Document ndQN0drnaYvqYVkp1zQzvke2

r-------- ----------------------------------------------------------- DATE: Harch 1980 RE: ASBESTOS AND HEALTH . At long last, somebody is starting to look at this question with a common sense approach! I thought you would be interested in this "no nonsense" talk given by Dr. " Harry Demopoulos. His credentials are ex cellent, ?/ /2. . H. BAGENSTOSE CE PRESIDENT O-Ei & MARKETING CAREY. Miiifoi r( HFM -008175 8002 0013 SCF-ALLF-07880 RECEIVED MAR 10 1980 PARR-WEST "ENVIRONMENTALLY INDUCED CANCER...SEPARATING TRUTH FROM MYTH" \. A Talk By Dr. Harry Demopoulos > Associate Professor of Pathology, New York University Medical Center to the . Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturers Association, Inc. October 4, 1979 Hasbrouck Heights, N.J. HFM -008176 P0C2 0014 1 appreciate the opportunity to come i.ere and address you. I welcome it very much. It is probably appropriate that this meeting is being held in New Jersey because I chink many problems that have beset industry with respect to regulations are founded in some of the misconceived problems that have been painted in New Jersey. * When I came here in 1979, on a leave of absence, the Federal government had just released the National Cancer Institute (N.C.I.) mortality study by county that was conducted by looking at death certificates from 1950 to 1969; several N.C.I. epidemiologists, os well as members of the New Jersey Depart ment of Environmental Protection, and Department of Health, concluded Chat after adding up the age-corrected, race- and sex-corrected death data, that New Jersey led'all the other states in cancer deaths for white males, ex pressed per 100,000. Now, that v;as, indeed, a true statement. That was not a lie. The cancer rates in New Jersey were 205 white male cancer deaths per 100,000 versus the U.S. national average of 174 per 100,000. That created a big hullabaloo. It gave this state the label of "Cancer Alley". Some of the people who were in the New Jersey Department of Lnvironmental Protection at that time have subsequently moved to Washington and have continued to amplify this attitude. 1 must admit when I came to New Jersey, I shared the view that most New York City dwellers have, tliat New Jersey is a terrible place, it's horribly polluted. As a matter of fact, on February 16th of this year the New York Times published a map which was sort of the ultimate view that New York City dwellers have. It showed lung cancer rates in various parts of New York City, Staten Island, on the west side of Manhattan, and parts of Brooklyn. The New York City Department of Health blamed polluted air wafting over the river into the city as the cause of these high cancer rates. The report ignored the fact, easily seen on the map, that there (were) vast "skip" areas, and other cancer "hot spots" that were not in the path of such air flows. The New York City Department of Health report ignored rudimentary epidemiologic methods such as correcting all the data for sex and race. Further, no attempt was made to study cigarette consumption patterns. Ignored in all of these pronouncements and maps at the federal, state and city levels was the old scientific dictum of controls. This is what dif ferentiates science from politics. When you look bock at the cancer rates that were published and resulted in New Jersey being labelled "Cancer Alley", nobody mentioned the fact that Rhode Island was number two, with 203 cancer deaths per 100,000. No one mentioned that other heavily industrialized states did not have high cancer rates. When industry was being blamed in New Jersey, nobody looked at the cancer rates in Pennsylvania and Ohio which are remarkably similar to New Jersey, in terms of the proportion of workers who work in "dangerous" occupations and the number of people who live in communities that are in proximity to major indus trial plants that can be viewed by some as polluting. Pennsylvania, Ohio and New Jersey have several things in common. Atout 40 percent of the workforce is engaged in what you would call heavy, "dirty" industry. Forty percent of the population in those states lives in proximity to so-called "dirty" plants. When you look at the cancer rates, however, Pennsylvania and Ohio have cancer rates that are like the U.S. national average. Yet, only New Jersey had higher cancer rates. The answer as to what is different about New Jersey is found very simply in the U.S. census. New Jersey has the most urbanized population; 90 percent of the population is urbanized and it also has the most dense urbanization. Only 70 percent of Ohio and Pennsylvania are urbanized. That 20 percent differ- h it") 20tb HFM -008177 ence explains the difference in the cancer rates among the three states. Be fore it became politically popular to blame industry, the National Cancer In stitute