposure levels for US workers to 2 f/cc, which standard had already been enacted in the UK. The Senior Vice-President of Johns-Manville, Henry Moreno, made a presentation to the OSHA hearing opposing the stricter safety regulation, arguing that it would cost Johns-Manville capital expenditures of 12 million dollars and operating expenditures of 5 million dollars per year, if the proposal to lower the permitted asbestos exposure level to 2 f/cc were to be approved by OSHA. After Mr. Moreno’s presentation, Prof. McDonald, using his prestige as the Chair of the Department of Epidemiology of McGill, then made a presentation in support of Mr. Moreno’s position that the permitted exposure level not be lowered, recommending an exposure regulation of between 5 and 9 f/cc.

Furthermore, Prof. McDonald told the OSHA hearing that he had no connection whatsoever with any asbestos company. This is categorically untrue. Prof. McDonald was, at the time, working closely with Johns-Manville and his research was being financed by Johns-Manville and the Québec Asbestos Mining Association.

In 1999, Prof. McDonald made a presentation to a Parliamentary Commission of the Brazilian Parliament, arguing that chrysotile asbestos can be safely used and opposing a proposal to ban asbestos. In 2000, McDonald appeared as a witness at a hearing of a World Trade Organization tribunal to argue that countries should not have the right to ban chrysotile asbestos as, McDonald claimed, chrysotile asbestos is virtually innocuous and can be safely used.

Prof. McDonald continues today to claim that chrysotile asbestos is virtually harmless and he encourages its use in developing countries. In 2009, Prof. McDonald, who now lives in the UK, returned to McGill, where he was given an Emeritus Research award.

In 2003, Dr. David Egilman of Brown University published an article, ABC, Anything But Chrysotile, putting forward evidence arguing that McDonald’s research was flawed, lacked transparency and contained manipulated data. Dr. Egilman had, in fact, in 2002 made a complaint to McGill alleging possible fraud and possible fabrication of data by Prof. J.C. McDonald. McGill dismissed the complaint in two brief paragraphs of a letter of January 2004, which provided no meaningful response to Dr. Egilman’s allegations but simply stated that Prof. McDonald followed the “highest scientific standards”.

The financing of McDonald’s research by QAMA, the inappropriate and, indeed, criminal behaviour by QAMA executives to suppress evidence of disease amongst Québec asbestos workers, and the allegations raised by Dr. Egilman were examined by a CBC documentary in February this year. For a second time, on February 10, 2012, a complaint was submitted to McGill expressing concerns about Prof. McDonald’s research. This time, the complaint was submitted by dozens of prominent health researchers and medical experts from across Canada and around the world. The scientists called for a proper, transparent, independent investigation. An additional letter was sent to the McGill Board of Governors by asbestos victims, asking that McGill stop supporting the use of asbestos, as it has done in the building of its new mega-hospital, stop inviting a leading Québec asbestos exporter, Roshi Chadha, to sit on its Board of Governors, and that McGill support the call of the World Health Organization for an end to any use of asbestos.

To date, McGill has not responded to the request by asbestos victims or to the request by leading scientists for a proper, transparent, independent investigation. Instead, the president of McGill’s Board of Governors put out a statement lavishly praising asbestos exporter, Roshi Chadha, and encouraging her to return to McGill’s Board. It seems that McGill has little respect and little sympathy for asbestos victims. McGill officials also made a series of self-serving and inaccurate statements, praising and defending Prof. McDonald. A secretive, internal review was carried out by the present Chair of McGill’s Department of Epidemiology. Subsequently, the Vice-Principal (Health Affairs) of McGill, stated that the review had not found evidence of research misconduct, but that that the Faculty did not currently have all required records and data in hand to assess definitively in regard to research integrity. On April 4, the Vice-Principal stated that he had consequently asked for additional guidance from the office of McGill’s Research Integrity Officer.

The Research Integrity Officer is responsible for upholding McGill’s “Regulation on the Conduct of Research” which requires that all research and scholarship:

is informed by the principles of honesty, integrity, trust, accountability and collegiality;
meets high scientific and ethical standards;
is conducted with honest and thoughtful inquiry, rigorous analysis, and accountability for the use of professional standards; and
seeks to increase knowledge in ways that do not harm but which benefit society.

