Mens Health Blog. Medical Blog » Cancer

PAYING THE PRICE FOR LOOKING GOOD – NITROSAMINES

admin — Tue, 26 Jul 2011 14:16:41 +0000

One of the cosmetic toxins that consumer advocates are most concerned about is nitrosamines, which contaminate a wide variety of cosmetic products. In the 1970′s nitrosamine contamination of cooked bacon and other nitrite-treated meats became a public-health issue, and the food industry, which is more strictly regulated than the cosmetic industry, has since drastically lowered the amount of nitrosamines found in these processed meats. But today nitrosamines contaminate cosmetics at significantly higher levels than were once containe$$$1[ bacon.

The FDA has long known that nitrosamines in cosmetics pose a risk to public health. On April 10, 1979, FDA commissioner Donald Kennedy called on the cosmetic industry to "take immediate measures to eliminate, to the extent possible, NDELA [a potent nitrosamine] and any other N-nitrosamine from cosmetic products.” Since that warning, however, cosmetic manufacturers have done little to remove N-nitrosamines from their products, and the FDA has done even less to monitor them.

Individual FDA scientists are speaking out. The FDA’s Donald Harvey and Hardy Chou proclaimed that the continued use of these ingredients contradict what should be a social goal: keeping “human exposure to N-nitrosamines to the lowest level technologically feasible, by reducing levels in all personal care products.”

*43/165/1*

THE BASICS FOR SAFE NON-TOXIC CLEANING SOLUTIONS (CREAMY SOFT SCRUBBER; WINDOW CLEANER; OVEN CLEANER)

admin — Sat, 14 May 2011 15:04:47 +0000

Simply pour about 1/2 cup of baking soda into a bowl, and add enough liquid detergent to make a texture like frosting. Scoop the mixture onto a sponge, and wash the surface. This is the perfect recipe for cleaning the bathtub because it rinses easy and doesn’t leave grit. Note: Add 1 teaspoon of vegetable glycerin to the mixture and store in a sealed glass jar, to keep the product moist. Otherwise just make as much as you need at a time.

1/4 —1/2 teaspoon liquid detergent 3 tablespoons vinegar 2 cups water spray bottle

Put all the ingredients into a spray bottle, shake it up a bit, and use as you would a commercial brand. The soap in this recipe is important. It cuts the wax residue from the commercial brands you might have used in the past.

1 cup or more baking soda water

a squirt or two of liquid detergent

Sprinkle water generously over the bottom of the oven, then cover the grime with enough baking soda so that the surface is totally white. Sprinkle some more water over the top. Let the mixture set overnight. You can easily wipe up the grease the next morning because the grime will have loosened. When you have cleaned up the worst of the mess, dab a bit of liquid detergent or soap on a sponge, and wash the remaining residue from the oven. If this recipe doesn’t work for you it is probably because you didn’t use enough baking soda and/or water.

*33/165/1*

GEOGRAPHIC OF CANCER: UNITED KINGDOM

admin — Tue, 18 Jan 2011 15:14:54 +0000

The distribution of cancers within individual countries can be very striking. Sometimes these distributions can attract a great deal of publicity. Perhaps the best known example in the United Kingdom is the relationship of childhood leukaemia, which is reported to be unusually high in the vicinity of nuclear power stations: the occurrence of childhood leukaemia around the nuclear processing plant at Sellafield has been reported to be as much as ten times the national average, whereas in the neighbourhood of other nuclear installations the incidence is about 20 per cent above the national average. The explanation for this is still not clear. The association with parental employment in the nuclear installations has been the cause of much discussion but is not yet settled. The arguments are usually based on very small numbers of cases which makes it difficult to draw firm conclusions.

Very detailed studies of the distribution of leukaemias and lymphomas in England and Wales have been carried out by the Leukaemia Research Fund Centre for Clinical Epidemiology run by our colleagues Ray Cartwright and Freda Alexander. One of the most striking features of their analysis is that many of these conditions have a relatively high incidence rate in the county of Somerset. The explanation for this is not forthcoming, but they have studied it in great detail and it appears that the high rates are real and call for further study to see if explanations can be found. It should be emphasized that these are relatively uncommon diseases and that while the higher incidence rates in Somerset are a source of concern and justify very detailed further work, in absolute terms the number of people affected is quite small and should not be a cause for general alarm in that part of the world.

What about commoner cancers? Lung cancer is the commonest cancer in men and careful studies of its geographic distribution in the United Kingdom have been performed for many years. The map is taken from a paper written by Dr Tony Swerdlow in the British Journal of Cancer in 1991 and shows the relative frequency of lung cancer in young men in the 1970s and 1980s, with the darker spots showing higher concentrations. The strikingly high concentrations of lung cancer in the north of England are obvious and this is a relatively new finding, having been less apparent in earlier decades in this century. We do not know why this distribution should occur, although we believe that it is likely to have something to do with the pattern of smoking. It certainly represents important information for those seeking to plan health care. Similar maps can be constructed for most cancer sites in countries like the United Kingdom and the European Community where accurate records are kept. For cancer of the breast in women the high concentration in the United Kingdom in general is apparent and for cancer of the oesophagus (gullet) in men the very high incidence in Dorthern France is clear (Figure to). The causes of the high incidence of cancer of the breast in the UK are not at all clear but the cause of cancer of the oesophagus in men in northern France is very likely to be associated with alcohol and tobacco use.