epidemiologists showed unequivocally that urban crowding was a pre dominate factor in cancer causation. It is clearly a surrogate for something else. New Jersey has a rather small land mass and over 80 percent of the peo ple are crowded into a rather small area in the northeast part of the state. It-is, therefore, like a large city and if you compare it to similar demo graphic areas, with equivalent land and population density, and look at it in a controlled way, it is shocking to see that many other cities and counties and regions that do not have any industry have higher cancer rates than New Jersey. For example, San Francisco; Washington, D.C.; Nassau County, which is an eastern suburb of New York City, Westchester Councy; these demographic areas have rates that are equal to or greater than New Jersey's, and those areas are devoid of heavy, polluting industry. If you look at ocher questions beyond urbanization and ask what are the surrogate factors, the ecologists would say, well, it's urban air pollution, and it's still ultimately being derived from industry. Well, we tested that hypothesis. The hypothesis was that pollutants in the air and in the water are responsible for increasing the cancer rates by at least 25 to 30 percent. In order to test that hypothesis, we simply looked at the National Cancer In stitutes own Third National Cancer Survey which surveyed 20 million people in this country, back in 1969, -70, and -71. Now, that was incidence data and as 1 said, it covered 20 million people. Our studies incidentally were conducted with the sole support of a grant from the National Cancer Institute when I served as the Director of the Cancer Institute of New Jersey in 1976. The diagnoses were far more accurate than the death certificates in the N.C.I.'s mortality study because these were surgical pathology specimens. The slides were all read by Board Certified pathologists. In that Third Cancer Survey, there was a wealth of information and it was not originally designed to answer this hypothesis, but it came out that way. There were seven cities in that survey. Four of them were what we would call "clean" cities; San Fran cisco, Dallas, Minneapolis and Atlanta. They are urban centres without any kind of heavy industry. In that survey also were Detroit, Pittsburgh and Birm ingham, the "Pittsburgh of the South". Those seven cities encompassed 16 mil lion people. We did not massage the data; we simply lifted it out of the tables and put the data next to each other and if the hypothesis was correct that in dustrial air pollution or urban air pollution were a major factor in cancer causation, we would have expected to have seen that (the) four "clean" cities had lower cancer rates than the three "dirty" cities. We looked at overall cancer rates for white males as well as for black males, age-corrected, and to our surprise, the three "dirty" cities had an over all 8 percent lower cancer rate than the four "clean" cities. I don't think the 8 percent is statistically significent, however, it invalidates the hy pothesis. Furthermore, we looked at specific kinds of cancer that Blott, who is an N.C.I. epidemiologist, and others have said are industry-types of cancers, like lung, larnyx, nasopharnyx, stomach, lymphomas, leukemias, urinary bladder, liver and skin. These are all supposed to be industry-associated types of can cer. The Third National Cancer Survey gave us site specific cancer diagnosis, i.e., by atomic site. Those supposed industry-associated cancers were ,not higher or greater in incidence in the three "dirty" cities compared to the four "clean" cities. In Detroit, Pittsburgh and Birmingham, 45 percent of the occu pational workforce is engaged, and has been engaged for several decades, in in dustry that most people would say is worrisome. Further, these decades of ex posure were without controls. And yet, we did not see greater cancer rates in 8002 0016 HFNI - 008178 these cities. A 45 percent workforce engaged in "dirty" Industry translates into something like about 22 or 23 percent of the general population, which is a large enough percentage of the population to skew the data up higher if, in fact, these workers were being exposed to significcnt levels of carcino genic hazards. .. This is the N.C.I.'s own data. We didn't manipulate it. And, curious ly, in the OSHA hearings and in any discussions I have ever held with people . on the Federal level, nobody ever looks at the Third National Cancer Survey. It's almost like their unwanted child because if you examine the data, with in it is contained certain answers to questions that bedevil society, govern- went, labor and industry. For example, there are questions raised about low- dose exposures. Let's not worry just about the workers, what about the people , in the communities? They are exposed to low-dose emissions. What about the question of synergism, which is almost unanswerable in an experimental sense. ................ The answers, again, to these questions, are found in the Third National Can- ~ cer Survey and the comparison of the three "dirty" cities and the four "clean" ones. Detroit, Pittsburgh and Birmingham have virtually every kind of pol lutant chemical that you can imagine in the air and in the water. If syner gism and ohronic low-dose exposures were real hazards, and if, in fact, there were no thresholds, we should have seen higher rates in those three "dirty" cities. They have been in "business" for several decades, and the chances existed. Now, there has to be a reason why we didn.11 see more of any type of can cer and the reason is as follows: There are thresholds. There is a threshold for virtually every substance that is noxious to mankind. There are thresholds for deadly viruses. There are thresholds for bacteria, fungi, anything that is noxious and harmful to humans generally has a threshold, and this includes carcinogens. Now, clearly the exposures, although seemingly horrendous in the three "dirty" cities, were well below the threshold levels because there was no effect. Recall, the Third National Canacer Survey showed 8% less cancer in the "dirty" cities. Another thing to keep in mind is there is a real biological reason to explain thresholds. It is not a magical thing. We have DNA repair mechanisms that are very efficient. Furthermore, most carcinogens and many toxic sub stances act by what we term free radical chemical mechanisms. There are en dogenous anti-oxidants that we have evolved with over the eons that protect us against free radical pathology. These anti-oxidants can be overwhelmed with excessive doses of a carcinogen, such as occurs in laboratory animals, but human exposures are not at these doses, and we have not been overwhelmed, not even in Detroit, Pittsburgh, or Birmingham. It should be noted that the Third National Cancer Survey was conducted from 1969-1971. The cancers diag nosed at that time were starting to develop during the 1940's and 1950's, in those years, air/water pollutants were not controlled as they are now. We have therefore gone through "worst-case" conditions in our industrializedurban centers, and nothing happened. Those who beat the drums of doom, as in recent books written by non-scientists, are clearly leading a march down the wrong path in cancer prevention. Abundant controls exist now,, and most of them are needed; some are not, however. " R002 0017 Another thing that proves that there are thresholds is the experience with cigarette smoke. Cigarettes of the high-tar variety are perhaps the most carcinogenic substance that mankind deals with In a routine manner on a mass basis. Yet, it has been well proven through smoking dog studies; that thresholds exist; dogs, incidentially, love to smoke. Once they are trained, they jump right into the box and puff like mad. The threshold studies were HFM -008179 conducted through smoking dog studies, as well as through careful autopsies on individuals where smoking history was well recorded, and where the bron chi were serially sectioned and examined. If you smoke 10 to 15 of the 1 mg. tar cigarettes, there are no carcinogenic hazards associated with that. We don't even see the premalignant changes in the epithelium; so that here is the most carcinogenic substance that is massly used and there is, decidedly, a threshold. `Similarly, there are thresholds with alcohol. Alcohol and cigarette smoke are synergistic and together if you smoke the high-tar cigarettes and drink excessive quantities of alcohol, you find that you can account for 35 percent of the cancer deaths. This type of synergism is rare. Most of the cancers of the mouth, larnyx, esophagus and lung are caused by these two factors and they are synergistic. But, again, it has to be with excessive quantities of distilled liquor. It's the alcohol itself, not the congeners or other substances that are found in the drink. . Now, the misconceptions that have been brewing, first in New Jersey, and later in Washington, have aroused not only the ire of you fellows in industry but the ire-of University medical scientists who are in the comprehensive and specialized cancer centers such as MIT, Harvard, NYU, Columbia, University of Pennsylvania, McArdle Cancer Center, and others. We are upset at what the Federal government has been doing. Our worry stems from the fact that if so ciety Is to listen to the Federal government, it will be led down yet another primrose path, blaming industry, air and water pollution for most of the cancer burden, whereas, in fact, the answers to cancer lie elsewhere and have been very well defined through a great deal of epldemologlc research and extensive labor atory research. Whoever attempts to lead the nation towards less