S: This is NOT Breast Cancer AWARENESS
BC: CAUTION: May contain cadmium considered by the EPA to be a probable human carcinogen.
FC: This is NOT Breast Cancer AWARENESS
1: Plastic beverage bottles are perhaps the most widely used products that contain endocrine disrupting chem-icals linked to breast cancer. Cosmetics and beauty products are a close second. And a pink plastic gun butt? Really? | Everywhere you go, you find pink crap for sale in the name of breast cancer awareness. These products do precious little to curb the breast cancer epidemic and they mask the realities of the disease. They encourage people to think cancer is pretty and pink. Nothing could be further from the truth! To top it off, many of the products contribute to the disease or are otherwise unsafe. This book is about what is and what is NOT Breast Cancer Awareness. It is not for the faint of heart.
2: This is NOT Breast Cancer Awareness.
3: THIS is Breast Cancer Awareness. | This is how many women are sent home after mastectomy, sometimes within just hours of their surgery.
4: This is NOT Breast Cancer Awareness. | This is.
5: FACEBOOK allows all sorts of nonsense posts supposedly to promote breast cancer awareness. They also allow pictures of sexual positions and lots of other stuff that really is of a prurient nature. | But FACEBOOK took down the photos of this woman and others when they took the very brave, even heroic, step of sharing the realities of breast cancer with the world. They wanted to promote real breast cancer awareness and FACEBOOK accused them of posting photos of an abusive, sexual, or even pornographic nature. FB changed their tune when their callous actions caused an uproar among breast cancer survivors. | Sharon Adams
6: This is NOT Breast Cancer Awareness. | This is.
7: Even pornographers are trying to cash in on the lucrative breast cancer awareness industry. The website referenced in this ad is a vile porn site. But they're not the only ones in it for nefarious reasons. Most companies that seek to profit as part of the breast cancer awareness industry are of the same caliber. They're all in it for the same thing, and that thing is NOT to save hundreds of thousands of women from maiming surgeries, radiation and chemotherapy. | This is NOT Breast Cancer Awareness.
8: “The big PR campaign for "National Breast Cancer Awareness Month" tells women that the causes of this cancer are their own fatty diets, heredity and hormones. Never mentioned is the [preponderance of evidence] that America's growing epidemic of breast cancer is directly tied to our country being soaked since World War II with millions of tons [now over 5 BILLION pounds a year] of synthetic chemicals -- especially a nasty group called organochlorines, used to make pesticides, plastics, paints, paper, poison gas . . . and cancer. By avoiding any hint that these chemicals might be the real stalker of the [40,000] women who die of this disease each year, the groups sponsoring "Breast Cancer Awareness Month" are engaging in the biggest whitewash [or pinkwash] since Tom Sawyer's fence. Why would they do this? Money. [Initially] the sole financial backer of "Awareness Month" was a company called Imperial Chemical Industries, which just happens to be the world's largest manufacturer of products containing organochlorines. [Since 1985 ICI's subsidiary, AstraZeneca, is the main backer of breast cancer awareness month meaning that not only does ICI profit from the chemicals that cause cancer, they profit from the chemicals/drugs used to treat it.] In return for funding the awareness campaign, ICI gets a veto over every poster, pamphlet and ad put out. This is hush money, trying to hush-up any public awareness that chemical companies like ICI could be culpable for breast cancer. Imperial Chemical [and the rest of the breast cancer awareness industry] wants women focused on coping with their cancer, rather than on [what caused it] so they'll think like victims . . . instead of like agitators. Well if you're agitated, join others who're fighting back.” This is from an article by Jim Hightower published in the Detroit Metro Times - May 1993 and the New York Times - April 21, 1993. Items in [brackets] are edits to update and clarify the article. We knew then what we know now – that breast cancer and other cancers are linked to environmental exposure to endocrine disrupting compounds. That women - and children and men - cannot avoid these exposures regardless of lifestyle and that Big Chemical is profiting enormously from this state of affairs. If the airline industry or the auto industry were contributing to sickening 200,000 people a year and killing 40,000 what would you do? Do that instead of buying pink crap.
