AS a conservative-cum- libertarian I find the intransigence of fellow conservatives with regard to the environ- ment hard to reconcile. When considering the causes of cancer, conserva- lives, for the most, view the environment as an artitact introduced by junk science. Personally, | think it is more than reasonable to want the food chain to be free of growth hormones, assorted herbicides and pesti- cides or to demand it not be spliced with mutant genes. As is it within right and reason to ask that dentists confine their fluoridated visions of dental utopia to their surgeries arid away from drinking water reservoirs. Neither is it unreasonable to request that the vats of mal- odorous chlorine added to pristine B.C. water be reduced to a minimam instead of being increased to cope with a handful of peo- ple with compromised immune systems. Give me a few bugs anv time over chlorine. Where the causes of can- cer are concerned, scientists seemingly have always ocen reluctant to consider the environment part of the mailbox fair comment equation. This could be because they rely on simple cause and effect relationships best observed in the labora- tory, but not necessarily suit- able for the description of complex interdependent sys- tems fike man and environ- ment. By contrast Devra Davis, who ts “senior fellow and program director of World Resource Institute”, and for- merly senior adviser to the USS. assistant secretary of health in the Department of Health and Human Services, elegantly delineates the con- nection between the enviton- mene and incidence of breast cancer. Her theory of breast can- cer causality, outlined ina 1995 issue of the Scientitic American, also harbours poteutia! for prevention, While humbic, Davis's rec- ommendations are mure honest than the outlandish aspirations of the geneticists. on eeremina ona onemremoratesstane Reader wonders about waterworks Dear Editor: . The June 13 articles by Kevin Gillies on the feasibility of using Harrison Lake as the major water source for the lower Fraser Valley and Greater Vancouver have been informative and thought-pro- voking. oo They also chailenge us to look forward. The choices we make now are those the gen- erations of the next millenni- am will have to live with. The people whe !eft us the Lions Gate Bridge dilemma had no conception of the bur- geoning population growth an@ related infrastructure demands that we face today. : Surely we can benefit from ‘what might. be called the shortsightedness of the past by showing vision and leader- ship for the future. D.M. Jacobi North Vancouver dmjacobi@alumni.ubc.ca “Native JEWELLERY/ WepbINnG Rincs” 441 West 3rd Strest, North Vancouver 988-9215 o, Oli, Lube & Fitter pwmrenys 27 pt. Sefety check, 15 minutes - FAST! i Includes up to 5 lites of 10w30 Quekerstate 4 1362 Marine Drive 986-2715 Mon-Sat 800am-6:00pm, Sun. 800arn-50Gpm Expires Aug. 18/09 vYelorStore First-class fireplaces. First-class advice Ic is hard to explain the kind of media fantare to which the breast cancer gene BRCAL and its discovery played when one considers that it accounts for a mere 5% of breast cancer cases. Genetics bespeaks propen- sity, nothing more. Taken together, genetic inheritance and known risk factors like age, carly onset of menarche, late menopause, not having had or breast fed a child, or high doses of chest x-rays, explain a meagre third of all breast cancer cases. In a word, most women who get breast cancer have no known risk factors. Based on considerable data, Davis and her colleagues hypothe- sized that substances they dubbed xenoestrogens (for- eign estrogens) that are ubiq- uitous to our environment are absorbed and accumulat- ed in the body's fatty tissuc. “The combined field and laboratory studies,” writes Davis “suggest that endocrine disrupting com- pounds in the environment may well contribute not only to breast cancer in women but also to reproductive dis- turbances in men and to developmental abnormalities in animals.” These substances are found in pesticides, phar- macciticals, fucls and plastics and have an estroven oimic- king effect. A woman's exposure over a fifetime to che hormone estrogen is a natural risk fac- tor, which explains why women who menstruate at an early age and undergo the menopause very late, have an increased risk tor breast can- eer, Certain plant foads like soy have been shown to reduce estrogenic activity and offer some protective bene- fits. Contra Davis, other sci- entists contend that peoples’ exposure to xenoestrogens is miniscule, and that it is suffi- cient to ingest plant estro- gens like broccoli and cauli- flower to cancel out the harmful effects of these chemicais. But this fails to consider that xenoestrogens persist and accumulate while plant estrogens, on the other hand, are flushed from the body in no time, making the protec- tion they offer temporary at best. The public must begin to question the direction cancer research is taking. After decades of intensive —- and expensive — investigation, the number of cancers we are able to treat effectively remains extremely small. Hence we need to develop a repertoire of demands and attach them to the finds we contribute to research. Simplistic and sentimental quests for a cure should be replaced with realistic efforts and expectations. A good start for members of the public would be to insist efforts be directed towards variables over which control can be exerted. A starting point might be to demand funds be funneled towards policy changes that will result in curbing the promiscuous production and sale of chemicals with known estrogen mimicking effects. It is impossible to modify the age at which a woman wiil get her first period, or the age at which she will under- go a change of life, but it is within reach to limit her exposure to noxious chemi- cals over a life time. If we manage to prevent only 20% of breast cancer cases every vear, argues Devra Davis, we will have saved 36,000 women, and those who care for them untold despair. Last but aot least, people themselves arc cager participants in the con- sumption of chemicals. Were the same jaws that regulate outdoor air quality to be PI lied to indoor spaces like homes and offices, Aare Neha a AE TSAO PERCE Rie mh Air SAA eR RL en FA FSS PT Just Dear Editor: The op/ed writing by Ilana Mercer is right on point. The only reasonable inference that can be made is that # “we” are so concerned about drug addiction “we” should be eave arug atdicts al offering free treatment on demand. People “quit” when they want to, not before. Whenever an addict decides that his/her choices are unwise “we” should be offering help in the kind and nature he/she wants and needs. Beyond that “we” should just officials would be forced to evacuate many of these spaces. People’s homes and offices contain higher levels of pollutants than outdoor air. “Most citizens,” reported a 1998 Scientific American, “were likely to have the greatest contact with poren- tial toxic pollutants inside their homes, offices and vehi- cles.” Immediately after my next door neighbour smokes that clandestine cigarette, the air wafting up to my apartment is filled with the sickly bou- quet of a deoderizer rich in “paradichlorobenzene, which causes cancer in animals.” So too can the high con- centrations of chloroform we absorb while bathing or drinking our heavily chiori- nated water, cause cancer in animals. And we live amidst a haze of fine particles, the cle- vation of which in outdoor air is associated with prema- ture death. Qur homes typically con- tain 10-times the concentra- tion of pesticides than the outdoor air, Out of our hyper-concern to pulverize the odd critter, we in North America seem willing to fill our abodes with carcinogenic volatile organic compounds and pesticides. Go figure. leave them alone. That means not prevent- ing them from obtaining their drug of choice at a reasonable price, without fear of slearceration or disease contagions. Gecald M. Suliff Emeryville, CA