Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Breast Cancer / December 2004

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Breast Cancer Awareness Month

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Maggie44 - 02 Oct 2004 14:58 GMT
I have a strong theory that Electrical Shock Injury causes Breast Cancer.
Not everyday static shock but industrial strength electrical injury.

Anyone else like to comment on this somewhat
controversial area?
Mary Fisher - 02 Oct 2004 15:11 GMT
>I have a strong theory that Electrical Shock Injury causes Breast Cancer.
>Not everyday static shock but industrial strength electrical injury.

On what do you base this theory?

Mary

> Anyone else like to comment on this somewhat
> controversial area?
Maggie44 - 02 Oct 2004 19:40 GMT
Hi Mary

Well Mary in America over 500 men with breast cancer were researched and
results shown told them that 95% were electrical workers an extremely high
number. I myself am electrical shock survivor and I was diagnosed with
breast cancer 4 years after the injury, ( I have other illnesses too)while I
was having my last check up I met a man who wasn't an electrical worker but
he did have a severe electrical shock a few years pryor to being diagnosed
with breast cancer. Also I have researched this quite a bit and the top
ranking cause of cancer is radiation ,electrical shock injury carries with
it an Electromagnetic Force emcomapssing Non-ionising radiation. There are
many such links that state electrical shock can result in both male & female
breast cancer.

>>I have a strong theory that Electrical Shock Injury causes Breast Cancer.
>>Not everyday static shock but industrial strength electrical injury.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>> Anyone else like to comment on this somewhat
>> controversial area?
Tim Jackson - 02 Oct 2004 21:09 GMT
> Hi Mary
>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> many such links that state electrical shock can result in both male & female
> breast cancer.

Let's just sort a few things out.

It is interesting that such a high percentage of male bc patients are
"electrical workers", and that would suggest that *something* is going on,
but I doubt your hypothesis.  Do you have a reference for this research.
What percentage of the general male population in American hospitals would
classify as electrical workers?

There are far more industrial hazards an electrician is exposed to than
electric shock.  I am not even sure that the correlation between electrical
work and serious electric shock is all that high..  I've been doing
electrical work for over 25 years and had no significant electric shocks,
certainly less than I got in my teens, playing with electricity (when I
would definitely not have been classified as an electrical worker).

For example there are various materials involved in electrical work which
may be carcinogenic, such as transformer oil.  Many older electrical workers
may have been exposed to asbestos.  etc etc.

Your research into radiation perhaps was not quite extensive enough.
Despite extensive research regarding microwaves, mobile phones etc. no-one
has ever managed to show any link between non-ionising radiation and cancer.
Ionising radiation, ie x-rays and radioactive emissions are well known to
cause cancer (although I doubt it is the cause of most cancers, as you seem
to suggest).  The electrical production of ionising radiation requires far
higher voltages than are found in domestic or industrial electrical systems,
around 20,000 volts or so.

Finally, the incidence of (female) breast cancer is I'm sure far higher than
the incidence of serious electric shock.  And so even if, despite
everything, it were to be a cause of cancer, it would still be a minor one.

Tim Jackson
Maggie44 - 02 Oct 2004 21:35 GMT
Yes Tim lets sort a few things out
before any comments are made I would like to point out I have been
researching this for the last 4 years, and only now am i speaking about it,
I also have the backing of the breast cancer unit at the western general in
edinburgh.

ok heres a few links to consider  just a few I have about 8000 on hard disk
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1
877594&dopt=Abstract

http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/electrical_accidents/

http://www.emro.who.int/ncd/Cancer-egy-97-Art1.htm

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstra
ct&list_uids=15255560

http://www.geocities.com/doctor_uae/genpath3.htm

I've several books about electrical injury, 7 booklets from electrical
companies, and a meber of LSESSI lightning strike and electrical shock
survivors international.It upsets me that so many people who have electrical
injury then go on to get breast cancer have so much hurt in their minds and
are not aware about the facts.

