[GBSB]

The trade off is between wearing the bra that artificially enhance appearance of breast followed with premature aging of the breast and bra free that is important factor to enable breast to be healthy.

I don't think so.

I know that what I state in my previous replay to you contradict to popular belief.  At the moment I can only say that I am confident that is true what I stated about wearing the bra and negative impact on shape and aging of the breast.

Wearing the bras affect the breast like shape, size etc. It is plenty to discus about that but first at all is important to take serious the claim that wearing the bra cause breast cancer incidence by 12500%.
The most people are afraid from breast cancer that they are afraid think of them.
The research from Sydney Ross Singer and Soma Grismaijer shows that simply people can take more control of own health. Being aware of own body will positively effect body health, appearance and some other important factors.

Around twenty years long I have belief that wearing the bra cause breast cancer and when I in 2003 read in some tabloid news paper ( I can’t remember in which one) about Sydney Ross Singer and Soma Grismaijer research it was for me some kind of relief.

However, I think the even being all life bra free will not absolutely protect from breast cancer but it will greatly reduce chance to be affected by breast cancer.

The research of Sydney Ross Singer and Soma Grismaijer I find extremely important for humanity and on the other side their theory about underlining mechanism of breast cancer I don’t take seriously. I think it is the weakest point in their work.

[Bored chemist]

" it does not take a genius to realise we have the ingredients for cellular overload.
The arguments against this are?"
That "cellular overload" isn't a defined problem but something you seem to have made up and that, if this sort of thing caused cancer it would have been noticed even more strongly when corsets were in fashion. Oh, btw, the metals (typically Al) in antiperspirants don't generally get through the skin so it doesn't take a genius to see that they can't hope to have an effect on the lymphatic system.

I still say that we need to look at the raw data because otherwise, as I have said before, we are in danger of equating correlation with causation. That's a big enough fault, but to do it on the basis of just one (debatable) set of data is simply not science.

If this were a real effect how come it wasn't spotted when bras were new?

Newcomers to this site may wish to know that GBSB doesn't seem to think that scurvy is caused by a shortage of vitamin C.
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=8659.50

[rosy]

NobodySavedMe, you missed my point completely. I don't say that individuals who have developed cancer are not affected by a disease.. I said that cancer was not a disease. There are many, many different types of cancer, and each is a distinct disease all by itself. Some have things in common with each other, but just because you can treat one doesn't mean the same treatment will be effective on another.
I thought my original post made that clear, but apparently not clear enough.

[BenV]

Personally I don’t see any potentially negative impact on people except on particularly group of established medical professionals.

I doubt there would be any negative effect on medical professionals - even if wearing a bra increased the risk of breast cancer there are many aspects of cancer to research.  As I said before, if there is a proven link, it will encourage more research into the mechanisms behind the link, not least so that the problem can be overcome through different bra design. This research would then filter into research on different types of cancer - could these mechanisms apply elsewhere?  When scientists discover something that increases the cancer risk, they don't just give up - the nature of scientific enquiry is to ask why any link exists.  In fact, if there were a proven link, it would most likely increase the money going to cancer research, as clothing manufacturers would want to support further research.

The people who would be negatively affected are those that make and sell bras and the people who would panic about wearing them.

[Bored chemist]

"The people who would be negatively affected are those that make and sell bras"
until they found a way to advertise the "New safe(r) bra! only $1000"
but anyway, until there's more evidence than one iffy study I don't believe it.

As I have asked before how would such an effect have been missed when bras were a new invention?

[Andrew K Fletcher]

BC

Division of Cell and Molecular Biology, School of Animal and Microbial Sciences, The University of Reading, P.O. Box 228, Whiteknights, Reading, RG6 6AJ, UK
Received 31 March 2005;  revised 17 May 2005;  accepted 1 June 2005.  Available online 19 July 2005.