cancer had better be correct, because the selection of the wrong path is the equivalent of leading millions of Americans to certain death. There were two symposia that were held. One of February 28th, March 1st, and March 2nd, and another one, June 6th, 7th, and 8th in New York City. These two symposia were held by the independent university scientists from the com prehensive and specialized cancer centers in this country. The symposia were under the aegis of the New York Academy of Sciences, and the American Health Foundation, with the cooperation of the American Cancer Society, as well as the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer. We came up with the following predominant causes of cancer, and the word, "predominant", is important. An analogous situation is that tuberculosis is predominantly caused by the tubercle bacillus. While there are associated factors in causing tuberculosis, for example, poverty, crowding, and malnutri tion, the predominant cause is still the tubercle bacillus, and if you want to eliminate that disease, you control the tubercle bacillus. Similarly, in cancer, there are predominant causes. The University scientists decided to sponsor and attend these two symposia, and to continue putting on such sym posia as often as is humanly possible, in order to turn around the propaganda machine that has been launched by the Federal government. This machine is leading the country down the wrong path in cancer prevention and is killing many Americans through misinformation. The University scientists just went through a 15-year period of going up a blind alley looking for cancer viruses that weren't there. That C06t a billion dollars. We cannot afford, not in monetary terms or in human terms, to spend another ten years and another billion dollars or more chasing the wrong culprit in cancer causation. There will be too many lives lost, es pecially when we know most of/ the answers for prevention at the present time. While we are still ignorant about how exactly a normal cell becomes malignant, POO? 001-0 HFM -008180 we do know how to avoid situations that have cuch a transformation as the end result. The answers to cancer prevention are as follows.. And it's easy to keep the scorecard in mind. There are about 1,000 people a day that die of cancer in this country. 350 of them, or 35 percent, are going to die today from hav'ing smoked high-tar cigarettes snd having consumed excessive quantities of distilled liquor and they will die of cancer of the mouth, larnyx, esophagus and lung. Another 45 percent are attributable to diet, and this figure was cour ageously stated by Dr. Arthur Upton, the Director of the National Cancer In stitute on Tuesday, before a Subcommittee on Nutrition. He has confirmed what the University scientists have been saying for the past few years. No ocher government scientist has had the integrity to state what Dr. Upton stated; he further and strongly recommended major decreases in fat consumpt ion, with increases in fresh fruit and vegetable consumption. 45 percent of cancer deaths are related to disordered nutrition. Under the category of disordered nutrition, there are four subcategories: excess calories; excess fat ingestion; obesity, carrying around an extra 30 or 40 pounds; and nutri tional deficiencies such as fiber deficiency and Vitamin A deficiency. Now, with Vitamin A you have to be careful. There is an optimum dose which happens to be the Recommended Daily Allowance. Too much Vitamin A will also cause cancer in addition to being toxic. Too little Vitamin A will also cause cancer. There is evidence that the 5 percent of cancer deaths that are due to occupational exposures may have plateaued and may be on the way down. If you look at hemangio sarcomas that are caused by vinyl chloride monomer exposure, the latency periods and the ages of the patients are longer and older, re spectively. It means they are developing at slower rates. Similarly, we did a study at NYU showing that mesotheliomas, which are caused by asbestos ex posures, are at a plateau. We do not see an Increasing incidence of meso theliomas, despite the fact that most of the people we see at the NYU Cancer Center, where we treat 4,000 new cancer patients a year, are drawn from places like the Veteran's Administration and Bellevue Hospital, and includes a fair number of construction workers, and Brooklyn Navy Shipyard workers. Our Can cer Center is a general one, and does not have a specialized referral compon ent for mesothiomes, as at Mt. Sinai Hospital; therefore, our rates are indictative of the general rates. We have not been seeing an increasing incid ence in mesothelioma over the past 12 to 15 years. It's at a plateau. So that I think If- controls are kept over the very dangerous chemicals and phys ical processes that you use in industry, 1 think we can