| Dear
EarthTalk: Is it true that environmental factors
could be playing a role in the increasing number of prostate
cancer cases in the U.S. and elsewhere?
-- Joshua Gordon, New York, NY
| |
Prostate
cancer occurs about 60 percent more often in African
American men than in white American men, although
rates for African men living in their native countries
are much lower. When native Africans immigrate to
the U.S., prostate cancer rates increase sharply,
suggesting an environmental connection related to
high-fat diets. The take-away for men concerned about
prostate health? Eat healthier.
© Thinkstock |
Prostate
cancer is a growing problem for men in the U.S. as well
as in other developed nations around the world. Some 40,000
American men lose their battle with prostate cancer every
year—the only cancer more deadly for U.S. men is skin
cancer. Age is the primary “risk factor” for
developing prostate cancer. One out of every six American
men over the age of 40 will develop prostate cancer, while
four out of five over 80 years old will get it. Of course,
genes also play a big role. The American Cancer Society
reports that a man’s prostate cancer risk doubles
if his father or brother has suffered from the disease.
Researchers believe a genetic predisposition accounts for
as many as 10 percent of all cases of the disease in the
U.S.
Beyond
age and genetics, though, environmental factors do likely
play a role. WebMD reports, for instance, that prostate
cancer occurs about 60 percent more often in African American
men than in white American men, and when diagnosed is more
likely to be advanced. But interestingly enough, prostate
cancer rates for African men living in their native countries
are much lower. When native Africans immigrate to the U.S.,
however, prostate cancer rates increase sharply.
According
to WebMD, the reason for these differences are not fully
understood, but an environmental connection—possibly
related to high-fat diets, less exposure to the sun, exposure
to heavy metals, infectious agents, or smoking—might
be to blame. Some new research suggests that a switch to
a diet high in fat could be a significant contributing factor
in these cases. “The disease is much more common in
countries where meat and dairy products are dietary staples,”
adds WebMD.
The
take-away for men concerned about prostate health is to
eat healthier. Several studies suggest that a diet high
in lycopene (an antioxidant found in high levels in tomatoes,
pink grapefruit, watermelon and some other fruits and veggies)
could lower an individual’s risk of developing prostate
cancer significantly.
Researchers
have also found links between other environmental factors
and prostate cancer. Dr. Matthew Schmitz, a prostate cancer
specialist at Boston’s Massachusetts General Hospital
and the prostate cancer “guide” at About.com,
reports that exposure to high levels of cadmium (a naturally
occurring element used in industrial processes and present
in cigarette smoke) as well as dioxins (chemicals widely
used in herbicides and other applications) have been linked
to increased prostate cancer risk. Other researchers have
noticed that men who take calcium supplements and multi-vitamins
regularly may be at higher risk. Schmitz says that more
research is needed to learn how risky such exposures really
are.
For
those who do get prostate cancer, some promising new treatments
will be undergoing clinical trials soon. Dr. Marianne Sadar
of the BC Cancer Agency in Vancouver, Canada, has used an
experimental drug adapted from sea sponges to shrink cancer
tumors in mice. It will be a year before the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration permits trials of the new drug on humans,
but prostate patients and their doctors are holding out
hope that this and other new treatments can obviate the
need for many surgeries.
CONTACTS:
American
Cancer Society; WebMD;
About.com;
U.S. Food
and Drug Administration.
Dear
EarthTalk: Given the environmental and economic
benefits, why doesn’t the U.S. have a federal law
mandating recycling nationwide?
-- N. Koslowsky, Pompano Beach, FL
| |
Just
a few decades ago, Americans recycled less than 10
percent of their solid waste. Today, Americans recycle
some 32 percent of the 350 million tons of refuse
they generate annually. Some 42 states now have their
own recycling or waste diversion goals, and 18 are
trying to divert upwards of half their waste via recycling
or composting.
© Tom Magliery, courtesy Flickr |
The U.S. government
has historically relied on state and local governments to
handle waste management in all of its forms, including recycling.
Although there have been a few attempts to push legislation
through Congress to mandate minimum national recycling rates,
none have made it out of committee hearings. Federal lawmakers
are loathe to take waste management regulatory powers away
from individual states which have vastly different needs
from one another. For instance, less populous western states
with lots of extra land for siting landfills might not be
as inclined to push for higher recycling rates as those
crowded eastern states with less room to store their trash.
According to
Chaz Miller, Director of State Programs at the National
Solid Wastes Management Association, America’s very
first federal solid waste law, 1965’s Solid Waste
Disposal Act—itself an amendment to the original Clean
Air Act—didn’t even mention recycling. “Eleven
years later, Congress passed the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA), which remains the cornerstone of federal
solid waste and recycling legislation,” reports Miller.
RCRA abolished open dumps and required the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to create guidelines for solid waste
disposal and regulations for hazardous waste management,
but had little to say about recycling except to call for
an increase in federal purchases of products made with recycled
content. The EPA also published manuals and workshops on
implementing curbside recycling programs, although funding
for such programs dried up by 1981.
Nevertheless,
the seed had taken root. Pioneering programs in Massachusetts
and elsewhere led to the development of curbside recycling
programs in more than 600 municipalities throughout the
U.S.—mostly in the Northeast and on the West Coast—by
the mid-1980s. In addition, 10 states introduced “bottle
bill” laws to encourage recycling of beer and soft
drink containers. Two states, Rhode Island and New Jersey,
both being small, densely populated and short on landfill
space, implemented comprehensive approaches to recycling.
They began requiring local jurisdictions to pick-up residents’
and businesses’ paper, metal and glass, and helped
towns and cities set-up systems for pick-up, sorting and
materials recovery. Most of the 8,600-plus municipal recycling
programs in existence today are modeled on these early efforts.
Just a few decades
ago, Americans recycled less than 10 percent of their solid
waste. Multi-material and curbside collection programs were
non-existent, paper was only collected sporadically when
a local scout troop or similar group organized a paper drive,
and family-owned scrap dealers would occasionally buy paper
and metal
scrap based on limited market demand for additional raw
materials.
Today, the EPA
estimates that Americans recycle some 32 percent of the
350 million tons of refuse they generate annually. While
it still has no federal platform for doing so, the EPA,
through its Resource Conservation Challenge program, is
pushing for Americans to up that rate. Forty-two states
now have their own recycling or waste diversion goals, and
18 are trying to divert upwards of half their waste via
recycling or composting.
CONTACTS:
National
Solid Wastes Management Association; EPA
Resource Conservation Challenge. |
A
SYNDICATED COLUMN ONLY ON AMERICAJR.COM
|