Abstract
Aluminium salts are used as the active antiperspirant agent in underarm cosmetics, but the effects of widespread, long term and increasing use remain unknown, especially in relation to the breast, which is a local area of application. Clinical studies showing a disproportionately high incidence of breast cancer in the upper outer quadrant of the breast together with reports of genomic instability in outer quadrants of the breast provide supporting evidence for a role for locally applied cosmetic chemicals in the development of breast cancer. Aluminium is known to have a genotoxic profile, capable of causing both DNA alterations and epigenetic effects, and this would be consistent with a potential role in breast cancer if such effects occurred in breast cells. Oestrogen is a well established influence in breast cancer and its action, dependent on intracellular receptors which function as ligand-activated zinc finger transcription factors, suggests one possible point of interference from aluminium. Results reported here demonstrate that aluminium in the form of aluminium chloride or aluminium chlorhydrate can interfere with the function of oestrogen receptors of MCF7 human breast cancer cells both in terms of ligand binding and in terms of oestrogen-regulated reporter gene expression. This adds aluminium to the increasing list of metals capable of interfering with oestrogen action and termed metalloestrogens. Further studies are now needed to identify the molecular basis of this action, the longer term effects of aluminium exposure and whether aluminium can cause aberrations to other signalling pathways in breast cells. Given the wide exposure of the human population to antiperspirants, it will be important to establish dermal absorption in the local area of the breast and whether long term low level absorption could play a role in the increasing incidence of breast cancer.

Keywords: Antiperspirant; Aluminium chlorhydrate; Aluminium chloride; Underarm cosmetics; Breast cancer; Oestrogen; Oestrogen receptor

[elegantlywasted]

wow.

all i have to say is wow.

Cancer. Bras. Sagging. Has anyone correlated this to breast size? Women with larger breasts wear bras more often and for longer periods of time because it is comfortable to have the support. Larger breasts have more tissue, which would lead to more room for cancerous cells to grow, causing more instances of cancer. Lastly, boobs are heavy. Heavy things sag. Large breasts which are supported by bras weigh more than small breasts that do not need a bra; so obviously these bra supported breasts are going to sag more.

Do I make sense? I'm not a scientist or a doctor, I'm just a girl, and as you all know from the pictures of me you keep finding reasons to post, I know a thing or two about breast size.

I have to say, the info in that study may be correct, but it sure as hell isn't thorough. Oh well...

[Bored chemist]

AKF
Thanks, the salient point in that text seems to be this
"it will be important to establish dermal absorption in the local area of the breast "
That tells us that no evidence for such absorbtion currently exists.

What it says is that If Al got in then maybe it could interfere with a mechanism that might trigger changes in levels of a hormone that is often, but not always, linked to breast cancer.

Hardly a smoking gun.

As I have asked before, how would such an effect have been missed when bras were a new invention?


Elegantlywasted.
Good point and an excellent example of why correlation isn't proof of causation.

[Seany]

Mmm.. I haven't looked at the thread that closely..
But does this mean that if men wear underwear..
They are 12500% more likely to get testicular cancer? []

[GBSB]

Mmm.. I haven't looked at the thread that closely..
But does this mean that if men wear underwear..
They are 12500% more likely to get testicular cancer? []

It is great thought Seanny.

I suggest open the new topic. I am sure it will be interesting to discus this question

In any case, I don’t think this is appropriate to discus in this topic because it will further take discussion in wrong direction.

[Bored chemist]

Does my wristwatch mean I'm more likely to get cancer in my left hand than my right?*
Perhaps I should remove my belt in case my legs drop off.

"Mmm.. I haven't looked at the thread that closely.."
 I wouldn't bother. It's not clear to me that it should even be on a scientific website.
Just for the sake of tradition I will ask once more, how would such an effect have been missed when bras were a new invention?
* this is an interesting example of the so called "confounding variable" problem.
Here in the UK people drive on the left of the road and so get more sun on their right sides. This is associated with a higher incidence of cancer on the right side of the body.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6320405.stm
Of course, in the USA they drive on the other side so you could look at the 2 population (US and UK) and deduce that something else was happening.
If you only looked at the US data (and a lot of studies only cover data from one country) you might conclude that watches were causing the problem.
That sort of effect may be the cause of the "bra causes cancer!" data that this thread is based on.

[Andrew K Fletcher]

Depends whether the fingers glow in the dark or not

Does my wristwatch mean I'm more likely to get cancer in my left hand than my right?*
Perhaps I should remove my belt in case my legs drop off.