>> Hi Mary
>>
[quoted text clipped - 58 lines]
>
> Tim Jackson
Tim Jackson - 03 Oct 2004 00:17 GMT
> Yes Tim lets sort a few things out
> before any comments are made I would like to point out I have been
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> ok heres a few links to consider  just a few I have about 8000 on hard disk

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1
877594&dopt=Abstract

This says that exposure to electromagentic field in the workplace (not
electric shock - more like working near power lines) had an increased risk
of breast cancer, in the worst case by up to six times.  While this is a
significant change and would warrant further research, especialy in women,
one must remember that the incidence of male breast cancer is tiny
(something like one in 100,000 men per year) , and it does not represent a
serious health hazard for men.  It does not mention what proportion of cases
actually involved power workers, and certainly does not say it was 95%.

The only place this number is used is as a confidence interval, eg that 95%
of power workers had an increased risk somewhere between 1.7 and 21 times
normal.  NOT that they all got cancer.

It does not say anything at all to support the claims you are making.

> http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/electrical_accidents/
This has a number of referencs to articles relating various cancers and
various forms of electrical exposure, but I saw nothing obviously relevant
to this hypothesis.  Mostly they appeared to be accounts of single
incidents.

> http://www.emro.who.int/ncd/Cancer-egy-97-Art1.htm
This is a study of perceptions which shows that a group of students THOUGHT
radiation was the biggest cause of cancer, not that it actually was.  To the
best of my knowledge a single cause for the majority of breast cancers is
not known, and the biggest risk factor for breast cancer is age.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstra
ct&list_uids=15255560

An epidemiologial study on exposure to electromagnetic fields and cancer
risk:-
"did NOT identify increased risks for the cancers suggested a priori to be
associated with exposure to EMF, including leukemia, brain tumors, and
breast cancer"

> http://www.geocities.com/doctor_uae/genpath3.htm
This is a study sheet on pathology which lists the effects of various types
of injury
I quote the entire section on electric shock:-
"ELECTRICAL INJURY:
Effects:
Causes burn to skin due to high electrical resistance of skin.
Disruption of neural conductance can cause cardiac arrhythmias. "
Maggie44 - 03 Oct 2004 13:49 GMT
Hi Tim

http://www.lawyersandjudges.com/productdetails.cfm?PC=900

On Page 104 of the above book I quote " Some health effects of radiation
include including cataracts, radiation sickness and radiation dermatitis and
failure of several organs, years after exposure....5 to 15 years for
leukaemia, up to 40 years for skin, lung, breast and other cancers"

There are other such quotes throughout this book about the effects of
electrical injury but for now I will leave them out.

There is also a full report in The American Medical Association " Home
Medical Encyclopaedia (NY: Randem House, 1989),846

The book is only one of a few I have about electrical shock injury all the
books state that cancer is an effect of electrical shock injury specifically
male & female breast cancer,and I will strive to explain as well and as
simple as  I can how it happens, although I am not very good at but
persevere with me.

When a person receives a severe electrical injury they are also receiving
non ionising radiation particles even with a small electrical shock, this is
basic science. It is the current that does the damage and of course the
greater the current the greater the effect.

Every electrical shock injury carries Electromagnetic Force Radiation.

The currant changes basic cellular structures throughout the body including
damage to DNA, breast cells in particular become "excited" some develop into
abnormal pre cancerous cells and through time into most commonly with
electrical shock injury a highly aggressive growing cancer.

I would like to point out a just few myths about electrical shock injury.

Not all electrical shock survivors have entry and exit burns only Direct
Current D.C. produces burns on the human body.

Alternating Current A.C. is 3 times more dangerous than D.C. per AMP. for
AMP.

