Features Podcasts Family Video Comics Music Tech Science Books Film & TV Games ✚

Jill

Why are breast cancer rates so high among US troops?

Xeni Jardin at 7:59 am Tue, Oct 2, 2012

— FEATURED —

THE LATEST

Guatemala: Archive of documents from Rios Montt genocide trial, overturned 10 days after guilty verdict

THE LATEST

Guatemala: Nation's highest court throws out Ríos Montt genocide trial verdict and prison sentence

Feature

Eurovision 2013: An American in London

Book Review

The Twelve-Fingered Boy - mesmerizing YA horror novel

Book Review

Black Code: how spies, cops and crims are making cyberspace unfit for human habitation

— FOLLOW US —

Boing Boing is on Twitter and Facebook. Subscribe to our RSS feed or daily email.

 

— POLICIES —

Except where indicated, Boing Boing is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution

 

— FONTS —

Tweet
Kindle

In Marine Times, a Gannett newspaper targeting people in the Marine Corps and their families, an article for "Pinktober" (pink-ribbonny breast cancer awareness month, bleargh) about the high rate of breast cancer among men and women in the military. There are a number of theories as to why the breast cancer rates are so high, and a cluster of the disease affecting males at Camp Lejeune are a particularly vexing science mystery. "Researchers with the CDC are preparing a study that will try to determine whether contaminated drinking water at the Marine Corps’ largest base on the East Coast caused dozens of male Marines, sailors and family members to get breast cancer." Read more: Alarming breast cancer rates among troops (Marine Corps Times). Mother Jones covered this in a recent issue, also.

Boing Boing editor/partner and tech culture journalist Xeni Jardin hosts and produces Boing Boing's in-flight TV channel on Virgin America airlines (#10 on the dial), and writes about living with breast cancer. Diagnosed in 2011. @xeni on Twitter. email: xeni@boingboing.net.

MORE:  breast cancer • cancer • marines • military • war

More at Boing Boing

Eurovision 2013: An American in London

The technology that links taxonomy and Star Trek

  • Ashen Victor

    Depleted uranium rounds maybe?

    I have being told that that shit may be quite radioactive.

    • http://boingboing.net/ The Life Of Bryan

      Uranium is a heavy metal, and an extremely toxic one at that. The radiation is just icing on the cake.

    • Bruce Wayne

      please replace “may be quite” with “is very”

      • dnebdal

        Well. If it’s near-enough pure U-238, it’s got a long halflife and comparably low activity. I’d still not wear a DU bracelet, but as radioactive metals go it’s rather low-key.

  • billstreeter

    Spent uranium might be one cause but really US Military bases are well known to be contaminated with all kinds of stuff. Camp Lejeune (mentioned above) had a long known and unaddressed issue with the ground water being contaminated with Trichloroethylene which is a cancer causing chemical.

  • bklynchris

    per the Marine Corps Times article, oral contraceptives are singled out as the risk factor for women, and for the men?  Well, for them the suggested risk factor is exposure to environmental carcinogens.  Why does this really bother me to no end?

    btw-my family would like to thank the bb powers that be for the truncated feed, it appears I am now spending more quality time with them ; )

    • Daemonworks

       Interesting that men and women with comparable jobs get radically different explanations, no?

      • bklynchris

        and sad….

    • graou

      I recently read an article explaining that mothers of boys could keep some of their son’s DNA in their brain, and that it could help them against beast cancer http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/250786.php
      It is not proved yet, but if it’s true, i guess we could say that women soldiers have less kids than others, and so they have more breast cancer…
      That, and uranium in weapons.

  • peterkvt80

    I wonder if the higher rate of cancer is due to better detection? Because there is health care for all the military maybe they are finding more problems that sometimes stay hidden in the rest of the population?

    • toyg

      It’s not just “having healthcare” — military personnel obviously spend more *time* going through healthcare for all sorts of “employment hazards”. If you have to take a scan to make sure the bullet was fully removed, there’s a fair chance you’ll spot any other abnormality in the area; and so on.

  • ashypete

    I wonder if the cause could be something along these lines – Night Shift Work, Light at Night, and Risk of Breast Cancer. Rather than the more obvious environmental contaminants as some commenters have suggested?

  • SomeGuyNamedMark

    Sorry but if you are seeking a long healthy life then the service is generally not a good idea.

    • shay simmons

      I fail to see why.  In my immediate family we have dad, myself, two sisters, two brothers in law, and one husband all veterans, all over fifty, all in reasonably good health (Dad has Alzheimer’s but there’s no post hoc ergo propter hoc there that I know of).  

      Mining and farming are far more lethal occupations than the military.

      (Edited to add another brother in law).

      • SomeGuyNamedMark

        I think it has to do with all the shooting and stuff blowing up that tends to be a part of it.  At least for combat units, maybe not for admin staff.

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/GJZBSKTNLPLKOOOW7NTTMWVCN4 blueprairie

          If you look at the statistics, mining and farming are still more dangerous.

          Hell, driving is more dangerous, in terms of # Americans killed and maimed each year.

          (and while my sisters and I were REMFs, my father/husband/BILs were all grunts).

  • technobach

    This just in:  Breast cancer causes people to join the army.

  • Tribune

    I wonder if they are going to look at wanting to join the military as a factor – be it socio economic or studies of biological baseline it would be a fascinating study yet likely to raise a huge shitstorm overshadowing any actual outcome (ie imagine the reporting if someone tested estrogen/testoterone levels in women recruits vs non recruits).

    Anyway with the male breast cancer spikes one would imagine environmental studies would be the best avenue of research.

  • Bartek Bialy

    What about stress? http://youtu.be/rYbeyU3pQvI?t=12m13s (start from 12:13)

  • keithg

    Xeni, are you anti pink-ribbony breast cancer awareness month? If you are, why?

    • welcomeabored

      Currently streaming on Netflix, ‘Pink Ribbons, Inc.’  Equally informative is a book by Barbara Ehrenreich, titled ‘Brightsided’.  Barbara is also featured promenently in the aformentioned documentary.

      http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2035599/plotsummary

      • TheMadLibrarian

        Breast cancer awareness and treatment is good.  Using the marketing campaign associated with it to shill unrelated cruft, not so good.  For example, a pink anodized pistol?  O RLY?

  • stringmonkey

    Drinking water at Camp LeJeune is a likely culprit.  They’ve had some of the worst drinking water in the country for many years, largely due to chemicals from stored ordnance and other things leaching into the water table.  President Obama recently signed legislation to compensate folks living there between 1957 and 1987 for health problems, but the water quality problems persisted for at least a decade after that.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QHS2JUGZGALAPD2FDGC6K27LZU Mister

    my guess is the slew of shots and vaccines they give the soldiers. It wouldnt be the first time we experiment on our military men and women.