Rating: 
Summary: Gripping and engrossing
Review: The author is an articulate ecological biologist who is herself a cancer survivor. My eyes were tempted to gloss over the pages and pages of statistics (they were hard to face up to), but I resisted the urge and instead forced myself to digest the haunting truth standing behind each of the seemingly endless reports and case-studies representing scores of individuals who traversed the cancer ordeal before I did. I thought of the author, poring over her keyboard, obsessed with what seemed to be a morose subject matter, but I became relentlessly engrossed in the gravity of her cause. In her book, she highlights environmental and industrial travesties, and she argues that, as a species, we are vastly contributing to our own high rates of cancer incidence.
Rating:
Summary: AN EXCELLENT BOOK
Review: The cancer business is booming. All types of cancers rose 49.3% between 1950 and 1991. In 1950 an American woman faced a 1 in 20 lifetime risk of breast cancer; today that risk has more than doubled to 1in 8. The incidence of cancer in 1982 was 90 out of 100,000 people. In 1990 it was 112 out of 100,000. There is a 26% increase in brain cancer in children and testicular cancer in teenage boys has doubled. Bladder cancer increased by 10% between 1973 and 1991. According to Sandra Steingraber the author of "Living Downstream" there are reasons why the nations leading cancer organizations make no mention of cancer prevention. There are reasons why they won't talk about the connection between pollution and cancer.
Steingraber uses her own story as an example. "Cancer runs in my family," she says. "I have an aunt who died of the same kind of bladder cancer I had, my mother had metastatic breast cancer, I have many uncles who had colon cancer." She pauses. "But I'm adopted. So cancer runs in my family, it doesn't run in my genes. That leads us to ask, what else do families have in common? We drink the same water, we breathe the same air, we have the same dietary habits, we often work in the same places." She states that only 10% of cancers involve inherited mutations and that studies see more correlates with adoptive families not biological ones.
Steingraber says blaming the cause of cancer on our genetics, life style and behavior rather than the exposure to disease causing agents obscures cancer's many environmental roots.
Steingraber's research supports the connection between pollution and cancer:
In 1996 scientists isolated the carcinogenic agent in tobacco smoke that causes cancer.
In 1978, when the Israeli government banned pesticides-benzene hexachloride, DDT and lindane, breast cancer rates dropped by nearly 8% in all age groups by 1986.
Industrial countries have disproportionately more cancers than countries with little or no industry. Families exposed to a dioxin suffused cloud from a pesticide manufacturing plant in Seveso, Italy in July 1976 have three times the rates of liver cancer and increased incidence of leukemia, multiple myeloma and soft tissue sarcoma.
In Finland there was an increase in non-Hodgkins lymphoma where the waterways were contaminated by chlorphenols from local sawmills.
Urban lung cancer rates are two to three times higher than the surrounding countryside.
People in cities with chemical plants, pulp and paper mills and petroleum industries show elevated rates of lung cancer.
People living near hazardous-waste sites have an increased risk of cancer.
Women employed in the chemical and plastic industry have higher rates of breast cancer.
Bladder cancer increased by 10% between 1973-1991 for workers in pharmaceutical plants and in the dye industry. Workers in the dry clean business have two times the rate of esophageal and bladder cancer.
Why has The World Health Organization recently attributed 80% of cancer to environmental influence?
Eighty thousand chemicals have been registered with the Environmental Protection Agency in the last 60 years. Twenty new chemicals enter the market a week. Few are properly tested. In 2000 The Center for Disease Control measured 27 industrial chemicals in most Americans and admits that there is very little data to prove that the majority of the chemicals are safe-especially with children.
Chemical companies are placing hundreds of new synthetic chemicals in the market each year-far faster than toxicologists and regulatory agencies can test them.
Yet the leading cancer organization make no mention of environmental causes of cancer. Why? The answer is simple-money. Industrial chemical have become a major sector of the global economy; any evidence linking them to serious human and ecological health problems is met with opposition.