*24\194\4*

GEOGRAPHIC OF CANCER: UNITED KINGDOMThe distribution of cancers within individual countries can be very striking. Sometimes these distributions can attract a great deal of publicity. Perhaps the best known example in the United Kingdom is the relationship of childhood leukaemia, which is reported to be unusually high in the vicinity of nuclear power stations: the occurrence of childhood leukaemia around the nuclear processing plant at Sellafield has been reported to be as much as ten times the national average, whereas in the neighbourhood of other nuclear installations the incidence is about 20 per cent above the national average. The explanation for this is still not clear. The association with parental employment in the nuclear installations has been the cause of much discussion but is not yet settled. The arguments are usually based on very small numbers of cases which makes it difficult to draw firm conclusions.Very detailed studies of the distribution of leukaemias and lymphomas in England and Wales have been carried out by the Leukaemia Research Fund Centre for Clinical Epidemiology run by our colleagues Ray Cartwright and Freda Alexander. One of the most striking features of their analysis is that many of these conditions have a relatively high incidence rate in the county of Somerset. The explanation for this is not forthcoming, but they have studied it in great detail and it appears that the high rates are real and call for further study to see if explanations can be found. It should be emphasized that these are relatively uncommon diseases and that while the higher incidence rates in Somerset are a source of concern and justify very detailed further work, in absolute terms the number of people affected is quite small and should not be a cause for general alarm in that part of the world.What about commoner cancers? Lung cancer is the commonest cancer in men and careful studies of its geographic distribution in the United Kingdom have been performed for many years. The map is taken from a paper written by Dr Tony Swerdlow in the British Journal of Cancer in 1991 and shows the relative frequency of lung cancer in young men in the 1970s and 1980s, with the darker spots showing higher concentrations. The strikingly high concentrations of lung cancer in the north of England are obvious and this is a relatively new finding, having been less apparent in earlier decades in this century. We do not know why this distribution should occur, although we believe that it is likely to have something to do with the pattern of smoking. It certainly represents important information for those seeking to plan health care. Similar maps can be constructed for most cancer sites in countries like the United Kingdom and the European Community where accurate records are kept. For cancer of the breast in women the high concentration in the United Kingdom in general is apparent and for cancer of the oesophagus (gullet) in men the very high incidence in Dorthern France is clear (Figure to). The causes of the high incidence of cancer of the breast in the UK are not at all clear but the cause of cancer of the oesophagus in men in northern France is very likely to be associated with alcohol and tobacco use.*24\194\4*

HOW YOUR DOCTOR DECIDES WHAT TREATMENT TO RECOMMEND AND WHAT THIS MEANS FOR YOU

admin — Tue, 12 May 2009 13:10:56 +0000

I think many people believe that the ‘experts’ weigh up such a balance on their behalf. You might imagine that the treatment your practitioner recommends is based on a careful assessment, considering all aspects of each possible treatment as well as your personal, social and psychological situation and needs. That is far from the truth. Below I describe how most practitioners really decide what treatment is best. Firstly, they consider only the sorts of treatment they themselves believe in. What they believe in is determined by their training and personal attitudes.

What I have said so far you probably recognise to be true, not because it agrees with what you have been taught but because it agrees with your own experience. If so, you may have already realised that the ‘best’ treatment in the eyes of the doctor is often not the best treatment in the eyes of the person with cancer. Unfortunately, doctors rarely allow patients to come to their own conclusions as to the best treatment. They don’t offer alternatives, they don’t give basic information, often they don’t even justify their own treatment advice. Basically most doctors treat people with cancer like dependent children.

*126/40/1*

WHY THERE IS NO MIRACLE CURE FOR CANCER – LIMITATIONS TO DIFFERENT METHODS OF TREATING CANCER (PART 1)

admin — Tue, 12 May 2009 13:01:49 +0000

The fact that there are so many different types of cancer is one reason why there is no treatment which cures all types of cancer. There is a second reason. Cancer cells are not different enough from our normal cells. After all, they are actually part of us, they are cells which belong to our bodies. Their structure is very similar to non-cancer cells. Their metabolism—internal biochemical processes—are very similar. They reproduce in the same way.

Remember, back in Chapter 2, we compared cancer cells with weeds in a garden? Treating cancer is like trying to get rid of weeds once they are established. As with surgical removal of cancer growths, we can just pull the weeds out. This is unlikely to get rid of them permanently because we can only pull out what we can see. We know that any seeds or roots left behind may produce more weeds in the future. In addition, if the weeds are growing close to the normal plants and have extensive root systems it is likely that we will have to pull out and damage normal plants if we are to get rid of all the weeds we can see.

*120/40/1*