We live in a chemical world. We are unaware of over 10,000 human-produced chemicals. These substances are increasingly categorized as having carcinogens, that is, potency to induce cancer. After the American Chemistry Symposium issued a list of more than ten million human-produced chemicals, it was found that only a minority of them were extensively tested by independent scientists.
In addition to the chemicals sprayed on our food, there are about 3,500 chemicals that are added as additives. If we do not use additives or organic nutrients; We collect an average of 7.25 kg of chemicals per year with food. In our homes; Household cleaning products, cosmetics, personal cleaning products and detergents. The more chemicals we have in our surroundings, the more pollutant our water, our air and our food. According to the American Environmental Protection Agency’s estimate, the American industry released about 18,000 tons of chemical waste in 1991, which includes a wide variety of carcinogens.
Even if these chemicals alone or in combination have long-term effects on health, very few have been studied. Many of the chemicals we are exposed to can be harmful, while they can normally be ‘harmless’, multiplying the toxic effects of others. According to the ‘Man’s Impact on the Global Environment’ report published in 1971 by the Massachussets Institute of Technology (MIT), ‘The effect of chemical contaminants on one hand is greater / For example, when the solvent carbon tetrachloride in the liver The damage it creates can again turn into a large-scale damage with little effect of DDT. Even with this cocktail, when the common drug phenobarbital is added, the effect of the damage increases hundred times.
From the University of Illinois Public Health School in Chicago. Samuel Epstein is also the president of the Cancer Prevention Coalition. Dr. Epstein says cancer organizations, many of which are linked to the pharmaceutical and chemical industries; Carcinogens do not seem to give the chemistry the deserved benefit of being exposed more and more. Cancer believes that our failure to reverse the epidemic is a result of direct political decisions. Because of these decisions, very little of cancer research is devoted to the real causes of cancer and to investigate ways to prevent it. Instead of the majority of money sources; To find a ‘remedy’, that is, to develop high-profit medical treatments. Dr. According to Epstein’s research, the focus was only on feeding and cigarette smoking, while the chemical industry was left to profit and continue to pollute the environment. Prevention, in the first place ‘to determine the causes of cancer and remove them from the middle’ lost the real meaning; Early diagnosis, followed by chemotherapy, surgery, or radiation.
There is enough space in cancer statistics to support Epstein’s views. Take lung cancer for example. Although nobody has questioned that smoking is the primary cause of lung cancer, the incidence of lung cancer in non-smokers has doubled in the last few decades, and this rate is still rising, which is not explained by smoking. Your exposure to pollution, especially exhaust gases and harmful gases at work, has almost certainly played a role. According to estimates from the National Institute for Workplace Safety and Health, about 11 million workers in the United States are exposed to carcinogens at work. In the UK this number is about two million.
Farmers are often risky groups, although they tend to be healthier, tend to smoke less, have a healthier diet and are more mobile. Indeed, over the last few decades, leukemia, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, brain and prostate cancer rates were on the average. Studies on animals have established links between these cancers and exposure to pesticides. (This issue is covered extensively in Chapter 20.)
Low level of radiation
At a low level, the effect of radiation is not often emphasized. It is indispensable that radiation is carcinogenic. So, what kind of radiation does the radiation start to damage and what role does the radiation play in the cancer equation? Since the time between exposure to cancer and cancer is 15 to 20 years, Cancer cases that have increased in almost the world in the middle of the 1970s may indicate a new carcinogen release between 1955 and 1960. This coincides with the beginning of atomic bomb tests. At the peak of the tests, the level of radioactive material called stronsium90 in the milk began to raise concerns. (Milk, especially in the pasture The milk that the most radioactive serpentine contaminated with strontium 90 tended to consume suckling mothers.) The Dr. Lowe from the Radiation Movement. According to Chris Busby, ‘The greatest increase in breast cancer was seen in the highest dose of strontium90, ie in suckling mothers exposed to the most intense time radiation of the test / Cancer cases were first reported to have the highest rainfall in the UK and therefore more radioactive decay Thinks that the reason for the increase is low radiation. For example, in 1987, the number of cases of all cancers in Wales was 54% higher than in East Anglia. Such as nuclear power plants or medical X-rays. We are all exposed to radiation from the Sun and from the depths of space. There is even a certain amount of radioactive material in the air, in food and water. In the UK, an average human receives 87 percent of annual radiation from natural sources and 11.5 percent from X-rays that are used in envy. The remaining 1.5 percent is derived from non-medical artificial sources such as nuclear power plants, of course, as long as this disaster does not occur as in ‡emobil.
Toxic Life Style Determination of Carcinogens Photo Gallery
Maybe You Like Them Too
- Best Exercise For Pregnant Women
- Prom Hair And Makeup Ideas
- Fast Easy Weight Loss Tips
- Best Exercises When Pregnant
- 10+ Bride Makeup Ideas