It is surely long overdue for McGill to hold an independent, transparent, thorough inquiry of the allegations of improper influence of the asbestos industry over the work of Prof. McDonald. It is surely long overdue for McGill to end its collusion with the asbestos industry. As Prof. Fernand Turcotte, professor emeritus of Public Health and Preventive Medicine with Laval University’s Faculty of Medicine, states “McGill has to make it universally known that it in no way supports the propaganda efforts of the industry and that under no circumstances should the peddlers of asbestos go around the world saying that they are supported in their statements by McGill University (research).”

Kathleen Ruff is a major contribute to PCN’s Ban Asbestos Campaign and is founder of RightOnCanada.ca and the author of Exporting Harm: How Canada markets asbestos to the developing world. Click here to read more from Kathleen Ruff.

Related:

Asbestos Walk for Truth to take place in Powell River, BC on June 10, 2012
The long, lethal shadow of asbestos , Reuters, May 11, 2012
Pro-asbestos lobby group shuts its doors, Montreal Gazette, April 30, 2012
Manitoba town surprised by asbestos dumping, QMI News Agency, March 4, 2012
Asbestos registry needed: cancer patient, CBC News, February 28, 2012
Can citizens stop a project to revive Canada’s deadly asbestos trade?, An Ounce (Winter 2012)
Sign petition – make pro-Asbestos Stephan Schmidheiny “Persona Non Grata” at Rio+20
PCN Ban Asbestos Campaign Webpage

Also in the Spring 2012 Issue of An Ounce …

Published: May 14th, 2012

Camille’s yummy Four-Minute Freezer Fudge

bradford — Sun, 13 May 2012 23:44:00 +0000

By Camille Labchuk

I’m excited to share a recipe that I threw together: four-minute freezer fudge. I’ve been making various versions of this freezer fudge for a while — it’s impossibly easy, delicious, rich and chocolaty. Usually, I don’t even bother to measure out the ingredients, but I did today, just for you folks! Here’s the recipe:

Ingredients:

1/2 cup almond butter
1/4 cup raw cacao powder
2 tbsp coconut oil
3 tbsp agave nectar
1/4 cup chopped walnuts
pinch of sea salt
chia seeds
coconut flakes
cashews

Directions:

Combine almond butter, coconut oil, cacao powder, agave, walnuts and sea salt in a bowl until thoroughly combined.
Spoon fudge mixture into mini silicone muffin cups (they deliver perfect, individualized chunks of fudge without the mess of cutting a whole pan into squares).
Top each cup with one cashew and sprinkle with chia seeds and coconut flakes.
Place cups in freezer for 15 minutes to firm up.
Peel off the muffin cups once fudge is firm, and enjoy!

Camille Labchuk represents Ontario on the Green Party’s Federal Council and recently finished her law studies at the University of Toronto. The recipe above is the first in a new series from “Camille’s Yummy Desert Cancer Prevention Cookbook” that will appear in subsequent issues of An Ounce!

Also in the Spring 2012 Issue of An Ounce …

Published: May 14th, 2012

Greening your beauty regime for a healthy body and a healthy planet

bradford — Sun, 13 May 2012 23:42:06 +0000

By Laura Woodward

PHOTO: Sierra Club’s new “Healthy Beauty for Life Cosmetic Kit”

When thinking about reducing your footprint on the earth and improving your health, your cosmetic bag may be the last place you think of that needs a green makeover. But scientists have discovered that cosmetics and personal care products are making their way into our environment when they are washed away during baths, showers and hand washing.

How many cosmetics and personal care products do you and your teenagers use on a daily basis? Chances are, your family is slathering hundreds of different chemicals onto your skin, lips, hair and nails every day.

A recent study on Triclosan, a chemical commonly found in cosmetics, toothpaste, and anti-bacterial soaps, established that the chemical is very toxic to the environment and harms aquatic ecosystems. There are also strong suspicions that it may adversely affect human health, though according to Health Canada, more research is needed.

