Glyphosate Use and Cancer Incidence in the Agricultural Health Study

Gabriella Andreotti Stella Koutros Jonathan N Hofmann Dale P Sandler Jay H Lubin Charles F Lynch Catherine C Lerro Anneclaire J De Roos Christine G Parks Michael C Alavanja 

JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, djx233, https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djx233

Published: 09 November 2017

 

There is strong evidence of glyphosate exposure linked to Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma (NHL).  The study did not links between glyphosate exposure and NHL, but did find some links between glyphosate exposure and acute myeloid leukemia (AML) compared with people who never used glyphosate.

The study covered licensed pesticide applicators from North Carolina and Iowa. This graph shows some correlation between glyphosate exposure and NHL, but not with other cancers.

 

Sources
Journal of National Cancer Institute. (Not related to National Cancer Institute!)

1985 EPA memo says glyphosate causes kidney tumors

A recently found archived document form 1985 shows, before the EPA was bought off by Monsanto, that the EPA thought glyphosate caused kidney tumors. Monsanto claims tumors are unrelated to glyphosate exposure by showing past studies. EPA claims past studies have too much variation to nullify the no tumor claim.

Sources
PDF here. Get it before it's taken down! Alt link: https://web.archive.org/web/20180131074049/https://archive.epa.gov/pesticides/chemicalsearch/chemical/foia/web/pdf/103601/103601-170.pdf

New study shows toxic environs cause cancer

1. It's not just genetics, but a toxic environment can cause cancer, says a new study from the journal Cancer. 
2. Researchers examined hundreds of variables that contribute to the overall quality of the environment. These included air pollution, water pollution, pesticide and radon levels, access to health services, and healthy food. (Some studies suggest that tires going on the roads produce a black rubber dust which can make asthma worse.)
3. The researchers concluded that poor quality of air and built environment as well as high sociodemographic risk factors had the strongest associations to higher rates of cancer, particularly in urban areas. (Sociodemographic risk factors mean, besides other things, poor people can only afford older, cheap housing, which often has lead paint, asbestos, etc.)

 Source
Glyphosate.news.

Monsanto faces more new cancer lawsuits

Monsanto is facing more lawsuits, and a bundle of 3 lawsuits was filed in St. Louis recently. The claim is glyphosate exposure caused them to get non-Hodgkins lymphoma, for which there is some correlation to glyphosate exposure.

This graph of correlation shows how closely the studies found glyphosate exposure was related to certain illnesses. Non-Hodgkins lymphoma was the most correlated.

To make this graph, many studies were reviewed. Dots on the right hand side of the graph show more correlation of glyphosate exposure to cancer. NHL has the most studies, with the most correlation to glyphosate exposure.

Source
Ecowatch.

Study says Splenda (Sucralose) not safe

A study by the Center for Science in the Public Interest, says Splenda is not safe. The study was based on mice, who were fed Splenda daily, and later saw a definite increase in certain types of cancers.

Many foods contain Splenda, sometimes listed as sucralose. These items that contain Splenda are often labeled "low calorie" or "diet". This includes many sodas in the US. 

Source
US Food Safety.com

More radiation poisoning from Fukushima.

MUST READ: Here's a list of more news articles covering how widespread the radiation poisoning from the Fukushima radiation is. Some tidbits just from this one list of articles:

- Back in 2012, the Vancouver Sun reported that cesium-137 was being found in a very high percentage of the fish that Japan was selling to Canada…

1. 73 percent of mackerel tested
2. 91 percent of the halibut
3. 92 percent of the sardines
4. 93 percent of the tuna and eel
5. 94 percent of the cod and anchovies
6. 100 percent of the carp, seaweed, shark and monkfish

- BBC News recently reported that radiation levels around Fukushima are “18 times higher” than previously believed.

- An EU-funded study concluded that Fukushima released up to 210 quadrillion becquerels of cesium-137 into the atmosphere.

- According to Tepco (the company that owned the Fukushima reactor), a total of somewhere between 20 trillion and 40 trillion becquerels of radioactive tritium have gotten into the Pacific Ocean since the Fukushima disaster first began.

Sassafras tea causes cancer

More and more people are turning to "natural" ingredients and are missing out on important information: their dangerous side effects. The plant that once was used to make root beer was deemed to cause cancer, and the FDA banned it decades ago.

Studies: 
Botanical Dietary Supplements Gone Bad. 2007.
Sassafras from WebMD.
From Dr. Weil. 
JAMA article from 1976. "...aromatic oil present in sassafras root bark, was a hepatocarcinogen in rats..."
Code of Federal Regulations, Title 21, part 189.180.  
A Google search.