As Steingraber says, "It's impossible to live safely in a toxic world. We need to get political." We have to clean up the toxins in our environment to clean up the toxins in ourselves. No human should have to suffer and die to prove that industrial chemical cause cancer.
Rating:
Summary: Do you eat? Breathe? Have kids?
Review: Then you need this book. For me the most shocking thing about Living Downstream is how little known it is, given the life or death issues it addresses. I had never heard of it until I attended a lecture in support of the author's new book, Having Faith: An Ecologist's Journey to Motherhood. What Living Downstream does is explore the connections between the toxic chemicals found everywhere in our environment, and various cancers and other diseases. Examined are various mediums of transmission: earth, air, water, fire; chemicals from vinyl chloride, to pesticides and insecticides, to PCBs--even dry cleaning fluid (PCE); and scientific evidence of their connections to cancers, immune deficiencies and reproductive problems. Pulling all this research together is in itself a tremendous service. Science so often involves narrow fields of research with little communication between fields. Still, though it's hardly a "light read," it is nothing like those dry science textbooks you remember. The author is also a poet, and she uses metaphor and imagery to explain in easy terms anything unfamiliar to the non-scientist. This makes the book intelligent-user friendly and even, at times, beautiful. The personal narrative keeps it human. However, I won't lie and say it is a "fun read." The truth is, I found it educational and even life-changing, but also deeply unsettling and even frightening. No longer can I dismiss cancer as genetic, or easily warded off through diet and lifestyle, or see environmental cancers as the problem of those poor souls unfortunate enough to live near some toxic waste dump. The book gave me knowledge, and yes, it's true: knowledge IS power. It gave me the motivation to buy organic, to use filtered (NOT bottled) water, to take a very serious look at any chemical I use around my home. It also helped me understand why this is not the whole answer, that the real answer lies in taking serious steps to address the poisoning of our environment. The first and most important step, however, is awareness, which is why you should read this book.
Rating:
Summary: A must-read for anyone concerned about our environment!
Review: This book is chock-full of important scientific information about the connections between cancer and the environment, yet it is very easy to read. I couldn't put it down. You will be shocked by the evidence she puts forth. All her information is well-documented.
Rating:
Summary: "Living Downstream" is the "Silent Spring" of the 1990's..
Review: This book will be remembered not only for its eloquence and poetry, for its accuracy and precision, but also for the silence with which it was received in 1997. Along with Joni Seager's "Earth Follies" and Terry Tempest Williams' "Refuge", "Living Downstream" paints a picture of our behavior toward our planet as nothing less than genocidal. For those who believe Rachel Carson was right, this book is a must-read update and a reminder that faith is not enough. We must live as if we believe the consequences of toxic pollution to be predictable and avoidable.
Rating:
Summary: A must read for anyone concerned about "why so much cancer?"
Review: This interesting, easy-reading book gives sound scientific information on many of the reasons cancer is so rampant today and what can be done about it. Yes, searhing for the cure for cancer is important as is treatments - but the MOST important thing we can do is to PREVENT it in the first place. We must encourage our leaders to stop compromising the public's safety for the corporate bottom line.
