October is designated "Breast Cancer Awareness Month." There is a push for women to get mammograms. The motto, "Early Detection Is Your Best Protection" is misleading. Detecting breast cancer with mammography does not protect women from breast cancer. More questions are being raised about the validity of mammograms. Scientists like Dr. John Gofman, MD, PhD, Rosalie Bertell, PhD, Jay Gould, PhD remind us, "There is no safe level of radiation exposure." Outspoken critic of the cancer establishment, Dr. Samuel Epstein, declares that "The whole mammography program should be stopped." He claims there has been massive overkill on mammography and that, "Women under 50 are at greater risk of contracting breast cancer from mammography." A new study from Sweden indicates no reduction in death for women between the ages of 50 and 59 having mammograms. "October - National Breast Cancer Month" was the brain child of the Zeneca Corp., makers of tamoxifen, the controversial, yet most widely prescribed breast cancer drug. Less known is the fact that Zeneca also makes the pesticide acetochlor, a carcinogenic herbicide, and like other organochlorine pesticides is increasingly implicated as a causal factor in the high incidence of breast cancer. Annual sales for tamoxifen are close to 500 million dollars, while sales for acetochlor are about 300 million dollars. Zeneca has been actively buying up cancer clinics around the country. A New York Times article 3/8/96, praised Zeneca stock for "soaring" due to a merger with Sandoz and Ciba-Geigy, two of Switzerland's big drug makers. Zeneca pays for and controls all the radio and TV spots, all the pamphlets, all the information relating to "October - Breast Cancer Awareness Month." There is never any mention that environmental risk factors may induce or promote breast tumors. The usual suspects, or known breast cancer risk factors - age, family history, personal history, early menarche/late menopause, delayed pregnancy/no pregnancy - are not themselves causes of breast cancer, and it is important that we make this distinction. These risk factors may simply make breast tissue more vulnerable to developing cancer when exposed to environmental carcinogens. It is also important to note that the all too often advertised risk factors relate to less than 30% of all cancers. We need to look at what may be causing these and the other 70%. For those who believe that cancer has indeed become big business it is easy to understand why there is so little media coverage of the connection between environmental toxic exposures, genetic damage, and increasing incidence of most cancers. The chemical and pharmaceutical industries are part of the multinational corporations who own major stock in newspapers and TV networks. Breast cancer seems to be associated with a lifetime accumulation of estrogen. Dr. John Lee, proponent of natural progesterone, reminds us that estrogen tells the cells to replicate, make more cells. This leads to uncontrolled cell proliferation - cancer. Let's take another look at the known breast cancer risk factors: Age - The older we get the more years we have to accumulate all that bad stuff. Over-the-counter and prescription drugs damage the immune system. Contaminated water, air, soil and food further impede our ability to stay well. Whole classes of pesticides contain estrogen mimicking chemicals which are lipid soluble and are stored in fatty tissue. The body is unable to process or rid itself of these synthetic chemicals, and they accumulate over time. Family History -We have been led to believe that inherited genes dictate most of our health problems, and this has been especially true of breast cancer. If we are made to believe that cancer is genetic, we are less likely to look for other causes. While it is true in the scientific definition that cancer is the result of faulty genetic information or damaged DNA, the seldom asked question is - "What caused the damage in the first place?" The genetic makeup of the human race has not changed appreciably in the past 30 years, but the incidence of breast cancer certainly has. So we must look outside ourselves for the answer. We must look at the environment. Family members not only share genes, they share lifestyles, and they share an environment as well. There are huge regional differences in breast cancer rates. Environmental hazards might be living downwind of a nuclear reactor, dioxin spewing incinerator, hazardous waste site, or drinking water polluted with industrial or agri-chemicals, or heavy exposure to toxic consumer products used in the home or yard, or living near high tension lines or a transmission station. These are some of the things we need to look at, not inherited genes. When women from cultures with low breast cancer rates move to countries with high rates, their personal risk becomes equal to that of the adopted country in about ten years, according Dr. Samuel Epstein. The reverse is also true. So much for the gene theory and family history.