Cancerous fish in Pacific after Fukushima

In March 2011 a tsunami caused by an earthquake hit the Fukushima reactor in Japan. Cancerous fish are being found on the US west coast, where currents have likely carried radiation from the Fukushima reactor to fish stocks closer to the US, and fish have picked up radiation from near Fukushima. Tumors are caused by abnormal cell growth, and radiation is one cause of tumors. Fish, and people who eat them, are being exposed to dangerous levels of cesium-137 and strontium-90.

This is what cancer on fish looks like:

Below is salmon with tumors.

Map of Pacific salmon range.


Below: This is what tumors look like in sliced, raw fish. Source.

Here's an estimated fallout map of the Fukushima radiation.
More info on currents and radiation patterns from Fukushima.

What the "experts" say

Government "experts", pundits, and bloggers alike have claimed it's safe to eat the cancerous fish after no testing has been done on them. But radioactive cesium has been found in 15 Pacific bluefin tuna in this study from PNAS. The study says tuna have definitely transported radioactive materials from the Fukushima reactor across the Pacific to the US. The scientists found no cesium in pre-Fukushima tuna. Another blog says this radiation is only 5% of eating a normal banana.

Doses of radiation are cumulative for a lifetime, meaning the dose never goes away, is never diminished, and it stays in your body for a lifetime. The more radiation you are exposed to, the more likely something will go wrong with your body. Until we have more information about the prevalence of the radiation in Pacific seafood, ignoring the impact is foolish and irresponsible.

The NRDC says eating cancerous fish is ok: " Could Fukushima radiation in U.S.-caught fish increase over time to levels that would present a significant health impact to individuals? In our judgment, the answer is “No” due to dilution of the radioactivity released from Fukushima in the vast waters of the Pacific Ocean." They do explain how they think dilution works and why the radiation levels are safe.

Even the Japanese Prime Minister said “There are no health-related problems until now, nor will there be in the future.” That's an impossible claim to make. He cannot control the future, nor does he care since he won't be in office then. Increased cancer rates around Fukushima in Japan may not show up for another 20-30 years, but the damage is already done to the people. It's up to you to keep your family safe by not making foolish assumptions about the safety of food. After all, when has the government ever made a conservative assumption that something is safe?

Caution is required here, not reliance on bureaucrats who just don't care about what happens to people when they are no longer in office. Get educated, know your food and where it comes from, and you should be in a more healthy position.

More links

1. Superstation95. Fukushima radiation is damaging more animals than just fish. Also affected are seals, shrimp, and polar bears. Furry animals have a loss of body hair, an obvious component of radiation poisoning.
2. Nuclear-News. Scientists estimate number of deaths from cancer just from eating radiated fish.
3. The Fish Vet. More info on cancerous fish caught in upper Alaska, Vancouver, and Alberta.

Radiation explained

How much radiation is coming from the Fukushima power plant and reaching the US west coast? How much of this radiation is needed to cause cancer? How much exposure will lead to death? This post will help explain radiation terms and how much radiation is bad for the human body. There will be more posts about cancerous fish next week.

First, radiation emitted from a substance is not the same as radiation absorbed by tissue or other matter.


The Becquerel (Bq)

From Wikipedia:

One becquerel is defined as the activity of a quantity of radioactive material in which one nucleus decays per second.

The becquerel simply measures how many times the nucleus decays per second. But that doesn't explain what level of becquerels is dangerous to a person or animal.

• 2 radioactive decays in a second equals 2 Bq. 
• 1123 decays per second is the same as 1123 Bq. 
• 1 becquerel is 10 milliSieverts (mSv).

The Sievert (Sv)

From Wikipedia:

The sievert is used both to represent the risk of the effect of external radiation from sources outside the body, and the effect of internal irradiation due to inhaled or ingested radioactive substances. Conventionally the sievert is not used for high dose rates of radiation which produce deterministic effects, which is the severity of acute tissue damage which is certain to happen. These effects are compared to the physical quantity absorbed dose measured by the unit gray (Gy).

The sievert measures the biological effect on tissue in joules per kilogram. There is a "weighing factor" which must be applied to the matter or tissue which absorbs the radiation. This factor is different for different types of tissue. Examples:

0.098	μSv:	banana equivalent dose, an illustrative unit of radiation dose representing the measure of radiation from a typical banana[32][a]
0.25	μSv:	U.S. limit on effective dose from a single airport security screening[33]
5 to 10	μSv:	one set of dental radiographs[34]
80	μSv:	average dose to people living within 16 km of Three Mile Island accident[35]
0.4 to 0.6	mSv:	two-view mammogram, using weighting factors updated in 2007[36]
1	mSv:	The U.S. 10 CFR § 20.1301(a)(1) dose limit for individual members of the public, total effective dose equivalent, per annum[37]
1.5 to 1.7	mSv:	annual dose for flight attendants[38]
2 to 7	mSv:	barium fluoroscopy, e.g. Barium meal, up to 2 minutes, 4–24 spot images[39]
10 to 30	mSv:	single full-body CT scan[40][41]
50	mSv:	The U.S. 10 C.F.R. § 20.1201(a)(1)(i) occupational dose limit, total effective dose equivalent, per annum[42]
68	mSv:	estimated maximum dose to evacuees who lived closest to the Fukushima I nuclear accidents[43]