Rating:
Summary: Where Science Meets Sole
Review: With her heart and science Ms. Steingraber gives us the history of how products (including agricultural ones) made of natural chemicals increasingly have been remade with synthetic chemicals since the last two world wars. Restrictions on newly created dangerous chemicals were not considered for fear of causing another post war depression after 1945. Some of the synthetic chemicals find their ways into our cells by being similar enough to natural hormones, yet alien enough, that our bodies' defense mechanisms are fooled, sometimes becoming cannibalized to turn malignatly against us. She gracefully does not point the finger at individuals, and usually not at specific companies, but gives us a scientifically based (with nearly 300 references) ecological picture of what's going on to needlessly make some people sick and die. There are approxamately 7,500 synthetic chemicals in use. Only a small fraction of them have been tested for health risks. Usually these risks are calculated only after exceedingly high percentages of us die. Some chemicals like Benzene (an additive to gasoline) despite being known carcinogens, are still allowed to be used. Instead of using us as guinea pigs, Steingraber explains, the "precautionary principle" should be adopted. This means new chemicals should be tested for what harm they may cause. They should not be used when they are indicated to be harmful. Absolute proof, usually a body count is not necessary. "Reverse onus," is a similar principle, meaning chemicals should be demonstrated to be safe. For dangerous chemicals that seem indispensable, "least toxic alternatives" should be developed. For example, there are already alternatives to using chlorine for eliminating pathogens in our drinking water. Chlorine does not have to be used. Ms. Steingraber grew up fast after innocently HAVING BEEN GIVEN CANCER at a young age. Perhaps that's why she cherishes children, who are more susceptible to carcinogens than adults. Our Govt. only sets standards for carcinogens based on adults' more sluggish metabolisms -- that is, when "economics" doesn't overide human health. Also, fetuses and young children should not be blamed for their unhealthy lifestyles when they succumb to nasty chemically induced afflictions. Walking along the toxic yet beautiful Illinois River with her sister's children, Ms Steingraber points out the absurdity of the EPA writing reports about keeping children away from that river. Rivers are like The Wind in the Willows to children, even when the wind is poisened, and willows, most ducks or talking toads don't live there anymore. Instead of letting us continue to ignore these problems she offers this advice, "Maybe we adults need only demonstrate an attitude of passionate attention about where we live."
Rating:
Summary: Where Science Meets Sole
Review: With her heart and science Ms. Steingraber gives us the history of how products (including agricultural ones) made of natural chemicals increasingly have been remade with synthetic chemicals since the last two world wars. Restrictions on newly created dangerous chemicals were not considered for fear of causing another post war depression after 1945. Some of the synthetic chemicals find their ways into our cells by being similar enough to natural hormones, yet alien enough, that our bodies' defense mechanisms are fooled, sometimes becoming cannibalized to turn malignatly against us. She gracefully does not point the finger at individuals, and usually not at specific companies, but gives us a scientifically based (with nearly 300 references) ecological picture of what's going on to needlessly make some people sick and die. There are approxamately 7,500 synthetic chemicals in use. Only a small fraction of them have been tested for health risks. Usually these risks are calculated only after exceedingly high percentages of us die. Some chemicals like Benzene (an additive to gasoline) despite being known carcinogens, are still allowed to be used. Instead of using us as guinea pigs, Steingraber explains, the "precautionary principle" should be adopted. This means new chemicals should be tested for what harm they may cause. They should not be used when they are indicated to be harmful. Absolute proof, usually a body count is not necessary. "Reverse onus," is a similar principle, meaning chemicals should be demonstrated to be safe. For dangerous chemicals that seem indispensable, "least toxic alternatives" should be developed. For example, there are already alternatives to using chlorine for eliminating pathogens in our drinking water. Chlorine does not have to be used. Ms. Steingraber grew up fast after innocently HAVING BEEN GIVEN CANCER at a young age. Perhaps that's why she cherishes children, who are more susceptible to carcinogens than adults. Our Govt. only sets standards for carcinogens based on adults' more sluggish metabolisms -- that is, when "economics" doesn't overide human health. Also, fetuses and young children should not be blamed for their unhealthy lifestyles when they succumb to nasty chemically induced afflictions. Walking along the toxic yet beautiful Illinois River with her sister's children, Ms Steingraber points out the absurdity of the EPA writing reports about keeping children away from that river. Rivers are like The Wind in the Willows to children, even when the wind is poisened, and willows, most ducks or talking toads don't live there anymore. Instead of letting us continue to ignore these problems she offers this advice, "Maybe we adults need only demonstrate an attitude of passionate attention about where we live."
| 