continue to see what looks like a decline in occupational cancer, which we think is currently a round 5 percent. Sir Richard Doll and others think it's much lower, but I would caution you that you cannot relax. The chemicals that you deal with in ever increasing quantities to meet consumer demands and to try to remain com petitive in a ferocious world market are dange.ous, and 1 think there are ele ments of truth to what the government regulators say; we can see a major ex plosion in industrially caused cancer if we do not have sensible controls. The question is, how rigid should the controls be? 1 think that we can be less rigid than what 0SHA and EPA have proposed recently since there is clear evidence that there is no need for that kind of rigidity. Occupational car cinogens are under control, and new chemicals are receiving close scrutiny; air and water pollution are blameless in carcinogenesis. A few other points that 1 would like to make in closing are that in addition to determining that cigarettes and alcohol, disordered nutrition, and occupational exposures cause 85 percent of cancer deaths, there is another 3 HFM -008181 P0 02 00;' percent that are caused by exposure to radiation which is largely background, not nuclear plants, but background radiation. We have enough radioactive pot assium in our bodies, for example, to cause 6,000 radioactive decays per min ute. That adds up. . Another 2 percent of the cancer deaths are caused by pre-existing med ical disorders, like chronic ulcerative colitis, chronic gastritis and things like that. And about 1 percent are caused by prescription drugs for the treatment of serious medical disorders. . The symposium held in June also determined, and this was brought forth by Dr. Cuyler Hammond of the American Cancer Society, that almost zero per cent of cancer deaths, it's something like .00001 percent, are caused by air pollution. Water pollution is in the same category of zero percent. Other studies have shown that nuclear power plant accidents, asbestos in hair dry ers, asbestos in school rooms, and saccharin/cyclamases can not cause cancer as presently used. And yet, chose things that are listed as being zero per cent are uppermost in the public's mind. This is due to the propaganda ma chines. We are treated to outrageous remarks by Individuals like Wolfe from Ralph Nader's group that asbestos is the second leading cause of cancer deaths in males in'this country. It's an absolutely unfounded statement that, by no stretch of even Sellikoff's imagination, could that be true. And yet, indiv iduals like this are placed politically on the National Cancer Advisory board and govern, and help to govern the National Cancer Institute's policy. It is terrifying because our nation can be led down the wrong path in prevention. So you have an uphill fight in terms of public relations but X think that, if controls are kept, truth and reason are on your side and I think that you can win this battle that you are in. Thank you. QUESTION: 1 assume that the reason for the higher cancer rates in the cities 16 due to the factors you describe, more smoking, and so on. DR. DEMOPOULOS: And they may have far more disordered nutrition. The urban crowding is a surrogate for all of the factors that we know to cause cancer and it is proven too, with animal studies. The reason is ultimately the kinds of stress that you get when you start crowding any living organisms together. This has been well-defined with rat behavioral studies where if you take a room of a given size and keep putting more and more rats in there, even though you provide them with enough food and water, and places to sleep and rest, you will see back biting, tail biting, homosexuality, fighting and all the other things we see in urban settings. In medical school ve are taught that certain diseases are urban diseases, i.e., they occur more frequently in urban areas. For example, obesity, hypertension, chronic ulcerative diseases of the GI tract (the gastrointestinal tract), heart disease, suicide, homicide, drug addiction, are all far more common in urban settings. This includes the cities and their surrounding suburbs. Now, I think to that list should be added cancer. And 1 don't think it's stress per se, but rather it's the way humans choose to re lieve their stress, through gorging themselves, drinking themselves into obliv ion, and surrounding themselves with smoke, that cause cancer. QUESTION: I understood that in other parts of the world that different types of cancers occur. , DR. DEMOPOULOS: Well, there are some interesting reports that have come from China recently. There are regions .of China that have extraordinary rates of esophageal cancer, for example. Even their chickens have esophageal cancer. nO Cl 2 00?. U HFM -008182 But, that has been traced to the particular kind of food that