So what does this mean for us? While our federal government is currently drafting a plan to limit (and perhaps eliminate) the use of Triclosan in personal care products, the Sierra Club Canada Foundation is urging everyone to avoid toxic chemicals by becoming a critical shopper. Triclosan is only one of hundreds of chemicals found in cosmetics and other personal care products!

To help parents and teens give their cosmetic bags a green makeover, Sierra Club Canada Foundation has created a Healthy Beauty for Life Cosmetic Kit (click here to see a large photo).

Why Give Your Cosmetic Kit a Green Makeover?

When teenagers are first experimenting with makeup, it is important for parents to teach their children to think critically about the ingredients they are absorbing into their bodies and washing away into the environment. In a study by the Environmental Working Group, several toxic chemicals found in cosmetics were also found in the bodies of adolescent girls. The chemicals, including parabens and phthalates, are linked to cancer and hormone disruption. Using cosmetics or personal care products containing hormone disrupting chemicals is especially dangerous for teens as they are developing at this age. Hormones guide their development and any changes in hormone levels may affect their growth. Parents want to keep their kids safe and healthy, so limiting their exposure to such risks should be given more consideration.

Another problem is that little research has been done to find out what happens when we’re exposed to several different products containing hundreds of different chemicals in combination. Some chemicals may not cause any harm on their own until another type of chemical is added to the mix.

The Healthy Beauty for Life cosmetic Kit contains cosmetic and personal care products, information, samples and coupons from our eco-friendly, non-toxic partner companies. To find out more about the Healthy Beauty for Life campaign and Cosmetic Kit (and how to get your own kit today) visit our website!

Laura Woodward is a Campaigner with Sierra Club Canada

Related:

CBC Marketplace: What is Triclosan?
Healthy Beauty for Life, An Ounce (Winter 2012)
Environmental Working Group – Background Info on Triclosan

Also in the Spring 2012 Issue of An Ounce …

Published: May 14th, 2012

It’s almost lawn time!

bradford — Sun, 13 May 2012 23:40:52 +0000

By Mark MacKenzie

The first signs of spring conjure up feelings of joy for many who look forward to another season of growing lush plants, enjoying delicious homegrown or local vegetables, and smelling the sweet aromas of Mother Nature’s gift of plants. On the other hand, there are far too many who shudder at the thought of what problems their lawn will have this year and what unpronounceable chemical solutions that they will be tempted to enact. There are a couple of key ways that you can maintain your lawn so that you will reduce your frustration, increase your enjoyment and eliminate your exposure to harmful chemicals.

Harmful? Wait, aren’t they approved by Health Canada? Most of the contents of a pesticide are trade secrets and the exact contents are kept from the public. The formulants that accompany the main ingredient targeting the weed or insect include many suspected and confirmed carcinogens. But….I can’t tell you what they are. That information is protected by Health Canada.

OK, so what can you do to keep a decent looking lawn and to stay away from synthetic chemicals? Organic lawn care is about growing grass properly. The plethora of advertising about lawn products available throughout the year often reminds you of yet another insect or weed that is poised to claim your green space. So we tend to think that our mission is to kill. But let’s try the approach of growing properly.

Instead of fertilizing so much, try over-seeding!

Over-seeding means adding grass seed to existing turf. The main grasses used in lawns in northern climates are Kentucky Bluegrass, Fescues and Perennial Rye grasses. If your lawn has been sodded, it would be 100% Kentucky Bluegrass. If you have a lawn that was seeded or if your lawn is long established, it probably includes a mix of these types of grasses but the Kentucky Bluegrass is most likely the dominant grass type. It winters well but does not handle drought well. Your lawn will be more resilient to insect infestation, weed infestation, and drought if you introduce Perennial Rye and Fescue grasses into your lawn.

Spring is a very good time to over-seed. Put it on your calendar to do this again in mid to late August as this is an even better time to over-seed. This is because the grass seeds have virtually no weed seeds to compete with and the temperature does not fluctuate as much.

You are best to give your lawn a good stiff raking or dethatching before over-seeding. Grass seed likes to be in contact with soil of course, not with the decaying grass clippings or leaves sitting on top of the soil. Topdressing with small amounts of soil over top of your seed is also helpful but any more than ¼ of an inch will smother the existing grass.

