(Note: Pink font is my edit, as is bold font except for those found in "MYTH" Titles)
From the OP link: (To address but a few points, with counter points)
MYTH: Underwire Bras Cause Cancer
Some people think that by constricting breasts, underwire bras cause toxins to build up in breast tissue, leading to cancer. But they're wrong. "There is absolutely no truth linking the type of bra or breast pressure to cancer," says Dr. Axelrod. Adds Dr. Schnabel, "If underwire bras caused breast cancer, we would have seen a lot more breast cancer years ago, when women routinely wore tight corsets."
There's no evidence that tight corsets did not cause or contribute to breast cancer.
(sic)"...Health effects of the corset
European women throughout the Victorian era wore tightly laced corsets that were assuredly uncomfortable and in many cases actually injurious to health. Young girls were put in corsets to grow accustomed to the restrictiveness. Many illustrations and contemporary references from the turn of the century depict the painful process of tightening the corset. The corset wearer would lie on her stomach on the floor, while someone else put a foot on her back and pulled the laces. Women who perpetually wore tight corsets suffered from a variety of health problems, including deformed spines and ribcages, difficulty breathing, and compression of the internal organs. Around the turn of the century, several corset makers introduced new corsets designed by doctors. These aimed to support a woman's figure without undue compression."
Breast Cancer Research Milestones:
1902 -- The radical mastectomy was first performed and was the only treatment for breast cancer for more than 80 years. It involved removing a large portion of the chest, including the entire breast, lymph nodes, and chest wall muscles.
MYTH: Antiperspirants Cause Breast Cancer
For years, "they" have been saying that antiperspirants expose the breasts to toxins that, over time, cause breast cancer. But there doesn't seem to be any scientific evidence for this belief. "This topic has been studied," says Dr. Schnabel. "There is no evidence linking antiperspirant use to breast cancer, so women who use these products can continue to do so."
Firstly I think it's important to realize manufacturer liability. IF a definative study arose that proved antiperspirants caused breast cancer, the lawsuits that would fly from all directions, would be devastating. Therefore, to allude to, or to say there's no "direct evidence", provides an out to stating catagorically.
(sic)"...***Because estrogen has the ability to promote the growth of breast cancer cells, some scientists have suggested that the aluminum-based compounds in antiperspirants may contribute to the development of breast cancer (3).Some research has focused on parabens, which are preservatives used in some deodorants and antiperspirants that have been shown to mimic the activity of estrogen in the body’s cells (4). Although parabens are used in many cosmetic, food, and pharmaceutical products, according to the FDA, most major brands of deodorants and antiperspirants in the United States do not currently contain parabens. Consumers can look at the ingredient label to determine if a deodorant or antiperspirant contains parabens. Parabens are usually easy to identify by name, such as methylparaben, propylparaben, butylparaben, or benzylparaben. The National Library of Medicine’s Household Products Database also has information about the ingredients used in most major brands of deodorants and antiperspirants. This database is available at householdproducts.nlm.nih.gov/index.htm on the Internet.
The belief that parabens build up in breast tissue was supported by a 2004 study, which found parabens in 18 of 20 samples of tissue from human breast tumors (5). However, this study did not prove that parabens cause breast tumors (4). The authors of this study did not analyze healthy breast tissue or tissues from other areas of the body and did not demonstrate that parabens are found only in cancerous breast tissue (5). Furthermore, this research did not identify the source of the parabens and cannot establish that the buildup of parabens is due to the use of deodorants or antiperspirants."
(My note: This research does not claim that parabens do not contribute to breast cancer or tumors found in breast tissue. It's a matter of deductive reasoning for the female consumer. IF Parabins are found in deodorant and antiperspirant (labels), and a study found parabens in 18 of 20 samples of tissue from human breast tumors... The out in this case, is where the documentation after that finding then says, "However, this study did not prove that parabens cause breast tumors." But it's odd that such a high percentage of tumored breast tissue contained parabens, that are found in deodorants and antiperspirants. (What's also noted to be omitted in that report is whether or not those patients used antiperspirants and/or deodorants. My guess is, yes. (*End of my note* )
MYTH: Water Bottles Cause Breast Cancer
Can women get breast cancer by drinking water from a plastic bottle that's been left in a hot car? Some people say yes, arguing that cancer-causing dioxin leaches into the water. But there is no dioxin in plastic water bottles, experts say. And researchers still haven't found a "smoking gun" implicating another potential carcinogen found in some plastics, bisphenol A. In any case, BPA-free plastics are now available to hold food and drinks.