these individ uals make. They apparently take various kinds of vegetables and peel them and let them sit around for months and months and finally they eat them and their chickens eat the same scraps. There are other situations, where there has been a good deal of epidemiologic research done on the nutritional habits , of the people in correlating it with diseases, and it keeps coming back to what we eat that causes cancer. And, this is true also for atherosclerosis as well as premature aging. For example, there are tribes in Africa that make a habit of eating raw meat and blood together with milk and this is all they eat. They don't eat any fruits and vegetables. Their life expectancy i9 about 30 to 35 years of age. They die of heart disease, strokes, hypertension and cancer. And it's the worldwide studies that have been the strongest implicators of diet as a predominant cause of cancer. QUESTION: In your listing of causes, it seems to me that you came up with about 91 percent. Where is the other 9 percent? ' DR. DEMOPOULOS: God. I think that we are not immortal and that we have to accept certain things. I think it's part of the aging process. Almost every male ovetf the age of 85, at autopsy, has cancer of the prostate gland, if the prostate gland is adequately examined. These cancers are microscopic and pro duce no symptoms. Similarly, urinary bladder cancer is a cancer of the aged. It keeps climbing as you get into the 80 and 90 year old brackets. X think it's an accompaniment to age and Dr. Handler. President of the National Acad emy of Sciences, has offered the hypothesis that oxygen, one of the most toxic gases known is responsible. Oxygen happens to be diradleal. It oxidizes everything, including our lipids and I am sort of surprised, as a free radical pathologist, that we can exist with oxygen. 1 wouldn't have chosen it. Me thane would have been better. But, Dr. Handler has proposed that simply existing in an aerobic atmos phere is cause enough to give us cancer, and were it not for the major anti oxidants that we have, we would have even more diseases. The decline in can cer of the stomach is appropriate to mention at this point in that regard. Cancer of the stomach used to be the commonest cancer killer in this country 40 and 50 years ago. Nowadays, it's a rare disease. In medical centers, we keep these cases extra days as teaching cases because medical students will never see one like it in their career. The reason for the decline in stomach cancer is the increased consumption of fresh fruits and vegetables and the antioxidants therein. BHT has probably helped. Dr. Arthur Upton concurs in this view, as do many University scientists. QUESTION: Does a slgnlflcent segment of the scientific community, people working in cancer causation, feel the same way you do about the problem? From your point od view, why is it that these scientific arguments about what industry is doing are presented by people like Wolfe, Epstein and Barry Com moner? Why don't we ever hear from those people who have spent their lives actually doing research? DR. DEWP0U10S; A good reason is that University medical scientists do not have a PR or propaganda machine, nor do they have a policy that they are try ing to advocate. It's one of the defects of science, in general, that unless there is an organized effort to get the truth out of the medical journals wherein it is hurled, you are going to have misconceptions, as we have now. I think the reasons for the origins of the misconceptions lie in the fact that as we prove the lack of validity of the virus hypothesis, there was a void. Everybody asked, well, if it's not viruses, what is it? Unfortun ately, the term "environmental cancer" came into being. That was seized as meaning the general community environment rather than the personal environ- v :> ro o r* "C C HFM -008183 ment created by our habits, diet and lifestyle. There was a void, a gap, before the nutritional data was gathered epidemiologically and from animal studies. We now know what the predominant causes of cancer are but, at the time the time the virus theory was shown to be invalid, the "greenies" and the ecology people came into the picture and stole center stage and they are still at it and they are holding onto it come hell or high water. They seem oblivious to the consequences of leading a march of cancer prevention down the wrong path. QUESTION: As a taxpayer who was able to pay for tearing the asbestos out of all the schools and other public buildings, I am gratified that you don't seem to think that's a terribly important factor. DR. DEMOPOULOS: 1 think it's a tragic misconception and it's the height of hypocracy and stupidity to see classrooms being torn apart. This recently happened in New York City where pretty close to half a million dollars were spent redoing the whole school