Raise your mower to 3”

If you don’t take this step, you will waste all other efforts to green up your lawn or to grow grass instead of weeds. Seriously, I can’t tell you how many people have destroyed otherwise good efforts by cutting their lawn down to two inches or less. Why is it so important to raise your mower?

Long blades means long roots!

As soon as you cut the grass blade, it immediately stops root growth. Grass needs a certain length of blade in order engage in the photosynthesis it needs to survive. Also, if you have long enough roots, you may end up with a grub infestation later on that you will never know about! If there is plenty of root, grubs may eat some of the root, but not enough to destroy the plant. Of course, if certain animals and birds find out your lawn is loaded with delicious grubs, you will have ‘collateral’ damage where they tear up the turf to find the grub.

For now, raise your mower and grow long roots. This will protect your lawn from drought and insect damage and weeds because most weed seeds need direct sunlight in order to germinate. The thicker your lawn is, the more that the soil is shaded. All lawns are full of weed seeds, yet they only become weeds if the conditions are right for them to grow. And for most weeds, step one is sunlight. So don’t blame a neighbour for weeds coming onto your lawn since the seeds are probably on your lawn already. For proof of this, just look around your neighbourhood and beside roads, and, generally, the more sunny a patch of lawn is, the more dandelions you will see.

There are several reasons (and myths) that people are tempted to cut the lawn short:

“When I cut it short I don’t have to cut it again for a while.”
You probably over-fertilized it in the spring and the excessive growth is causing you extra work!

“By cutting it short I will make the dandelions suffer.”
Well, yes, you will win that round as they lie chopped up on the ground and yes, that will yield a certain satisfaction which may even be worth it, but in reality you have opened the soil to enough sunlight for new ones to germinate.

“It looks neater when I cut it short, just like hair.”
Hey, let’s not knock long hair. I was rather proud of my afro in the 70’s and some say that I even looked like a walking dandelion. If you find yourself alone in a sea of short lawn cutters, stand up and be proud of your three inch grass! When they are fighting with the hose all summer, you will have the greenest lawn on the block in the middle of the worst drought. It will recover the quickest after a drought, whether or not you watered it.

How long is too long? Don’t let it grow past four inches, as then you will grow a thick stalk on the bottom which will not have enough nodes on the blade for proper photosynthesis, and it will feel rather stubby on the bottom of your feet. But take heart, if you follow a moderate and organic fertilization program, your lawn will not take off on you and grow too quickly. You are always in danger of forcing too much growth when you use a high nitrogen chemical fertilizer, including most that are still marketed as ‘slow release’.

Our outdoor grass spaces are meant to be enjoyed and with a mix of grasses and longer grass blades, you will be able to avoid many common lawn problems and also be saving money on your watering bill. But perhaps most importantly, the more that we can reduce your exposure to synthetic chemicals, the healthier you and your surroundings will be.

Mark MacKenzie is a former member of the PCN Board and is the former President of the Organic Landscape Alliance. Mark lives in White Lake, Ontario.

Related:

Visit PCN’s Ban Pesticides Campaign Webpage
“Lawn & Garden Pesticides: Reducing Harm” video now available! This unique 10 minute DVD sets out the scientific evidence linking common household pesticides to a variety of serious illnesses. It offers information from the Ontario College of Family Physicians’ ground-breaking pesticide study and sets out safe lawncare alternatives. Excellent for showing at public meetings or for educating local politicians. Watch it online here here or order a copy by contacting Farrah Khan by email at: farrah@cape.ca

Also in the Spring 2012 Issue of An Ounce …

Published: May 14th, 2012

Sandra Steingraber, Living Downstream, and the fight against fracking

bradford — Sun, 13 May 2012 23:39:03 +0000

By Chanda Chevannes

PHOTO: Sandra Steingraber receiving the prestigious Heinz Award in November 2011

“I have come to believe that extracting natural gas from shale using the newish technique called hydrofracking is the environmental issue of our time. And I think you should, too.”
—Sandra Steingraber, PhD

I first heard the term fracking in 2010 during the weeks leading up to the world premiere of Living Downstream, my documentary adaptation of Sandra Steingraber’s acclaimed book on cancer and the environment. The film is shot across North America, but a big portion of the film takes place in upstate New York, where Sandra now lives with her family. And our premiere was scheduled to happen in Ithaca. So it made sense for Sandra to send me “Shale Game,” her first piece for Orion Magazine about fracking. In the essay, Sandra describes the village in which she lives, the sidewalks made of shale that line her street, and the environmental health threats that fracking poses to this lovely community. I was amazed by what I read. If you don’t know much about fracking, you should read it. You will be amazed too.