9: What's in the ink that goes on all those T-shirts? What's in those plastic bracelets? How is it affecting the workers who produce the hundreds of thousands of shirts and bracelets generated by breast cancer events? Are the "bizarre products" you see marketed in the name of breast cancer awareness made in foreign sweatshops? Do they contain toxic chemicals? Are they produced with worker and environmental safety in mind? Do they even really donate anything to the fight against breast cancer? Please ask these questions before you buy into the breast cancer awareness industry. | Think Before You Pink!
10: from " Cancer, Inc." by Sharon Batt & Lisa Gross, Sierra Magazine Sept./Oct. 1999 http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/199909/cancer.asp They make the chemicals, they run the treatment centers, and they're still looking for "the cure" — no wonder they won't tell you about breast cancer prevention. Every October, the sponsors of National Breast Cancer Awareness Month go into overdrive to spread their message, "Early detection is your best protection." Organizers stage walks, hikes, races, and other events around the country "to fill the information void in public communication about breast cancer"-the sponsors' official goal. For the most part that void is filled with the mantra: "Get a mammogram." As for reducing risk, the campaign's elaborate 1998 promotion kit says only that "current research is investigating the roles of obesity, hormone replacement therapy, diet, and alcohol use." In other words, the people who bring you Breast Cancer Awareness Month tell you to find out if you already have the disease. And they tell you to take personal responsibility for staving off what's become a scourge throughout the country. What they go to great lengths to avoid telling you is what the country can do to help stop the scourge at its source. It's no mystery why prevention gets the silent treatment. The primary sponsor of Breast Cancer Awareness Month, AstraZeneca (formerly known as Zeneca), is a British-based multinational giant that manufactures the cancer drug tamoxifen as well as fungicides and herbicides, including the carcinogen acetochlor. Its Perry, Ohio, chemical plant is the third-largest source of potential cancer-causing pollution in the United States, releasing 53,000 pounds of recognized carcinogens into the air in 1996. When Zeneca created Breast Cancer Awareness Month in 1985, it was owned by Imperial Chemical Industries, a multibillion-dollar producer of pesticides, paper, and plastics. State and federal agencies sued ICI in 1990, alleging that it dumped DDT and PCBs-both banned in the United States since the 1970s-in Los Angeles and Long Beach harbors. Any mention of what role such chemicals may be playing in rising breast cancer rates is missing from Breast Cancer Awareness Month promos.
11: After acquiring the Salick chain of cancer treatment centers in 1997, Zeneca merged with the Swedish pharmaceutical company Astra this year  to form AstraZeneca, creating the world's third-largest drug concern, valued at $67 billion. "This is a conflict of interest unparalleled in the history of American medicine," says Dr. Samuel Epstein, a professor of occupational and environmental medicine at the University of Illinois School of Public Health. "You've got a company that's a spinoff of one of the world's biggest manufacturers of carcinogenic chemicals, they've got control of breast cancer treatment, they've got control of the chemoprevention [studies], and now they have control of cancer treatment in eleven centers-which are clearly going to be prescribing the drugs they manufacture." Even the nation's leading cancer organizations are not immune from corporate influence. The American Cancer Society has the vice president of a major herbicide manufacturer sitting on its board of directors. High-ranking officials in the National Cancer Institute routinely accept lucrative posts in the cancer-drug industry. Such tangled financial interests explain why the cancer establishment-the medical institutions, corporations, and agencies that control cancer research, treatment, and education-continues to ignore mounting evidence that many cases of cancer are avoidable. These conflicts may also help explain why, 28 years [in 1999] and billions of dollars after President Nixon declared war on cancer, the risk of breast cancer is higher than ever. In 1950, an American woman faced a lifetime risk of 1 in 20; today that risk has more than doubled to 1 in 8. Breast cancer will strike some 175,000 women in the United States in 1999, and kill 43,000. [225,000 and 45,000 in 2013] The cancer business is booming, but the selective brand of awareness the cancer industry promotes comes at a price. Samuel Epstein predicted 30 years ago [now over 40 years ago] that cancer rates would increase, citing an explosion in the use of synthetic chemicals. From 1940 through the early 1980s, production of synthetic chemicals increased by a factor of 350. Billions of tons of substances that never existed before were released into the environment. Yet only some 3 percent of the 75,000 or so chemicals in use have been tested for safety. Forty of them are recognized human carcinogens. The widespread presence of carcinogens in our environment is clearly linked to rising cancer rates, Epstein says. He points to a number of avoidable risk factors, but pollution, estrogenic medications, toxic ingredients in consumer products, and carcinogens in the workplace top his list of culprits. One thing ties all these things together, he says: "Corporate recklessness." Speaking of Corporate Recklessness...
12: Monsanto always insists it's chemicals are safe. They told us DDT was safe. They told us Agent Orange was not to blame for the birth defects suffered by children of Vietnam Veterans. They tell the FDA that increasing the levels of RoundUp in your children's breakfast cereal is safe. Monsanto's rBGH (linked to breast cancer) is in the milk you put on your children's breakfast cereal. Monsanto's RoundUp is even in infant formula! These are all Endocrine Disrupting Compounds (EDC's) that Monsanto insisted were safe. We know different now.
13: Here is what Agent Orange is still doing to the children of Vietnam: | "Agent Orange Apocalypse Vietnam" André Bouny http://globradio.net/WordPress/associations/orange-fleur-despoir/
14: A study of U.S. women published May 9, 1998 in the LANCET links insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) with breast cancer. Earlier this year a study linked IGF-1 to prostate cancer. Prostate and breast cancers are major killers of men and women in the U.S. and in other industrialized countries. IGF-1 levels are now being artificially increased in much of the cows' milk being sold throughout the U.S. These new cancer studies raise serious questions about the wisdom of allowing IGF-1 levels to be raised in milk. The latest study found a 7-fold increased risk of breast cancer among pre-menopausal women younger than age 51 with the highest levels of IGF-1 in their blood. The prostate cancer study published in SCIENCE in January, 1998, found a 4-fold increase in risk of prostate cancer among men with the highest levels of IGF-1 in their blood. Thus IGF-1 in blood is associated with larger relative risks for common cancers than any other factor yet discovered. IGF-1 is a powerful naturally occurring growth hormone found in the blood of humans. Dairy cows injected with genetically engineered bovine growth hormone (rBGH) give milk containing elevated levels of IGF-1 and the IGF-1 in milk can pass into the blood stream of milk consumers. Cows' IGF-1 is chemically identical to that in humans. Ingested IGF-1 would ordinarily be broken down in the stomach, but the presence of casein in milk prevents such breakdown. Thus these latest cancer findings raise important public health questions about the safety of milk from cows treated with bovine growth hormone (rBGH). Among pre-menopausal women increasing levels of IGF-1 in blood were strongly associated with increasing risk of breast cancer in a consistent dose-response relationship. Adjusting for other known breast cancer factors (age at which menstruation began; age at birth of first child; number of children; family history of breast cancer; and weight in relation to height) did not change the results. | Breast Cancer, rBGH and Milk excerpted from RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY #598 - May 8, 1998 Environmental Research Foundation, P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403 http://www.rachel.org
15: It will be difficult for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to acknowledge that milk from rBGH-treated cows might be implicated in common cancers. Historically, FDA has maintained a very close relationship with Monsanto, the chemical company that spent a billion dollars developing rBGH. FDA approved rBGH for cows in 1993 and issued regulations that made it appear to be illegal to label milk rBGH-produced or rBGH-free. Some of the FDA officials who approved rBGH and who established the regulations discouraging labeling had previously worked for Monsanto. In 1994, Monsanto sued two grocery stores that labeled milk rBGH-free, because the chemical giant feared that, given a choice, consumers would reject rBGH-produced milk. FDA's anti-labeling regulations – signed into law by a former Monsanto official – were clearly intended to help Monsanto succeed in this marketing ploy. Because of FDA's and Monsanto's aggressive steps to prevent labeling of rBGH-produced milk, U.S. consumers of milk, chocolate milk, buttermilk, cream, whipped cream, ice cream, iced milk, cheese, cottage cheese, cream cheese, yogurt, frozen yogurt, custards --and perhaps many baked goods as well --are very likely ingesting increased quantities of IGF-1 today. Dr. Samuel S. Epstein at the University of Illinois in Chicago in 1996 published a paper arguing that IGF-1 from rBGH-treated cows may well promote cancer of the breast and of the colon in humans who drink such milk. Epstein pulled no punches: "In short," he wrote, "with the active complicity of the FDA, the entire nation is currently being subjected to an experiment involving large-scale adulteration of an age-old dietary staple by a poorly characterized and unlabeled biotechnology product [rBGH, which is genetically engineered by Monsanto]. Disturbingly, this experiment benefits only a very small segment of the agrichemical industry while providing no matching benefits to consumers. Even more disturbingly, it poses major potential public health risks for the entire U.S. population," Dr. Epstein wrote.
16: Monsanto’s RoundUp Ready corn has been shown to carry residues of RoundUp. RoundUp in turn has been shown (in a human study) to inhibit steroidogenesis by disrupting StAR protein expression. (RoundUp Inhibits Steroidogenesis by Disrupting Steroidogenic Acute Regulatory (StAR) Protein Expression - Lance P. Walsh, Chad McCormick, Clyde Martin, and Douglas M. Stocco. Department of Cell Biology and Biochemistry, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, Lubbock, Texas, USA) RoundUp works in plants by damaging the P-450 enzyme system. Essentially RoundUp gives plants cancer and they die. RoundUp damages the P-450 enzyme system in humans also! The possible effects of such damage include: early menopause, impotence, decreased fertility, insulin deregulation and diabetes, heart disease, thyroid dysfunction, obesity, breast cancer, prostate cancer, kidney malfunctioning, and impaired liver function - exactly the health problems that have skyrocketed in the U.S. population since these crops were introduced in the 90’s. In the European Union such health problems are much less frequent. Most GMO crops are banned there and any foods that do contain them must be labeled. RoundUp ready corn, soy, and canola are ingredients in 80-90% of the foods on grocery store shelves in the U.S. Bt Corn has had bacteria thuringiensis introduced into its cells. It is so toxic to bugs that Bt corn itself has been classified as a pesticide by the USDA. Yet the FDA has approved Bt corn to be sold for human consumption! It's in the produce departments of grocery stores right now – unlabeled! Even worse, there is a corn variety that has been engineered to be both RoundUp tolerant AND produce Bt Toxin. Almost all packaged foods especially baby formulas, children's snacks, breakfast cereals, and pet foods contain corn syrup, cornstarch, or corn meal made from these weed killer and bug killer laden varieties of corn because 80% of all corn grown in the Western Hemisphere is GMO. If processed foods don't contain GMO corn then they probably contain GMO soy (90%) or GMO canola (80%) – also engineered to be RoundUp Ready. And RoundUp residue has been detected in these foods. There's nothing to stop it because a former Monsanto Vice President, Michael Taylor, is the Food Safety Czar at the FDA! And there's no label to help you avoid it because Monsanto is spending $millions to crush every piece of legislation that would require labeling. Monsanto agents wrote the Monsanto Protection Act. Their lobbyists influenced corrupt officials to add it to essential federal legislation that had to be passed. The Monsanto Protection Act ensures that the courts can do nothing to stop the proliferation of GMO crops - even where they endanger non-GMO or organic crops. And if any suit against Monsanto ever did get to the Supreme Court, there's a former Monsanto attorney, Clarence Thomas, sitting there.
17: Here's why... | Stephanie Herman http://www.geke.us/MonsantoVenn.html | Monsanto's PR machine maintains that Monsanto is just a biotechnology company whose only interest is in improving crops to help assuage world hunger. The truth is Monsanto is a chemical company that makes most of its money on RoundUp herbicide and RoundUp Ready crops that have been genetically engineered to withstand ever-increasing applications of RoundUp. The crops do not produce higher yields and therefore do nothing to assuage world hunger. All they do is increase Monsanto's bottom line while increasing your chances of getting breast cancer or prostate cancer.
18: According to another study, mothers who had high levels of pthalates in their systems during pregnancy were roughly ten times more likely to give birth to boys whose genitals showed subtle anomalies. The most common malformations in American boys were smaller-than-normal penises, undescended testicles (a risk factor for testicular cancer in adulthood), and hypospadius. Even if we were willing to continue ignoring the link between the chemicals used in plastic bottles and breast cancer, not to mention the tons of climate changing co2 released in bottle production, what about the baby boys being born with tiny deformed penises and missing 'nads? Stop buying these toxic sports bottles! There is evidence they may contribute to cancer, and they certainly don't do anything to prevent it. | Bottles like this almost all contain either pthalates or Bisphenol A. Both chemicals are Endocrine Disrupting Compounds (EDC's) that are associated with an increased risk of breast cancer. The same is true of clear plastic water or soda bottles. The chemicals they contain leach into whatever liquid is in them, especially after being in the sun, in the car, or in the dishwasher. Equally alarming is a Canadian study that found 93% of the pregnant women tested had pthalates in their bodies. 80% of their fetuses had pthalates in their bodies as well.
19: From The ABC's of EDC's: Results from a Regional Science Forum for the Mid-Atlantic (November 2006) “While research on humans has been limited, results from current animal research suggest the potential for adverse outcomes, including altered ovarian and testicular development, male infertility, impaired cognitive development, cancers (non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, leukemia in children, elevated prostate cancer risk), Type II diabetes, obesity and immunosystemic disorders (Myers). Research also indicates that in utero exposure to EDCs may cause increased susceptibility or impairment during adulthood and/or permanent generational impacts.” | Hypospadius - coming to a baby boy near you? | Endocrine Disrupting Compounds are responsible for a host of other maladies and developmental problems as well. "Compelling evidence now links pesticide exposures with harms to the structure and functioning of the brain and nervous system. Neurotoxic pesticides are clearly implicated as contributors to the rising rates of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, autism, widespread declines in IQ and other measures of cognitive function. Pesticide exposure contributes to a number of increasingly common health outcomes for children, including cancer, birth defects and early puberty. Evidence of links to certain childhood cancers is particularly strong. Emerging science suggests that pesticides may be important contributors to the current epidemic of childhood asthma, obesity and diabetes. Extremely low levels of pesticide exposure can cause significant health harms, particularly during pregnancy and early childhood." From A Generation in Jeopardy published by PANNA Oct. 2012.
20: Ever wonder why nail salon workers have a higher incidence of breast cancer than the rest of the population? Oh, were you not AWARE of that aspect of breast cancer? Maybe it's because the cosmetics industry works hard to conceal the fact that their products often contain known human carcinogens. They also work hard to prevent regulations from being enacted that would protect women from exposure to such chemicals. Even Susan G Komen's fragrance, Promise Me, created a real stink when it was found to contain suspected cancer causing ingredients before the efforts of activists forced them to reformulate it. | Cosmetics industry representatives worked hard to prevent passage of California's Safe Cosmetic's Act. It passed because activists worked even harder. The cosmetics industry and the rest of the chemical industry would prefer that you think if you eat pesticide laden fruits and vegetables you can reduce your risk of cancer. They do not want you to know that you can reduce your risk of breast cancer by avoiding nail products, deodorant, fragrance, shampoo, hair dye, and hand lotion, as well as those much touted fruits and veges, because they contain chemicals that have been linked to breast cancer.
21: Speaking of Susan G. Komen, as an organization it is dangerously close to doing more harm than good in the fight against breast cancer. Komen was recently infiltrated by some wingnut who almost unilaterally decided that Komen would de-fund Planned Parenthood, on which hundreds of thousands of women depend for cancer screenings. Komen got rid of the woman and reinstated their funding of Planned Parenthood after other breast cancer organizations exposed Komen's duplicity. Some of Komen's biggest corporate sponsors are Ford, GE, and BofA. Ford runs to congress and lobbies against emissions standards every chance they get. Auto emissions contribute to various cancers. GE makes $billions off of their imaging and irradiating machines - a large part of the reason why we have not made any progress towards safer methods of detection and treatment in the last 100 years. And BofA is, well, BofA. From Wikipedia: "Komen is a key entity in the controversy over "pinkwashing"—the use of breast cancer and the pink ribbon by corporate marketers, especially to promote products that might be unhealthful, in return for a donation to the cause. Komen benefits greatly from these corporate partnerships, receiving over $55 million a year from two hundred and sixteen corporate sponsors. However, critics say many of these promotions are deceptive to consumers and benefit the companies more than the charity. In April 2011 Komen introduced its own-brand $60 perfume "Promise Me", complete with promotional appearances by Komen CEO Nancy Brinker on the Home Shopping Network, only to encounter opposition due to coumarin, oxybenzone, toluene and galaxolide as potentially harmful ingredients. Komen stated its intention to have the product reformulated but has refused to withdraw existing stocks of the "Promise Me" product from distribution." Visit Environmental Working Group's Skin Deep Cosmetics Database to find out what 's in your cosmetics and other personal care products. http://www.ewg.org/skindeep/
