CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- The rates of many forms of cancer are increasing. Today, one in two men and one in three women will develop cancer, and detailed statistical analysis demonstrates that it's not because we have an older population or because we are better at diagnosis.

In "The Secret History of the War on Cancer," Devra Davis discusses environmental factors. We have used the drumbeat for cure to drown out any consideration of prevention, which might interfere with commerce and profits.

By the 1930s, scientists had concluded that where we work and live affects the likelihood of developing cancer. High-risk chemicals and jobs were well known. Tobacco risks were recognized. How far ahead are we now?

As Davis says, science is overwhelmed by the deliberate promotion of doubt in phrases such as "many scientists disagree," "there is no clear proof," "more studies are needed," "we need to look at larger numbers for a longer period of time." And then there are Madison Avenue propaganda and evasive legal maneuvers. This should sound familiar to activists who have questioned the chemical industry in the Kanawha Valley.

Animal experiments were once the starting point, and often the cornerstone, of investigations regarding chemical toxicity. Now, animal studies are debunked as not possibly representing human effects in spite of the fact that they share the vast majority of human genes, and cellular and sub-cellular mechanisms.

The precautionary principle dictates that where legitimate concerns have been raised in animals, great caution should be exercised regarding further exposure of humans. Because there is a long incubation period between exposure to carcinogens and development of cancer in humans, it often takes 10 to 20 years of carefully documented observations in the field to verify that humans are at risk. Unfortunately, increasing time requirements and complexity allow industry to sow confusion and doubt, their goal being to profit as long as possible.

We are all downstream of something at home and at work. Mankind produces and discharges into the environment at least 80,000 chemicals, only 1,000 of which have been adequately tested to determine toxicities. Otherwise, risk concerns might inconvenience industry and slow "progress."

Industry is rarely blind-sided by product effects because industry conducts its own research and with its big purse controls much work done by educational institutions, philanthropic organizations and government agencies. Tobacco companies knew long ago that tobacco was addictive and resulted in multiple untoward effects including lung cancer, but didn't want to share the secret. In the 1950s, tobacco companies began an aggressive PR campaign to create doubt regarding any research that leaked. Answers were ever on the horizon, never reached. Continued research, of course, meant that there were no conclusions. And talking about potential hazards without the definitive studies was "irresponsible speculation."

Electricity is a newer environmental pollutant. Only 150 years ago it was a curiosity in a few small labs. Now we take electricity for granted and assume it is harmless. It runs on wires, and makes our appliances work. It doesn't taste or smell bad.

The problem is that we did not evolve over the eons surrounded by man-made electrical power. All of our cellular control systems, body wide, involve chemically produced tiny electrical charges, potentially susceptible to interference from impinging electrical fields.

CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- The rates of many forms of cancer are increasing. Today, one in two men and one in three women will develop cancer, and detailed statistical analysis demonstrates that it's not because we have an older population or because we are better at diagnosis.

In "The Secret History of the War on Cancer," Devra Davis discusses environmental factors. We have used the drumbeat for cure to drown out any consideration of prevention, which might interfere with commerce and profits.

By the 1930s, scientists had concluded that where we work and live affects the likelihood of developing cancer. High-risk chemicals and jobs were well known. Tobacco risks were recognized. How far ahead are we now?

As Davis says, science is overwhelmed by the deliberate promotion of doubt in phrases such as "many scientists disagree," "there is no clear proof," "more studies are needed," "we need to look at larger numbers for a longer period of time." And then there are Madison Avenue propaganda and evasive legal maneuvers. This should sound familiar to activists who have questioned the chemical industry in the Kanawha Valley.

Animal experiments were once the starting point, and often the cornerstone, of investigations regarding chemical toxicity. Now, animal studies are debunked as not possibly representing human effects in spite of the fact that they share the vast majority of human genes, and cellular and sub-cellular mechanisms.

The precautionary principle dictates that where legitimate concerns have been raised in animals, great caution should be exercised regarding further exposure of humans. Because there is a long incubation period between exposure to carcinogens and development of cancer in humans, it often takes 10 to 20 years of carefully documented observations in the field to verify that humans are at risk. Unfortunately, increasing time requirements and complexity allow industry to sow confusion and doubt, their goal being to profit as long as possible.

