Races for the cure, like this one in Charlotte last year, are great. A race for prevention would be even better. Diedra Laird dlaird@charlotteobserver.com
Races for the cure, like this one in Charlotte last year, are great. A race for prevention would be even better. Diedra Laird dlaird@charlotteobserver.com


Here’s a better way to go after breast cancer

By Francis Koster

Special to the Observer editorial board

October 07, 2017 12:22 PM

Around 40,000 women die from breast cancer each year. Only about 30 percent of cases can be explained by known risk factors like genetics. Research now tells us that pollution accounts for a large number of the rest.

October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month, full of fundraising marches of people noting their concern by wearing pink ribbons. Shouldn’t we also be asking why we march for a cure, and not prevention?

Studies from all over the world show that women who live in areas of high air pollution develop twice as much breast cancer as women who live in areas with clean air. As China has become more industrialized, its air and water pollution have become legendary – and its breast cancer rates are skyrocketing.

Fran Koster
File photo courtesy of RCCC

Help us deliver journalism that makes a difference in our community.

Our journalism takes a lot of time, effort, and hard work to produce. If you read and enjoy our journalism, please consider subscribing today.

The key suspect in the polluted air is nitrogen dioxide – created by burning fossil fuels, mostly automobile gasoline. Several Canadian studies have found that the chances of developing breast cancer at a relatively young age increased by 20 percent if a woman lives in an area with high nitrogen dioxide. The higher the amount in the air, and/or the longer the woman lives in areas with high pollution, the more her chances of developing breast cancer rise.

There is another factor associated with air pollution that increases the risk of breast cancer. Doctors know that women who have what is called “dense breast tissue” are at higher risk for breast cancer than other women. In studies done around the world, dense breast tissue has been found to be caused in part by air pollution.

A lot of this research has been done in countries with national health insurance, because the governments are searching hard for ways to invest in the prevention of disease, instead of just healing it. America is not behaving this way.

U.S. government spending on cancer research, adjusted for inflation, is at its lowest rate since 2001. On top of that, the current administration has submitted a 2018 budget calling for an additional $1 billion in cuts.

That same budget calls for a 30 percent cut in funding for the Environmental Protection Agency.

When we think about pollution, in addition to mental images of polar bears on melting icebergs, or fish kills, we must also call up the images of the bare chest of a woman with the scars of a breast removed – because that is also a problem that must be solved.

If we control the pollution, not only will the polar bear and fish be saved, so will our loved ones.

Maybe the horror of those images would make people ask why the North Carolina legislature ordered the removal of half of all bought and paid for air quality monitors in the state over the past 3 years.

It is time to recognize that the cost of prevention is far cheaper than the cost of curing – and that if our society regulated pollution more, we would spend less on health care.

Do you want to fix the federal deficit by lowering health care spending? Stop pollution. One in eight American women (the number who get breast cancer), will thank you.

And we will need fewer pink ribbons.

Koster, of Kannapolis, runs a not-for-profit called The Pollution Detectives that loans pollution detection equipment to students and concerned citizens. Email: thepollutiondetectives@