A short piece in the CBS News website gives us ten common misconceptions about breast cancer and explains why they aren't true:

www.cbsnews.com/2300-204_162-10005037.ht...

I'd heard the one about antiperspirants and knew it wasn't so, but the fact that there was this idea that mammograms could cause cancer was new to me.

(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.

Oct 4, 2010 -- 8:46PM, mountain_man wrote:

Oct 4, 2010 -- 4:56PM, solfeggio wrote:

...I'd heard the one about antiperspirants and knew it wasn't so, but the fact that there was this idea that mammograms could cause cancer was new to me.

As you can see from another posting in this thread that such beliefs, once they're out there, are impossible to dispel. They take on a life of their own and no amount of rational arguments can have any effect.

That's the kind of reply that occurs when entrenched thinking proves itself irrational and incapable of learning anything, despite resources that prove the trench is so deep as to be cavernous.

What guarantee do we have it is not so?

How often do we hear about a drug that's had all the research etc. and been on a market for a long time only to be told of its life threatening side effects.

And if all things mentioned do not cause you cancer, being chemically explosive as they are, can you be sure it is not going to give you some other disease?

I would read it all and take some notice. Sickness and disease is big business.

Oct 5, 2010 -- 6:27AM, Dostojevsky wrote:

What guarantee do we have it is not so?

How often do we hear about a drug that's had all the research etc. and been on a market for a long time only to be told of its life threatening side effects.

Look back at all those drugs for the last few decades. They got "fast track" approval from a gutted FDA. That's a perfect example of how "deregulation" is not working.

And if all things mentioned do not cause you cancer, being chemically explosive as they are, can you be sure it is not going to give you some other disease?

What do you mean by "chemically explosive"? If those things mentioned did cause illness, you'd know about it by now.

I would read it all and take some notice. Sickness and disease is big business.

The conclusion one should take from the OP is that there are many myths out there that will not die. Their only support is paranoia.