[GBSB]

Does my wristwatch mean I'm more likely to get cancer in my left hand than my right?*

Your wristwatch doesn’t support the weight of your hand. The weight of your wristwatch is supported by your arm

In case of wearing the bra, the breast doesn’t support the bra but the bra restrict the natural movements of the breast and cause that weight of the breast isn’t supported by breast but the weight of the breast is supported with the shoulders because the strip of the bras hang from the shoulders. The weight of the breast and the weight of the bra are supported by the shoulders. Wearing the bra have for consequence that weight of the breast laying on the shoulder- the breast are still in chest area but the weight of the breast is laying on the shoulders. By going bra free the breast and the weight of the breast are in chest area.

Perhaps I should remove my belt in case my legs drop off.

If your legs drop of you can’t blame your belt because it doesn’t support your legs but prevent trousers from falling down (on them hang your trousers).

It seems that you missed the point of the topic "The Bra cause cancer by 12500%"

[Bored chemist]

You have missed the points of my post- I was being sarcastic, OK, I should make allowances for those not posting in their first language .

However, the restricted circulation and lymphatic drainage would still happen so it's a valid point. Why don't wrist watches cause cancer by the same supposed mechanism?

If my legs dropped off it might, once again, be due to poor circulation. Restricted circulation is not uncommon if you look at some overweight people's belts. Again there's no local excess incidence of cancer.

OK that's now 3 for 3.
No evidence of a risk from a watch (which sholud restrict bloodflow and lymphatic drainage.)
No increased risk from a belt (ditto)
No noted increase in cancer risk at the same time as the bra was introduced.

The idea  that bras cause cancer (or increase the risk by anything like the factor suggested) simply doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny.
Why not drop it?

[GBSB]

I should make allowances for those not posting in their first language .

It is strange….. I’ve always had impression that the English language isn’t your native language.

[Bored chemist]

Very strange, I'm born and bred in England and my mother taught English for a living.
I know that's off topic however, unless anyone has an explanation of how come this "magical" effect only works on breasts but yet wasn't noticed when the bra first came into fashion I guess we can all this topic dead.

[NobodySavedMe]

The sad conclusion was that cancer researchers and treatment has stayed the same,the new drugs have very marginal effects

The cancer industry has artifically improved survival rates by detecting cancer earlier and earlier.

Come on now.Let us be reasonable.You don't really believe it deep down when they come on the tv every week with another wonder drug of the week after the one they were peddling last week.Do you?

When was the last time you saw a TV comercial for a Chemo therapy drug or the newest in gene-therapy techniques???

Every week on the "news".It's called free advertising.

I dare say bleach kills cancer cells too but the profit margin is a lot less to compared to very expensive fake "wonder"drug of the week.

[rosy]

NobodySavedMe...

I dare say bleach kills cancer cells too but the profit margin is a lot less to compared to very expensive fake "wonder"drug of the week.

Is this supposed to mean something? I dare say bleach would kill cancer cells. Of course, it would probably also kill the healthy cells and thus the patient so it wouldn't be a whole lot of use as a cancer treatment.

Sure, some cancer treatments work better than others, some have fewer side effects than others, and many work only on cancers caused through a specific mechanism. As I explained earlier in this thread, there are many different causes of cancer and many of the modern treatments target a specific chemical pathway which is defective in those cells (as opposed to say radiotherapy which is extremely crude, but effective for localised tumours).


Because cancer is The Disease(s) Everyone Is Afraid Of, there's a lot of public opinion in favour of research (and of funding research, and treatment) of cancer(s) as opposed to less high profile conditions such as Alzheimers. So a lot of work is done on cancer(s).

Of course, the other thing about cancer(s) is that because the cells are proliferating out of control they're often technically much easier to study in the lab than less localised, more systemic diseases. So again, a lot of work gets done in the field.

[rosy]

Heh. On a lighter note I went bra shopping at the weekend. The pointlessly huge array of colours and different degrees of lacy-ness available made me wonder whether there might be something in this after all. I would attribute it to the stress induced by having to select bras on a regular basis.

OK, so I hate shopping. Is someone going to try to rescind my extra X chromosome? ;P

[NobodySavedMe]

I reccomend that the moderators of the forum move this thread to the "that can't be true" forum where it belongs.

So you "know" that it can't be true.Are you some sort of all knowing god?

Also any word on that cancer cure you have been working on.It has been 3 months since we spoke.