Slickwater hydraulic fracturing (also known as fracking)—combined with horizontal drilling—is a fairly new method of natural gas extraction. The process involves pumping thousands of gallons of high-pressure fresh water containing a mixture of toxic chemicals deep underground, into the shale layer of the Earth’s crust. This pumping fractures the shale and releases bubbles of methane (natural gas) trapped there. At the same time, it unleashes countless toxic substances, relies on incredible numbers of diesel-powered trucks, and forever poisons vast quantities of water.

Fracking is beyond risky. It is an uncontrolled experiment that turns the earth inside out, releases carcinogens into communities, and ignores the rights of future generations. Fracking is contamination without consent.

Because Living Downstream was already completed by the time I learned about fracking, the film does not address the topic of fracking at all. And yet the two are profoundly interconnected. The film is about the ways in which toxic chemicals travel through our air, water, and soil. Fracking makes use of toxic chemicals and then sends them on a similar journey into the wider environment. The film is about the ways in which toxic chemicals are thought to be affecting human health and contributing to the burden of cancer. Fracking makes use of chemicals that are known to cause cancer—not to mention neurological disorders and reproductive harm.

The film is about the creation of toxic chemicals. And here’s something most people don’t know: fracking is the starting point for the creation of many chemical carcinogens. The methane and other hydrocarbons liberated from shale by fracking are not just burned for energy. They are used as building blocks for PVC plastic, farm chemicals, and solvents. Fracking is ushering in a boom in petrochemical production, as a new report called “Petrochemicals” in Chemical & Engineering News illustrates. (Sandra will be writing more about this topic in the future.)

Mostly, my film is about Sandra Steingraber’s work to break the silence about the link between environment and human health. Fracking—and specifically the threat posed by fracking to her home of New York State—has kicked Sandra’s environmental health work into high gear. She is standing on the frontlines with thousands of grassroots activists and is asking the rest of us to join the fight against fracking.

In November 2011, Teresa Heinz and the Heinz Family Foundation presented Sandra with a prestigious Heinz Award for her work calling public attention to the effects of toxic chemicals on human health. The Heinz Awards celebrate individuals who have had a meaningful and enduring impact with their efforts to improve the lives of others. In her statement, The Heinz Award and What I Plan to Do With It, Sandra dedicated the $100,000 award to the ongoing grassroots struggle against fracking. In March 2012, Sandra announced that the Heinz Award would be used to launch New Yorkers Against Fracking, a statewide coalition.

Just as Sandra’s words—written and spoken—have been a powerful tool in the fight against fracking, I hope our film can also serve in this important fight. I hope you’ll join the fight too. To quote Sandra: Bring what you can.

Chanda Chevannes is a Toronto-based documentary filmmaker and writer. Her first feature-length documentary, Living Downstream, is currently available for public screenings. The Living Downstream Educational DVD is also being made available to grassroots anti-fracking groups at a discounted rate.

Related:

A Rock and a Hard Place: The energy industry calls fracking a game changer. Environmentalists compare it to coal and oil, Walrus Magazine, December 2011
Fracking, shale gas and cancer: Risks at every step, An Ounce e-Newsletter, February 2012
When Cowboys Cry: In today’s Wild West, energy corporations are the new outlaws, Orion Magazine, May/June 2011
Fracking, shale gas and health: A case for precaution, An Ounce e-Newsletter, June 2011
Shale Game: Playing with unknowns underground, Orion Magazine, June 2010
What the Frack?, Sierra Club Canada

Also in the Spring 2012 Issue of An Ounce …

Published: May 14th, 2012