Bibliography

       Electrical Trauma: The Pathophysiology, Manifestations and Clinical
Management  R. C. Lee (Editor), E. G. Cravalho (Editor), J. F. Burke
(Editor)

                               Occupational Electrical Injury: an
International Symposium (Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
Chin-Tu Chen (Editor), Raphael C. Lee (Editor), Ji-Xiang Shih (Editor),
Min-Hua Zhong (Editor)

Electrical Injuries: Engineering, Medical, and Legal Aspects Robert E.
Nabours, Raymond M. Fish, Paul F. Hill

Maggie
Tim Jackson - 03 Oct 2004 16:33 GMT
> Hi Tim
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> failure of several organs, years after exposure....5 to 15 years for
> leukaemia, up to 40 years for skin, lung, breast and other cancers"

I am not about to buy a book to correct your confounding ionising and
non-ionising radiation.

I have already shown your previous references not to support your claims.

I've made my point and do not intend to respond further.
Readers may make up their own minds whom to believe.

Tim Jackson
Guess Who - 03 Oct 2004 23:40 GMT
I read the likes provided and the support your viewpoint, Tim, in fact in my
home town the electrical company is placing a electrical substation which
the residents are against, there is no hard evidence that electricity causes
any harm. alex

>> Hi Tim
>>
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>
> Tim Jackson
Tim Jackson - 04 Oct 2004 09:41 GMT
> I read the likes provided and the support your viewpoint, Tim, in fact in my
> home town the electrical company is placing a electrical substation which
> the residents are against, there is no hard evidence that electricity causes
> any harm. alex

My gut feeling (and you know what a sceptic I am) is that there -are- subtle
health penalties in long term exposure to high levels of low frequency
electric field, eg living or working close to power lines.  I suspect any
elevated incidence of cancers is a secondary symptom of some more gross
chemical change, perhaps mediated via a depression in the immune system or
something like that.

The study cited by Maggie44 does show odds of 20:1 that -something- is going
on (that's where the 95% figure came from BTW), but it is a small study of
an obscure disease with rather ill-defined parameters (such as actual level
and duration of exposure and type of field, which would be hard to measure),
and is not of itself proof of the above (nor does it support her thesis.)

Public perception of electricity does seem strangely lopsided, there are
people who go around with a mobile phone glued to their ear all day and then
complain about radiation from phone masts.  D'oh.  I don't understand why we
don't have a public campaign against broadcast television, that is probably
the strongest source of electromagnetic radiation most of us are exposed to
(apart from sunshine of course) and has much bigger masts than phones do.
And I for one could do without it.

Tim
Mary Fisher - 04 Oct 2004 11:04 GMT
> Public perception of electricity does seem strangely lopsided, there are
> people who go around with a mobile phone glued to their ear all day and
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> (apart from sunshine of course) and has much bigger masts than phones do.
> And I for one could do without it.

I do ...

But what about pcs? I've always assumed (from a base of absolute ignorance)
that they could be a source of electromagnetic radiation.

It's not joined to my hip but I'd be sad not to have it ... the benefits
outweigh any apparent problems.

The same applies to elecricity :-)

Mary

> Tim
Tim Jackson - 04 Oct 2004 20:47 GMT
> >  broadcast television, that is  probably
> > the strongest source of electromagnetic radiation most of us are exposed
> > to

> But what about pcs? I've always assumed (from a base of absolute ignorance)
> that they could be a source of electromagnetic radiation.
>
> It's not joined to my hip but I'd be sad not to have it ... the benefits
> outweigh any apparent problems.

Mostly from the monitor, if it is a CRT (ie not a flat screen), which has
been much studied by trade unions, but they never got a pay rise out of it.
There are safety standards which monitors must meet in this respect.  They
also do inherently generate ionising radiation in the form of x-rays, but
these are quite easy to screen out.

Miscellaneous radiation from the PC cables etc. in my home overwhelms
broadcast radio within a couple of metres of the machine, but we are in a
weak signal area, so the level is only comparable to 'normal' background
levels.
The PC itself is usually fairly well screened.  It has no inherent need to
emit radiation, unlike a mobile phone.

The unions ended up worrying more about things like eyestrain, posture and
dehydration.  If you are interested in the posture issue I've studied this,
see www.tim-jackson.co.uk/chair.html

Tim
with his engineering hat on.
Mary Fisher - 04 Oct 2004 22:54 GMT
...

