Alcohol Consumption and Radiation Exposure

Several studies suggest that drinking alcoholic beverages, even in moderate amounts, may increase breast cancer risk. Regardless of the type of drink - beer, wine and hard liquor, all of these drinks contribute to breast cancer risk and as consumption rises, so does the risk. Women under 55 years of age with no other risk factors who have more than 9 drinks a week have a more dramatic increase than those over 55: they have a 2.5 increase - two and a half times the susceptibility to breast cancer of non-drinkers with no risk factors. Studies in France and Italy, where wine is consumed on a regular basis by almost everyone, have supported this connection. Women in these countries do have a higher incidence of breast cancer than do women in the U.S., though it is a fairly slight increase - only 1.2 to 1.9 times.
As with fat consumption, the main effect of alcohol in increasing breast cancer risk may be during the vulnerable stage of youth. More accurate information as to when and how the effect manifests itself is needed before any concrete recommendations can be made. Whether to stop drinking or not is unfortunately one of the many decisions we all must make based on inadequate information. The risk increase isn't that high, but it definitely exists. Although it may be wise for a number of reasons to discourage children from drinking, it is an area, like many in parenting, where you may not have a lot of control.
Another known risk factor for breast cancer is radiation. At least three major studies have confirmed that there is indeed a link between radiation and increased risk of breast cancer. The first study came out of one of the major tragedies of the 20th century - the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II. The residents in the immediate area of the bombings died instantly. But it has become evident that those within a 10-kilometer radius of the bomb site developed far more cancer than others in comparable populations and researches began studying these survivors to learn more about the dangers of radiation. Another study composed of Canadian patients looked at women who had been treated for lung tuberculosis with fluoroscopy. This is a common method for treating the disease during the 1930s and 1940s. When the women were studied in the 1970s, they were found to have an increased incidence of breast cancer. A study in New York examined a group of 606 women who had suffered postpartum mastitis (inflammation of the mammary glands within the breast) - and had been having radiation therapy averaging 50 and 450 radiation doses to alleviate their pain. They too had a rate pf breast cancer higher than that of the general population and the risk is radiation dose-related.
Radiation to treat cancer places us at the other end of the spectrum: very high levels of radiation are used, on the order of 8,000 rads. In these cases, however, the risk of radiation is far outweighed by the risk of cancer. For example, radiation is used to treat Hodgkin's lymphoma, a type of cancer affecting the lymph nodes. By itself and in conjunction with chemotherapy it has been responsible for many cures. However, some women who had this treatment many years ago are now showing up with breast cancer. It seems that radiation to the chests, which saved their lives, is now responsible for their second cancers.
It won't be surprising if some if the children treated today for cancer with radiation in the chest region will also eventually have an increase in breast cancers. It is unfortunate, but since radiation is probably responsible for their being around long enough to get a second cancer, a few of these patients are likely to have regrets.