XPost: sci.med.diseases.cancer, talk.politics.guns, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh   
   XPost: sac.politics   
   From: edge@fullerton.edu   
      
   ?“In my experience, the attitude of most clinicians and cancer researchers   
   is that environmental causes of cancer are not very important. That was   
   certainly my attitude.” This was how doctor and cancer researcher Margaret   
   Kripke began her presentation at the Cancer and Environment Forum in   
   March. The forum, held jointly by several major U.S. cancer research   
   centers, was meant to inform practicing clinicians about the everyday   
   exposures that can increase a person’s likelihood of developing cancer.   
   ?“My outlook on this subject changed very dramatically when I was a member   
   of the President’s Cancer Panel,” said Kripke, who served on the panel in   
   2010. That year, the panel produced its first ever report on environmental   
   causes of cancer. Kripke continued, ?“What I learned from this exercise   
   was absolutely shocking to me.”   
      
   That 2010 report found that environmental exposures play a larger role in   
   cancer formation than once believed by clinicians, and that these cancer   
   risks are especially dangerous to children. Since then, researchers have   
   narrowed their estimate: 70% to 90% of cancer development is driven by   
   non-genetic, environmental factors. These can be factors like smoking or   
   diet, but, as Kripke and her colleagues are focused on, also things like   
   air quality and repetitive exposure to chemicals used in workplaces and   
   homes.   
      
   In February of this year, President Joe Biden announced the relaunching of   
   Cancer Moonshot, a funding initiative he originally spearheaded while vice   
   president in 2016. The relaunch aims to gain congressional support around   
   the goal of cutting cancer death rates in the United States in half in the   
   next 25 years. The role of environmental risk factors is being   
   acknowledged in this effort: The relaunching included the formation of an   
   advisory ?“Cancer Cabinet,” which includes representatives from agencies   
   like the Environmental Protection Agency and Food and Drug Administration.   
   In his March State of the Union Address, Biden acknowledged the probable   
   role that toxic smoke from military burn pits played in his own son’s   
   cancer, and announced a Veterans Affairs rule streamlining access to   
   medical care for veterans with cancers that research has linked to these   
   pits.   
      
   But in the President’s proposed 2023 budget, no funds were earmarked for   
   the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), the   
   leading agency in researching environmental cancer risks, responsible for   
   breakthroughs in toxicology research methods. Its parent agency, the   
   National Institutes of Health, which houses 27 other institutes and   
   centers including NIEHS, only received an overall $275 million increase in   
   discretionary funding in the proposed budget. Ruthann Rudel of the Silent   
   Spring Institute, a breast cancer research center that receives NIEHS   
   funding, says that money for research on environmental causes of cancer is   
   sorely needed. The studies are complex, requiring large samples of   
   participants, followed for years at a time, to understand the consequences   
   of being exposed.   
      
   A difficulty in performing this research is that basic information about   
   potential carcinogens is missing. Kripke, who serves on the Silent Spring   
   Institute’s board of directors, attributes this lack of information to the   
   under-regulation of the industries that produce these chemicals in the   
   first place. ?“We in this country operate on the basis of something called   
   the reactionary principle for chemical production,” Kripke explains. ?“If   
   it causes harm, then we regulate it, or remove it from the marketplace.”   
      
   But proving harm in the absence of regulation can be an uphill battle.   
   That’s the challenge that the community of east Oakland, Calif. faced. At   
   the end of last year, Communities for a Better Environment (CBE), an   
   environmental justice group, sued a local facility, AB&I Foundry, over its   
   emission of hexavalent chromium, a known carcinogen. While residents have   
   been vocal about the high rates of health issues in their community, the   
   lawsuit against the foundry was only possible after the passage of a local   
   air quality district rule that required the district to assess all the   
   health risks posed by the entire facility, rather than only the parts   
   being regulated. That assessment found that the largest cancer risk AB&I   
   Foundry produced was hexavalent chromium pollution being vented into the   
   atmosphere. The machinery that produced the hexavalent chromium was exempt   
   from permitting at the time of installation, and thus its pollution had   
   never been officially tracked.   
      
   Until this, the only carcinogenic pollution officially being monitored   
   from the foundry was lead. Esther Goolsby, an organizer with CBE, says   
   that even though she worked at the foundry, she was not aware of what she   
   and other workers were being exposed to until she joined CBE. ?“And   
   knowing, only when I got older, what was there, and reflecting just on how   
   it affects my children when growing up, and then all of the community that   
   was there. And there are two elementaries, and a library. So, thinking   
   about how long this has been going on — and we’re only just now getting   
   action.”   
      
   The air quality district’s assessment would have been the first step in a   
   multi-year process of bringing all of AB&I Foundry’s operations into   
   regulation. Tyler Earl, a lawyer for CBE, says that the organization was   
   pushing for the foundry to install abatement technology on the machinery   
   to reduce its pollution. Instead, in March of this year, AB&I Foundry   
   announced that it would be moving its entire operation to Texas. CBE did   
   not interpret this is a win: Goolsby’s response was, ?“In Texas, they’re   
   just going to go to another community and put toxins there.” AB&I Foundry   
   cited increasing regulatory standards for its move. Earl said that the   
   decision ?“underscored the importance of a just transition for workers at   
   facilities such as this where the communities — particularly the black and   
   brown folks who surround industrial facilities — have been paying the   
   price for companies’ profits.”   
      
   Historically, environmental cancer risks were studied in unionized   
   industrial settings, Rudel says, which often had centralized healthcare,   
   detailed employment records, and advocates for workers, all of which   
   fostered collaboration with research teams. But last year, the Bureau of   
   Labor Statistics reported that only about one in 10 working Americans   
   belonged to a union, a record low.   
      
   Worker organizing in any form still plays an essential role in the success   
   and continuation of public health research. For example, Rudel co-leads   
   the Women Workers Biomonitoring Collaborative, a research collaboration   
   that studies occupational cancer risks for female firefighters, nurses and   
   office workers. She attributes the collaboration’s existence to the   
   employee advocacy groups that were the first to raise alarm bells about   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)