because of the asbestos scare. Somebody had gone in and sampled the air only in the classrooms and found asbestos there. The conclusion was that it was coming from the ceiling. They tore everything down and theV went back and they sampled the air again. They found just as much asbestos. Then, and only then, did they go out and do what is called the control. They went to the outside air and sampled it several blocks away and they found even more asbestos in the outside air. The point is, asbestos is a natural product, it's all over the place. We use it extensively in ur ban settings; brake linings, construction, everything. The point is that the doses we get in school rooms and office buildings are far below any kind of danger level, yet within these classrooms we have smoking lounges. As the NYU 6tudy has shown, we are not seeing an epidemic of mesotheliomas. If you go into the cafeterias and watch what the kids eat, it's gar bage, as far as I am concerned. Loaded with fat. No fresh fruits and veg etables, and these are wrong. It's as stupid as when a cigarette company used to advertise high-tar cigarettes as being good for your "T-zone". QUESTION: Is there any really definitive data on the effect of the so-called social drugs like marijuana? DR. DEMOPOULOS: They haven't been used long enough nor in any good epidemio logic studies but Just looking at tetrahydrocannabinol, that's a toxic sub stance. That will damage cell membranes and will damage DNA, so will LSD; so will most of these so-called recreational drugs. I think they are fear some and they really should be controlled for a variety of reasons, including their carcinogenic and mutagenic potential as well as the fact that they ab solutely destroy nerve cells. The reason for producing a "high" is a lot of . nerve cells are just getting disconnected. The synapses are missing so that you no longer have the major inhibitions that are inherent in the electrical circuits in the brain that keep us under control. 1 don't mean moral inhib itions, 1 mean the ability to focus on one thing at a time, to concentrate. The brain functions by blotting out everything else except what you are sup posed to pay attention to. The reason you get a "high" and start seeing visions with LSD amd mescaline is that a lot of circuits are disconnected and you can no longer focus on any one thing; virtually every circuit in your brain has been turned on and is short circuiting. These drugs are very dangerous. Whenever you start damaging cell mem branes like that, you damage a lot of cell control mechanisms and open the way to birth defects, cancer and every other chronic disease, including aging. HFM -008184 06 ZOCb QUESTION: In our community we have had some questions about asbestos- cement water pipes. Is there any problem? DR. DEMOPOULOS: I think in specific instances, you would have to sample water like that. You would have to look at it. I don't doubt that in occasional circumstances it is quite possible to carry carcinogenic loads of a chemical substance through the air and through the water, but I think they are unusual; where there are questions, I think you should take a look and see what the concentration is. The dose is all important, for sure. If it's a low dose, I wouldn't worry about it. QUESTION: There are numerous problems that you have mentioned in your dis cussion relative to society's view of the cancer situation. Number one, you have the terror factor, the fact that people are more afraid of cancer than they are of heart disease. What, in your opinion, can communities, can we as concerned people, many of us, do to offset that view? _ DR. DEMOPOULOS: Well, 1 think you have already done one thing as industry groups, and that is, I think, coordinated programs as AI1IC has carried out on behalf of industry are very important. You must be unswerving in the pursuit of' truth, it's good business. I was shocked and amazed back in 1976 when I came here to direct the Cancer Institute in New Jersey. The press and the Department of Environ mental Protection in Trenton were literally tearing Industry apart. I al ways thought that you fellows were really hot stuff and would have answered back and I was surprised that Industry was just laying back being beaten up. There was no response. I couldn't understand it. I think AIHC is one way to respond. I think that if you tap the angry potential that 1 assure, you is there in large numbers in the academic university community, you will have a very firm ally provided you seek to serve truth and society. We have had no problems getting topnotch university scientists to stand up and be counted and speak the truth even at the risk of angering the National Cancer Institute from whence their grants come. Our peers Judge our grant application; thank God the politicians and "greenies" do not. HFM -008185 $002 0023