In her award-winning documentary Toxic Bust, filmmaker Megan Siler takes on the issues and realities of toxic chemicals women are exposed to at home, in the community, and during work in relation to the potential links to breast cancer. Siler focuses on three breast cancer hot spots -- San Francisco and Silicon Valley in California and Cape Cod in Massachusetts.

Siler is not alone in her investigative work of environmental links to cancer risks. Even though the current percentage of federally-funded research dollars allocated to the links between cancer and exposure to environmental toxins is in the single-digits, there are those who have spent a good deal of time, energy and resources into studying the cause and effect of the environmental risks to cancer. In the last six years, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) has conducted extensive studies regarding toxic chemicals in the environment. Among the 72 people who participated in the EWG studies, a chemical body burden of 455 industrial pollutants, pesticides and other chemicals in blood, urine, and breast milk were found.

The Toxic-Free Legacy Coalition analyzed the hair, blood, and urine samples of ten study participants and found that every person tested had at least 26 and as many as 39 toxic chemicals in his or her body and the exposure to toxic chemicals came from everyday activities and products. Breast Cancer Action released State of the Evidence 2006: What Is the Connection Between the Environment and Breast Cancer? which provided compelling scientific evidence pointing to some of the 100,000 synthetic chemicals in use today as contributing to the development of breast cancer, either by altering hormone function or gene expression. The report also identifies radiation exposure, such as that from X-rays and CT scans, as the longest-established environmental cause of breast cancer. In the United States, a woman's lifetime risk of developing breast cancer has tripled in the last 40 years.

Wendy Mesley, co-host of CBC's Marketplace and breast cancer survivor, produced and hosted the investigative documentary Chasing the Cancer Answer, that provided revealing interviews with an outspoken American doctor, frustrated cancer victims in southern Ontario, pharmaceutical sales representatives in Paris, France, and activists working to increase awareness of prevention measures. Greenpeace issued a report that Chernobyl cancer deaths have been grossly underestimated. Award-winning and highly-respected journalist and public commentator Bill Moyers produced a PBS documentary Trade Secrets investigating the history of the chemical revolution and the body burden of synthetic chemicals that pose dangers to human health.

We have additional links related to the topic of environmental links to cancer risk at Earth Day: environmental cancer risks and Cancer Epidemic: are we poisoned from birth? Cancer defines about 100 diseases characterized by the uncontrolled, abnormal growth of cells. No one single factor is going to be the cause for all cancers. However, environmental exposure from toxic chemicals cannot be ignored as one, and perhaps multiple, contributing factors in raising the risks of developing cancer.

A study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, July 5, 2006 issue, confirms children exposed to radioactive iodine and cesium from the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster suffer higher rates of thyroid cancer. The higher the dosage at the time of the accident, the greater the chances they have, or will, develop thyroid cancer. Columbia University in New York researchers, who conducted the study, state that understanding the exposure to radiation is significant, because radioactive iodine is frequently used in medicine.

For additional information, here are past posts we have published regarding the Chernobyl nuclear disaster cancer risks and low-level nuclear radiation increases in cancer:

• TORCH: the other report on Chernobyl
• Greenpeace: Chernobyl cancer deaths grossly underestimated
• Tooth Fairy Project: low level radiation link to cancer

The Columbia University in New York researchers conclude with the statement, "We estimate that 75 percent of the thyroid cancer cases would have been avoided in the absence of radiation."

Earlier this week, Greenpeace and 52 scientists issued a study stating that the long-term cancer effects of the Chernobyl disaster have been grossly underestimated by the International Atomic Energy Agency Chernobyl Forum, and released an independent report highlighting the grim realities. In another study, called The Other Report on Chernobyl, known as the TORCH study, two British scientists report that 20 years after the nuclear explosion, in what is referred to as the world's worst industrial accident, leukemia, breast cancers, bladder cancers, and kidney cancers in people exposed to the radiation fallout continue to be diagnosed in countries as far away as the UK.

Torch claims that more than half of the fallout from the explosion landed outside Belarus, Ukraine and Russia, contaminating about 34 per cent of the UK's surface. It reveals that there are still restrictions on 374 farms covering 750 square kilometers and 200,000 sheep in the UK. The Other Report on Chernobyl, TORCH, is a 91 page study available online as a PDF document. Its comprehensive information, including an explanation of why the figures have been downplayed, makes for a compelling read. We live on a very small planet, and what affects one area of our planet will eventually have an affect on other parts of the planet. The winds and weather patterns carried the Chernobyl power plant disaster worldwide.

"There are two compelling reasons why this tragedy must not be forgotten. First, if we forget Chernobyl, we increase the risk of more technological and environmental disasters in the future. Second, more than seven million of our fellow human beings do not have the luxury of forgetting. They are still suffering every day." -- Kofi Annan, UN Secretary General 2000

Greenpeace has issued a report stating the cancer death toll resulting from the Chernobyl disaster is grossly underestimated, and that the true figures will exceed a quarter of a million cancers cases, with over 100,000 fatal cancers. With the information compiled, Greenpeace and 52 scientists challenge the International Atomic Energy Agency Chernobyl Forum report as a gross simplification of the real experiences of human suffering.

In an effort to put faces on the statistical numbers, a new photography exhibit of victims will be traveling through 30 cities worldwide. Some of the photographs are featured online here. I will warn you though, the photographs of the children are especially heartbreaking and will disturb you.

According to a statement on the Greenpeace website, "These powerful images are a timely reminder that human lives are more than just  numbers. For each statistic there is a person paying the ultimate price. Anyone who doubts the dangers of nuclear power should visit the exhibition and see for themselves one of the reasons why we oppose nuclear power. Twenty years on, every nuclear power plant bears the legacy of  the nuclear industry's victims; and every nuclear power plant represents the threat of becoming the next Chernobyl."

The world is facing an energy crisis, and according to energy experts, it is not going to get better. But given the known dangers, are nuclear power plants the way to solve the problem?

Photo credit: Greenpeace. Elena, 19, is being treated for her second case of thyroid cancer in just 3 years.