(Excerpt) (sic)"...***Bisphenol-A mimics the female hormone estrogen(***Remember the above note contained in the antiperspirant/deodorant point: "***Because estrogen has the ability to promote the growth of breast cancer cells, " ) and has been shown to cause defective cell division during development, even at extremely low doses. Source: On the Trail of Water Bottle Toxins
MYTH: Mammograms Cause Breast Cancer
Cancer can be caused by high doses of radiation, such as that delivered to survivors of atomic bomb blasts. But the dose of radiation from a modern mammogram is only 0.1 to 0.2 rad per picture - a tiny amount. How tiny? The amount of radiation delivered in a typical screening mammogram (in which four images are taken) is equal to the amount a woman receives simply by being exposed to the natural environment (background radiation) over a three-month period. "No studies have **conclusively tied mammography radiation to an increased risk of breast cancer," says Dr. Schnabel.
(*My Note: Again, liability. Note "No studies have conclusively tied mammography radiation to an increased risk of breast cancer..." This does not say that 1.) Studies have proven conclusively mammography radiation do not increase risk in breast cancer. 2.) It does not say that exposure to mammography radiation does not have an effect on cancer cells/tumors that may already be present in breast tissue. *End my note*)
(sic)"...Radiation Risks
Radiation from routine mammography poses significant cumulative risks of initiating and promoting breast cancer (1– 3). Contrary to conventional assurances that radiation exposure from mammography is trivial— and similar to that from a chest X-ray or spending one week in Denver, about 1/ 1,000 of a rad (radiation-absorbed dose)— the routine practice of taking four films for each breast results in some 1,000-fold greater exposure, 1 rad, focused on each breast rather than the entire chest (2). Thus, premenopausal women undergoing annual screening over a ten-year period are exposed to a total of about 10 rads for each breast. As emphasized some three decades ago, the premenopausal breast is highly sensitive to radiation, each rad of exposure increasing breast cancer risk by 1 percent, resulting in a cumulative 10 percent increased risk over ten years of premenopausal screening, usually from ages 40 to 50(4);risks are even greater for "baseline" screening at younger ages, for which there is no evidence of any future relevance. Furthermore, breast cancer risks from mammography are up to fourfold higher for the 1 to 2 percent of women who are silent carriers of the A-T (ataxia-telangiectasia) gene and thus highly sensitive to the carcinogenic effects of radiation (5); by some estimates this accounts for up to 20 percent of all breast cancers annually in the United States"
Bibliography reference for (4)National Academy of Sciences– National Research Council, Advisory Committee. Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR). Washington, D. C., 1972.
.
Ionizing Radiation Ionizing radiation is radiation with enough energy so that during an interaction with an atom, it can remove tightly bound electrons from the orbit of an atom, causing the atom to become charged or ionized.
(My Note: I read this to say that, and since all matter is comprised of innumerable atoms, that Ionizing radiation with enough energy (say in penetrating a large breast in Mammogram, can remove the tightly bound electrons from the atom's orbit and thus spread the atomic structures in tumor to other (atomic structured) breast tissue. I am not a physicist, so if a physicist is reading this, clarification afforded my lay opinion would be greatly appreciated.
)
(Source:British Journal of Radiology Editorial: )
(sic)"...Mammography screening and genetic disposition to radiation risk
The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) has recently considered breast screening in women with a family history and has issued clinical guidance, "Familial breast cancer: the classification and care of women at risk of familial breast cancer in primary, secondary and tertiary care" [7]. NICE recommends the use of MRI surveillance for women with a family history of breast cancer, for different age groups and for different degrees of risk.
There is evidence that exposure of the breast to ionizing radiation can lead to cancer induction [8]. "
As I've said before, links abound on the net. If you're diagnosed with cancer, be proactive in protecting your own health, by researching on your own anything of concern. Be it your doctors standing with the AMA, to those treatments they may prescribe for your treatment. Both the pros and con's. Even the medications that are prescribed. Ask your Pharmacist for a consult. And if that's not enough to satisfy your worry or curiosity, take a moment to go to the Library or a book store and peruse "The Physicians Desk Reference" , which contains information and side effects, etc... about every Pharmaceutical currently prescribed in the U.S.
You only get one life. Reading that something is a "Myth", may in and of itself be "Mythleading". If you're worth the suffering of treatment for cancer, you must know you're worth taking the time to know exactly what all that means to you, your health, your future.
