Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Scientists to Chemical Regulators: Stop Ignoring Boobs

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Health Donate to DU
 
n2doc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 10:39 AM
Original message
Scientists to Chemical Regulators: Stop Ignoring Boobs
By Florence Williams
Posted Monday, June 27, 2011, at 2:45 PM ET


The last quarter of a century has taught science some newfangled things about breasts. For one thing, they appear to be showing up earlier in young girls, with possible consequences for breast cancer later on. For another, the way they grow and develop varies from woman to woman, and—if lab animals are any indication—normal exposures to commercial chemicals can alter that process. The growing human breast is also more vulnerable than we thought. Data from atomic-bomb survivors in Japan show that it was adolescents—not grown women—near the explosions who were most likely to develop breast cancer in later years. Since then, there's been similar data for girls who were exposed to medical X-rays or radiation therapy, as well as research showing that the pesticide DDT, now banned but pervasive in the 1950s and 1960s, is associated with a higher risk of breast cancer in women exposed as girls.

So it may come as a surprise that the federal agencies responsible for public health don't routinely take childhood exposures into account when testing whether commercial chemicals cause mammary tumors. In fact, in many lab-animal tests, they don't bother to look at the mammary gland at all. Breast cancer may be the No. 1 killer of middle-aged women in the United States, but as a new set of reports makes clear, the breast is a major blind spot in federal chemical-safety policy. "They just throw the mammary glands in the trash can," says Ruthann Rudel, research director with the nonprofit Silent Spring Institute and lead author of one of the papers, a review of the latest science on mammary gland development and toxic exposures.

The reports, published last week in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, grew out of a 2009 workshop on mammary gland risk assessment, which involved scientists from federal and international agencies as well as independent groups. Breast cancer is just one of the areas federal agencies neglect, the reports show, along with health issues surrounding lactation and the timing of breast development in puberty. "Few chemicals coming into the marketplace are evaluated for these effects," state Rudel and her co-authors.
But blowing off these tests is a big mistake. The mammary gland—the breast's intricate milk-making structure—is uniquely sensitive to toxic chemicals, says Suzanne Fenton, a reproductive endocrinologist with the National Toxicology Program of the National Institutes of Health, and a co-author of the science review. In both rodents and humans, it starts to develop in the fetus, undergoes a colossal growth spurt at puberty, and doesn't fully develop until late pregnancy. During these times, its cells appear particularly vulnerable to carcinogens and other organ-altering substances. While lab rats and mice aren't perfect proxies for humans, their mammary glands undergo similar development patterns under similar hormonal influences, says Fenton.

more

http://www.slate.com/id/2297795/
Refresh | +12 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 10:46 AM
Response to Original message
1. They're great
And pollution destroys them.

Is our society crazy, or what?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
tk2kewl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 11:23 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. either i am turning into a dirty old man or...
young women are growing them a lot bigger than when i was younger.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 11:38 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Both. Me too.
I told this pretty young thing I was a dirty old man.

She said: no your'e not.

I said give me 10 minutes and I'll prove it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-11 12:41 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Too...
...I admit to having 'boob' envy. I want to save them all, and I think this ignoring of pollution's effects on something ALL of us love, is flat out stupid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Dec 21st 2024, 11:16 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Health Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC