isn't it the generation of women who were the guinea pigs for the first edition super-high dose birth control pills the demographic that was hit worst with breast cancer? I never hear the science community talk about it, but I've heard about it speaking to women on the topic.

also, all the chemicals that the bodies recognize as phyto estrogens probly hold a large part.

Not to belittle these sorts of results, but they always need to be taken with a rather large grain of salt. I (and the other geneticists around me) always say: Life causes cancer.

That is, everything you do, all the time, carries some risk of exposure to a carcinogen or ten. The best we can hope for is to avoid the big ones - cigarette smoke for lung cancer, as an example. Ionizing radiation. In my case, not eating about half the chemicals I use on a weekly basis in experiments.

Everything else is a judgement call. Is it worth the increased risk for that glass of wine? Every woman has to look at her own life (and life history) and decide that for herself. For me, I figure the risk is still pretty small even if I have a couple glasses of wine a week.

And..."stressful job"? Doesn't that depend on the perceptions of the person doing the job?

The only thing conclusive or necessary is finding a cure to cancer. Every type of cancer is different, my wife has brain cancer. She is young, works at a stressful job, takes birth-control pills, drinks in moderation. None of these factors were the primary cause of her tumor. Genetic predisposition, plus environmental toxins are the most likely culprits. I understand the need for studies, but they seem more and more self serving to the people conducting them and less about curing these horrible diseases. Where are the studies (not sponsored by big industry) that compare the instance of cancer patients who grew up with in a 5 mile radius of a copper refining plant, or who were exposed to small amounts of styrene gas over a 2 month time period?

You don't like this study because it goes against your agenda by suggesting work is not all that it's cracked up to be and may be stressful.

If this study had said that housework causes cancer, would you have published it with a different attitude?

All these revelations of late: work stress causes cancer, men hide their emotions in arguments,

heavens!

link based on those who drank 3 servings of alcohol a day? Not very many people drink every single day.

What this has to do with a cure is...nothing, directly. But that doesn't make the research invalid. Knowing which environmental factors increase one's risk of cancer helps to reduce the incidence of cancer over the long run. As for example, asbestos. Knowing that asbestos can cause lung cancer has led to a dramatic reduction in exposure for most people.

In the more long-term, if we can understand why a particular environmental effect leads to an increased risk of cancer, then we're one step closer to understanding what, exactly, causes that particular cancer in the first place. The answer isn't "stress". The answer is whatever biochemical and genetic changes result from increased stress. The answers to THAT question are then the next targets for drug therapies.

When dealing with cancer, we have to focus on prevention, because, frankly - there will probably never be "a cure for cancer". There will be treatments. Some people will be cured (are cured, today, even) of their particular cancers. But, as you say, all cancers are different. Most people don't really comprehend how different one cancer is from the next. What caused/is causing your particular cancer is directly relevant to what might work to stop it.

But treatments for cancer are always going to be problematic - the treatments and hoped-for cures are always going to be pretty horrible for the patient, because what's wrong in cancer is that the patient's own cells are out of control. And what kills one dividing cell (in cancer) will usually kill others (skin cells, gut lining, hair cells, blood cells - all those cells that are still dividing and renewing your tissues every day). That's why chemotherapy is so awful for the patient. The drugs work VERY well. But it's very hard (so far impossible) to find one that's specific for cancer cells but not all of the patient's normal dividing cells.

Other diseases are easier to cure - antivirals mostly only target the virus. Antibiotics mostly only target the bacteria. But in cancer, you have to kill your own cells.

There's some hope to be found in genetic engineering - we may be able to make viruses tailored to a specific tumor for an individual. But this technology is decades away from working properly and safely. The research community is doing its best.

Prevention where possible is key, and understanding the underlying causes of cancer is required if we're to figure out how to kill a particular tumor type. Basic research is essential.

Research shows that having breasts increases the risk of getting breast cancer.

Seriously, haven't we heard (ad nauseum) that just about everything we do or expose ourselves to increased risk? It's hard not to just start tuning it all out.

That's "increases" not "increased".

No wonder everyone is confused. There are so many things that have been cited as potential factors/causes involved in breast cancer. It's frustrating to have to sort out what's misinformation or incomplete information from what has really been proven.

And although it's encouraging to see so many studies being conducted to determine possible causes, I think clinicians (and the media) should be more responsible about clarifying and qualifying the results reported. Rather than just spewing out the findings, they should make it clear how sound the results are: what findings really establish a cause and effect, and what findings are only *suggestive* of a causal relationship. The average lay person won't necessarily know how to identify "misinformation." I'm glad the NBCC has pointed this out.

But ultimately it's up to everyone to do the best they can in reducing known, controllable risk factors.

Sacajawea makes a good point, too--the massive increase in consumption of estrogen-like molecules is definitely a culprit in breast cancers, and probably other cancers as well. Soy, pesticides, and other additives mimic estrogen to the extent that they can fuel the growth of cancers just like estrogen can.

We'd all do well to cut back on soy (which seems to be in EVERYTHING these days, either as soybean oil or soy protein), and if/when possible, buy organic.