We are all downstream of something at home and at work. Mankind produces and discharges into the environment at least 80,000 chemicals, only 1,000 of which have been adequately tested to determine toxicities. Otherwise, risk concerns might inconvenience industry and slow "progress."

Industry is rarely blind-sided by product effects because industry conducts its own research and with its big purse controls much work done by educational institutions, philanthropic organizations and government agencies. Tobacco companies knew long ago that tobacco was addictive and resulted in multiple untoward effects including lung cancer, but didn't want to share the secret. In the 1950s, tobacco companies began an aggressive PR campaign to create doubt regarding any research that leaked. Answers were ever on the horizon, never reached. Continued research, of course, meant that there were no conclusions. And talking about potential hazards without the definitive studies was "irresponsible speculation."

Electricity is a newer environmental pollutant. Only 150 years ago it was a curiosity in a few small labs. Now we take electricity for granted and assume it is harmless. It runs on wires, and makes our appliances work. It doesn't taste or smell bad.

The problem is that we did not evolve over the eons surrounded by man-made electrical power. All of our cellular control systems, body wide, involve chemically produced tiny electrical charges, potentially susceptible to interference from impinging electrical fields.

In the 1960s and 1970s the Russians zapped the U.S. embassy in Moscow with microwaves, according to archived articles in major papers. The embassy was notable for a cancer cluster as well as other blood, genetic and fertility disorders. For that reason staff was given hazardous duty pay for time served there.

The United States was caught in a bind. Our official government position was and is that electromagnetic radiation has no adverse effects on biologic systems short of heating. The Russian assault was well below the accepted U.S. safe level, but the Russian regulatory limit for occupational exposure is one-thousandth of ours. They took the complaints of headache, fatigue, eye pain, dizziness, memory loss, changes in EEG patterns and cardiac irritability demonstrated on EKG and a long list of other signs and symptoms seriously. We did not. To this day Russia (and most of Europe) has regulations much more stringent than ours.

The government already knew something of microwaves and health, because of experience with World War II radar technicians who suffered from infertility, cancer and a distinctive form of cataracts at a very young age.

Modern electrical equipment distorts the baseline 60-cycle electricity, producing waveforms of thousands of cycles per second. The higher frequencies produce stronger electromagnetic fields over greater distances. Industry spends billions yearly to protect machinery. And in most of Europe, standard household appliances are required to have filters built in to remove the high frequencies to limit human exposure, but not here.

Since the 1970s, peer-reviewed journals have published numerous articles connecting electromagnetic fields to an increasing incidence or worsening of various conditions: breast and other cancers, infertility, fetal loss, confusion, headache, fatigue, cataracts, endocrine stress, sleep disorders, behavior disorders, Parkinson's, Lou Gehrig's disease, multiple sclerosis and diabetes. Exposed to "safe" EM levels through generations, rats produce stunted litters. Only the public isn't informed.

With modern communication our exposures are more intense. Cell phones are pervasive worldwide. Even those who don't own or use them are exposed to the microwaves from cell phone transmission towers. Prolonged exposure within 400 meters of a cell phone tower increases cancer risk at least 3 times. And the 1996 Telecommunications Act forbids denying a cell tower permit based on health concerns.

Using a cell phone yourself is worse. Every time your phone transmits, it sends out powerful signals trying to connect with the nearest tower. Those signals go right into your head. The harder the cell phone tries to find the tower (as when you are in a car), the more powerful the signal penetrating your head becomes. Although cell phones have been widely used for little more than 10 years, studies have shown an increase in benign and malignant brain tumors. Young skulls are known to be more penetrable, and their developing tissues more susceptible to carcinogens. That is why the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Center recently advised that kids not use cell phones.

We can't solve problems if we don't acknowledge they exist. For more information, see microwavenews.com, electricalpollution.com and powerwatch.org.uk.

Haning is a Charleston physician.