> The unions ended up worrying more about things like eyestrain, posture and
> dehydration.  If you are interested in the posture issue I've studied
> this,
> see www.tim-jackson.co.uk/chair.html

You forget - I've seen it irl :-)

I need to be closer to the screen than you - unless I had a different pair
of specs for pc use. But I do need a different chair, not for posture but
because this chair produces pressure on the back of my thighs which is  a
Very Bad Thing. The physiotherapist has pointed me to specialist chairs -
but they're not within the range of my pocket so I keep getting up and
walking around. I rarely spend more than ten minutes sitting on the chair.

Dehydration has no chance in this house. I have weak china tea delivered
intravenously :-)

Mary

> Tim
> with his engineering hat on.
•*•Annie•*• - 05 Oct 2004 06:22 GMT
I'm reluctant to get into this, as I always get in trouble when I do get
into these type of debates. BuT...
When I was dx my bc surgeon/specialist told me that my two most
important risk factors for this was and I quote "your getting older and
your a woman
We've lived in the same place for 30 years next year.
We have high tension lines at the very back of our mobile home park.
These are quite a distance from our home. I was curious also, as this
had come up before in our looking for the "why" of this mess.
Of course we've learned that for most of the cases of breast cancer
there are no concrete, etched in stone answers.
Nor, do I think they are fortn coming anytime soon.
So I asked the "hub" and he told me in order for this to have been the
cause I would've had to lay under those high tension lines for years to
get the exposure that would have created my tumor. He said "a 100 years"
to be accurate.
We're concentrating more on the polution that we have in this state. But
even that's not a "given" as far as a reason.
Our state is one of THE worst for polution...
I grow roses, could have been the sprays I used to use on these.
Could've been the microwave I've used for the last 15 years. I had ti
for 10 years before I was dx.
It could've been one of these or a combo of all of them. BuT! I'd now
rather be spending time enjoying the things that I like to do..instead
of sitting around wondering "why me" and "how"
I've "been there and done" that as they say, and it took 3 good years
from me and this is time I can't get back.
So now I've just excepted the fact that I've had it {twice even} and
just do the best I can not to dwell on it, and do what I can to stay
healthy from here on out.

There are tons of studies out there, and that's not a bad thing, that's
how we learn. But when they become "conclusive" then we can better make
the additional changes we need to make to keep us safe.
Take care everyone
God bless
annie
p/s Tim you're amazing!! and I hope you continue to lead us to good
solid information. I know I'm greatful you're here. ;-)




Ultimately.....we know deeply that the other side of every fear is a
freedom.

"Courage"...is *fear* that has said it's prayers.
Mary Fisher - 05 Oct 2004 09:58 GMT
> I'm reluctant to get into this, as I always get in trouble when I do get
> into these type of debates. BuT...
[quoted text clipped - 35 lines]
> p/s Tim you're amazing!! and I hope you continue to lead us to good
> solid information. I know I'm greatful you're here. ;-)

Well said, annie - everything!

Mary
Maggie44 - 02 Dec 2004 21:18 GMT
I was told by my BC surgeon and electrical expert that electrical shock is
the worst kind of exposure to radiation.

Maggie

>> I'm reluctant to get into this, as I always get in trouble when I do get
>> into these type of debates. BuT...
[quoted text clipped - 39 lines]
>
> Mary
J - 03 Oct 2004 16:48 GMT
This may be of interest to some readers
http://envirocancer.cornell.edu/
BCERF Regional Cancer and Environment Forum
New York, NY
Fall, 2004 - Friday, October 29, 2004

and
Environmental Chemicals and Breast Cancer:
Why Is There Concern?
   Now Available as an on-line presentation
   Of special interest to nurses and health professionals

Fact Sheet: Understanding Breast Cancer Rates
   Revised Aug. 2004  Factsheet #3 (pdf file)
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.