Alison Bleaney Cancer rates higher in rural and remote areas — so what is happening in Tasmania?

Why is this information not being given to consumers now? Why should we as consumers allow this state of affairs to continue?

AUSTRALIAN Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) — Cancer Series No. 37 www.aihw.gov.au

In rural and remote areas of Australia, lifestyle factors like excessive sun exposure, higher smoking rates and a tendency to postpone visits to the doctor, are driving up cancer rates, particularly for men, according to a report released today by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW).

Dr Mark Short of the Institute’s Health Registers and Cancer Monitoring Unit, said ‘In 2001-2003 there was significantly higher incidence of melanoma (associated with sun exposure) and lung, head and neck, and lip cancers (associated with smoking) in rural and remote areas than in metropolitan areas.

In addition to highlighting these rural and remote lifestyle risks, the report, Cancer in Australia: an overview, 2006, showed that prostate cancer has overtaken colorectal cancer as the most common cancer diagnosed in Australia.

The report presents comprehensive national data on cancer incidence and mortality , 2006 projections on incidence and 2003 data for cancers by site, age and sex, with summary data for each state and territory.

Other findings from the report include:

In 2006 there were an estimated 106,000 new cases of cancer in Australia in 2006, a 34% increase in ten years, and 39,200 deaths, a 12% increase in ten years.
The risk of a cancer diagnosis by age 85 is one in two for males and one in three for females.ung
In 2004-05, 10% of all hospital admissions in Australia were cancer-related and the numbers increased by 4.5% a year from 2000-01 to 2004-05.
In 2003 the most common cancers diagnosed, apart from non-melanoma skin cancer, were prostate cancer, colorectal cancer, breast cancer, melanoma and lung cancer.
In the ten years from 1993 to 2003, the cancers which increased the most in number were thyroid cancer (106%), myeloma (44%), melanoma (41%), kidney cancer (39%) and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (36%).
Cervical cancer incidence declined by 41% and lung cancer incidence by 11%.
http://www.aihw.gov.au/publications/index.cfm/title/10476

Section on “Prostate Cancer in Profile” pg 83
In around 2000 the GLOBOCAN-measured age standardised incidence was highest in the USA (125 cases /100,000 males) NZ (101/100,000) Sweden (91/100,000) Iceland (81/100,000). Australia was 76/100,000 males, similar to Switzerland, Belgium and Austria, but well above countries such as France (59/100,000), UK (52/100,000) and Greece (26/100,000). In 2003 Australia’s incidence – age standardised – to the world population was 101/100,000 males.
This is only for prostate cancer.

Tasmanian’s cancer statistics are woeful considering our “clean and green” image – age-standardised incident rates are below –

all cancers – Tas is 2nd (427.1/1000,000persons) to Q’land(427.4)
prostate cancer – Tas is 2nd (139.6/100,000males)to ACT (143.8)
breast cancer – Tas is 7th (111.1/100,000females)with ACT 1st (126.5)
colorectal cancer – Tas is 1st (66.5/100,000 persons) with Q’land 2nd (65.7)
lung cancer – Tas is 2nd (49.8/100,000persons) with NT 1st 52.9)

There is already solid scientific research linking environmental toxins and pesticides to an increased incidence of cancers such as myeloma, melanoma, non-hodgkins lymphoma. The triazines eg atrazine and simazine are also linked to breast and prostate cancer. I would suggest the above figures demand immediate attention. All causative factor s and the link between the diseases should be fully explored. Our Health Department constantly tells us to practice preventative medicine. Therefore, preventative action should immediately be instigated.

Minister Abbott and Giddings, I would like to see environmental toxins added to that list of agents that the public is informed about at the point of “use” by the individual – just as smoking is dealt with – eg THIS CAN SERIOUSLY DAMAGE YOUR and YOUR CHILDREN’S and THEIR CHILDREN’S HEALTH. This should appear on food labels produced with pesticides, products that release these chemicals, eg fly spray, stain protective furnishings, hard plastic bottles and dare I suggest, many of our drinking water supplies. It is information that allows an individual to make an informed decision as to their own and their family’s exposure to environmental toxins.
Why is this information not being given to consumers now? Why should we as consumers allow this state of affairs to continue?

Dr Alison Bleaney, St Helens