Causing Cancer: It's the Military-Industrial, Stupid

In a comment to this post, mvp Alain writes: 

Or the social justice and peace movements of the 60's presented an opportunity for genuine realignment but failed in the face of a massive counter-reaction of the establishment. The contemporary celebration of their failure is perhaps a symptom of that loss?

I think it's safe to say that the true extent of this counter-reaction or conservative backlash, from the criminal "justice" system/prison boom to the military-industrial complex to the semi-covert militarization of space...has yet to be fully appreciated, and most likely will not be for some time yet.  Once again, Christian Parenti has made a start.  But there is an environmental component to this story that the rhetorical fog of permanent "war" threatens to obscure.

Namely, that perhaps the fallout from World War II represents not a moral so much as an environmental paradigm shift.   

Polluting as we go, the chances of getting some form of cancer are now 1-in-2 for men, and 1-in-3 for women. 

But no need to worry about pollution, no need to worry about building up resistances to antibiotics in the water, or rapidly deteriorating immune systems on an unprecedented global scale.  The pink ribbons are here to stay.  Breast Cancer Awareness Month was founded by Imperial Chemical (which retains the rights to veto all material), so we're not about to hear any talk of organochlorines from them, only perennial scolding of women to "eat better, get more exercise, and lose weight."  It's all a problem of diet, you see.  Not to mention that treating cancer is something of a business these days.  It's a racket, some might say.  Corporations save money polluting at will, then chanting "early detection is the best protection" and then treating you with all sorts of expensive chemicals, many of which in turn are known to cause other forms of cancer as "side effects".  Nothing at all to do with military-industrial environment priorities, this racket.  I mean, as the would-be President with *the best* environmental record in the Senate recently so eloquently and so very forcefully argued during the debates...no wait.

nb.  But then I'm not saying anything here really that Jim Hightower wasn't already saying back in 1998. More here.

Comments

[Alain]

Matt

Thanks for the kind words (I think?). It seems that the environmental costs of free markets is the dirty little secret that is completely out in the open. The toxic effects of many materials used in the most ordinary of products (toys, furniture, building supplies)is well known but seems to go largely ignored. Perhaps a symptom of denial? I am not sure.

[Matt]

No, I think you're right, Alain. Denial seems to be at work in many ways, some more subtle than others.

In addition to Jim Hightower, for a good look at the history and the generally bizarre priorities driving the US pharmaceutical cartel, I'd also recommend _Bitter Pills_ (for whatever that's worth, coming from someone who was once a Sociology major in college before getting utterly bored with Sociology--aka. all anti-Americanism all the time, without the original texts--and switching to English...to write a thesis on...Derrida and Blanchot.)

[Cian]

One has to be careful in attributing too much to the rise in cancer, as a large chunk of it may be due to people living longer, more sedentary life styles and (Yes) eating badly. Additionally, detection may have improved, or changed (many skin tumours probably weren't cancerous), which would bias the figures considerably. I'd be fascinated to see a proper study of what the increase is (I would imagine that it is very significant), put together by a qualified epidemologist (one must exist somewhere), but usually these stats are thrown about by people who don't do stats.

One of the lesser known pollutants is shampoo. All those "organic" shampoos, with herbs, also contain oil byproducts (Laurel Sulphate, for example) which are carcinogen suspects. And your scalp is the worst place on the body to rub toxic chemicals...

There's also perfume, which lots of people have problems with (I'm one) because most perfumes contain a bewildering collection of toxins. Not just carcinogens, but neuro-toxins and god knows what else (the cosmetics industry have been fighting disclosure for years on what is in their products). I read one report which suggested that a majority of women who wear perfume suffer all kinds of side effects (tiredness, dizziness, headaches) - but still go on wearing them. Go figure.

[Matt]

Well, I'd like to see such a study too; preferably one that wasn't funded by either pharmaceutical companies or the American Cancer Association.

The big business of rainforest-clearing, hormone/steriod/anti-biotic infested beef and genetically-tampered fish and "chicken" is certainly doing nothing good, as films like "Supersize Me" help demonstrate, and who knows how fast the general weakening of immune systems/resistence to anti-biotics is proceeding.

[Matt]

Not to mention: "According to projections, 73% of US adults could be overweight or obese by 2008"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4183086.stm

I was never one for heavily-perfumed women, really.