And now some fatal doses in sieverts:

4.5 to 6	Sv:	fatal acute doses during Goiânia accident
5.1	Sv:	fatal acute dose to Harry Daghlian in 1945 criticality accident[45]
10 to 17	Sv:	fatal acute doses during Tokaimura nuclear accident. Hiroshi Ouchi who received 17 Sv was kept alive for 83 days after the accident.[46]
21	Sv:	fatal acute dose to Louis Slotin in 1946 criticality accident[45]
54	Sv:	fatal acute dose to Boris Korchilov in 1961 after a reactor cooling system failed on the Soviet submarine K-19 which required work in the reactor with no shielding[47]

1 sievert is equal to 100 REM, a dose UOM still used in the US. Some more doses from Our Radioactive Ocean:
10 sieverts, aka 10,000 milllisieverts (mSv): usually fatal within a few weeks.


The Gray

Measures energy absorbed by matter in joules per kilogram of matter. The US 'rad' is equivalent to the gray. From Wikipedia:

The gray is conventionally used to express the severity of what are known as "tissue effects" from doses received in acute unintended exposure to high levels of ionizing radiation. These are effects which are certain to happen, as opposed to the uncertain effects of low levels of radiation which have a probability of causing damage. A whole-body acute exposure to 5 gray or more of high-energy radiation usually leads to death within 14 days. This dose represents 375 joules for a 75 kg adult (equivalent to the chemical energy in 20 mg of sugar). For X-rays and gamma rays the gray is numerically the same value when expressed in sieverts, but for alpha particles one gray is equivalent to 20 sieverts, and a radiation weighting factor is applied accordingly.

Radiation found on the US west cost (it's fatal)

Thanks to a map from Our Radioactive Ocean I found 2 samples of Pacific ocean water that measured 2.6 becquerels. Since 1 becquerel is 10 mSv, then 2.6 Bq is 26 mSv. According to the chart above, 2.6 Bq is close to the radiation received from a full body CAT scan. However, that dose is for one second! An hour on a boat in the water would equal an hour of exposure, which would be: (60*60*2.6 Bq) = 9360 Bq * 10 = 93600 mSv, or 93.6 Sv. That's well above the fatal doses in the table above!

Remember, radiation doses are cumulative. Once you absorb enough, cancer begins to grow, or you simply die from radiation poisoning. The danger is in how long you are exposed to the radiation.

More links

1. Our Radioactive Ocean. Has 10+ sites right now and is monitoring radiation levels. It is part of WHO. An actual map of results since 2011 are here. Click on the map point to see one or more samples for that site, oldest sample first. Very helpful!
2. Conversion table. Helpful.
3. A helpful explanation of the radiation units from Radiation Scott.

EWG has "complete" list of carcinogens in the American people

1. Where the data came from: Environmental Working Group spent about a year reviewing 1000 "biomonitoring" studies. 
2. EWG found that a subset of chemicals pose a significant cancer risk to Americans. 
3. Last week the US congress passed a bill to strengthen the very weak chemical regulations. The bill creates a program called the National Cancer Moonshot Initiative. 

Source
EWG article. June 14, 2016. The list/report.

More lawsuits mount against Roundup

1. Man without cancer in his family dies from non-Hodkin's lymphoma, which is linked to pesticide exposure. 
2. The lawsuits in California, Florida, Missouri, Delaware, Hawaii, and elsewhere over the last several months, claim Monsanto has hidden evidence, and manipulated regulators and the public into believing in the safety of glyphosate. While 70+ studies show how harmful glyphosate is and IARC, part of WHO, agrees.
3. Glyphosate is sprayed on the most common crops in the US including corn, soybeans, wheat, and more. Most packaged foods in the US have either corn syrup or corn starch in them, with huge openings for glyphosate to get into the food system. Multiple studies already show most people have glyphosate and its metabolites in their urine.
4. Many other businesses claimed their products were safe:  2,4-d (2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, a herbicide), DDT, PCBs, thalidomide, Agent Orange, mercury fillings, Vioxx, flame retardant in the US, malathion, diazinon, tetrachlorvinphos, parathion, Glyphosate, isoproturon, fluroxypyr, pirimicarb, imidacloprid, acetamiprid, tebuconazole, epoxiconazole, and prochloraz. And this is just in the past 50 years. There were many more problems with commercial products in the late 1800s with the patent medicine fiasco, the food adulteration, which sparked the creation of the FDA. 
5. 53 organizations say glyphosate is unsafe, 3 say it's safe. 
6. The consensus of scientists says glyphosate is bad.

Source
Huff Post. May 6, 2016.

Consensus: Roundup is bad!

Roundup, aka glyphosate, is a problem if it enters the food chain, or enters water systems as it can hurt living organisms in the water. It can enter the food chain because farmers spray it on crops to kill them just before harvest, and then instructions say the crop can be harvested only 2 days after spraying. More problems occur if the chemical gets into waterways, kills wildlife, or destroys the food chain there. Since there is no way to prevent glyphosate from getting into waterways, it is overall, a very dangerous chemical.

There is finally a consensus among non-Monsanto-bribed scientists that Roundup is a powerful endocrine disrupting chemical that is very bad for the health of everyone at all ages. This report wants to reclassify glyphosate as "probably carcinogenic to humans".

There are many studies found throughout this blog how glyphosate is found in foods, and the problems it causes, I won't repeat them here. Industry has been lobbying to avoid labeling any GMO foods (which includes food containing glyphosate), spending millions of dollars. If glyphosate was so safe, why all the lobbying? Wouldn't the product safety and studies speak for themselves?

Monsanto still says Roundup is not a carcinogen. That's odd, because before they used to say it's safe on all fronts. Now they say it's not safe, but it's not a carcinogen. See also coverups from asbestos industry, lead industry, cigarette industry, Vioxx, thalidomide, DES, BPA, fracking, adulterated food in the US and UK, aspartame, the list goes on including the denial that marijuana products can actually help. The fact that the WHO declared Roundup a "possible carcinogen", instead of a "probable carcinogen" is more politics than science.

Source

• Myers, John Peterson Myers, Michael N. Antoniou, Bruce Blumberg, Lynn Carroll, Theo Colborn, Lorne G. Everett, Michael Hansen, Philip J. Landrigan, Bruce P. Lanphear, Robin Mesnage, Laura N. Vandenberg, Frederick S. vom Saal, Wade V. Welshons and Charles M. Benbrook. Concerns over use of glyphosate-based herbicides and risks associated with exposures: a consensus statement. Environmental Health 201615:19. DOI: 10.1186/s12940-016-0117-0. Link to full study. Open access article. You can also download a PDF or EPUB for free. Alt link on archive.is. 
• The Big study list on glyphosate and other chemicals.

Master study list: BPA effects by bodily system

NOTE: This list is being moved to a static page here. All updates will appear on the web page, not in this post.  This post will no longer be updated.



BPA is a well-known endocrine disruptor. In some cases it acts like a hormone (ex: estrogen) in some cases it blocks hormones. The dangers of BPA include how common it is, multiple effects in the body, and long-lasting effects. Effects continue even after exposure stops. Most studies listed here control for various variables likes sex and age. Here is a list of studies by system, showing the effects of BPA.

It is my intention to update this as I get more information, and use this as a central source of studies by system. If you have a study to add, please cite it in the comments and don't forget to add a plain text link. I will format the study and add it to this page.

Does talc cause ovarian cancer?

Jury says Johnson and  Johnson must award $72 million to family of Jacqueline Fox, who died from ovarian cancer, and used talcum powder for many years in the genital area.

So, does talc cause ovarian cancer? And how often does it do so?

This page from cancer.org says there is no clear connection, or correlation, but there are a lot of studies on this page you can read up on. Some talc comes with asbestos which is naturally part of the talc deposit, but this asbestos-containing talc has been banned since the 1970s. When in doubt, avoid the substance entirely.

If you want to find free text of the whole study, here are some websites you can look through. The DOI number is a unique, universal number used to identify studies. Sometimes the DOI is all you need to search for a study.

UPDATE 3/1/16: A meta study of thousands of cases and controls. DOI: 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-13-0037. Thanks to my sister! Hi sis!

National Cancer Institutes admits marijuana kills cancer cells

Marijuana has been under a hysterical attack by the US gov't for decades now. Ask yourself, how many people high on pot have actually robbed a liquor store? None. How many people have died from an overdose of pot? None.

The US NCI now admits marijuana kills cancer cells. A direct link to an image of the site for backup.

The US makes it hard to even study the effects of pot, Europe has done more on this than the US. Don't expect the US to move forward with this. More studies need to be done about how it can be administered for each problem it solves.

More studies about pot from PubMed. Some may just be abstracts. On each abstract page look in the upper right of the page for "Full Text Links" and "View Full Text". Some abstracts have free full text on another website. Screenshot here of where "Full Text Links" is.

Free full studies about marijuana from PLOS.org.