22: The American Cancer Society (ACS), the world's wealthiest "non-profit institution", is fixated on damage control - screening, diagnosis and treatment, - and genetic research, with indifference or even hostility to cancer prevention. Together with the National Cancer Institute (NCI), the ACS has failed to provide Congress, regulatory agencies, and the public with the strong body of scientific evidence clearly relating the escalating incidence of non-smoking related cancers to involuntary and unavoidable exposures to industrial carcinogens in air, water, the workplace, and consumer products - - food, cosmetics and toiletries - - so that appropriate corrective and legislative regulatory action has not been taken. Nor have citizens been provided with available information to protect themselves against avoidable cancer risks. As such, the ACS bears a heavy responsibility for the current cancer epidemic, with lifetime risks now approaching one in two for men and one in three for women. These concerns are further compounded by incestuous conflicts of interest, apart from serious financial irregularities. Marching in lockstep with the National Cancer Institute (NCI) in its "war" on cancer is its "ministry of information," the ACS. With powerful media control and public relations resources, the ACS is the tail that wags the dog of the policies and priorities of the NCI. In addition, the approach of the ACS to cancer prevention reflects a virtually exclusionary "blame-the-victim" philosophy. It emphasizes faulty lifestyle rather than unknowing and unavoidable exposures to workplace or environmental carcinogens. Giant corporations, which profit handsomely while they pollute the air, water, and food with a wide range of carcinogens, are greatly comforted by the silence of the ACS. Indeed, despite promises to the public to do everything to "wipe out cancer in your lifetime," the ACS fails to make its voice heard in Congress and the regulatory arena. Instead, the ACS has repeatedly rejected or ignored opportunities and requests from Congressional committees, regulatory agencies, unions, and environmental organizations to provide scientific testimony critical to legislate and regulate a wide range of occupational and environmental carcinogens. This history of ACS unresponsiveness is a long and damning one. This article is based on Chapter 16 and 18 of THE POLITICS OF CANCER REVISITED, 1998, East Ridge press, Fremont Center, New York 12736 (1-800-269-2921). For a more detailed text and citations, see "American Cancer Society: The World's Wealthiest 'Non-profit' Institution,'' International Journal of Health Services 29(3): 565-578, 1999.
23: If you became AWARE that tens of thousands of Americans every year were were being slashed, burned, poisoned and killed because certain industries wanted to continue producing the causes and "treatments" responsible, would you think the best response was to expect the survivors and victims' loved ones to strap on walking shoes and tramp around the countryside trying to raise the funds to put a stop to it? | So if you're going to march, march to the headquarters of the organizations and corporations responsible for perpetuating the cancer epidemic. March to the offices of your elected representatives. March to your governmental regulatory agencies. Then demand that some meaningful changes be made in the way the war on cancer is conducted. It's time to focus on PREVENTION! Because... | If anyone actually was looking for a cure for cancer and if anyone actually did find a cure, the American economy would lose a $226.8 BILLION dollar a year industry. The cancer industry is simply too big to fail. So it is necessary to distract those suffering and dying with marches and rallies to make them think something is being done.
24: Now you are AWARE of Breast Cancer!
25: Take Action: Contact the Breast Cancer Coalition, Breast Cancer Action, The Breast Cancer Fund, or any of the other organizations that do not take corporate money, to learn how to really help women with breast cancer. Make your donations to these organizations or directly to a worthy research effort. Only those organizations independent from corporate sponsorship can be truly dedicated to focusing on prevention rather than just awareness of breast cancer without interference from those who profit from industries that contribute to the epidemic. University research is likewise most often funded by those who have something to gain by certain outcomes. Make sure you are not really just contributing to protecting some company's bottom line by helping them to engage in pinkwashing rather than actually helping the 200,000 + women who are diagnosed with breast cancer every year. Voice your opinion directly to National Breast Cancer Awareness Month's sponsors about their lack of information on avoidable causes of breast cancer. They can be reached at the following locations: American Cancer Society 1180 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 1-800-227-2345 National Cancer Institute 9000 Rockville Pike, Bldg. 31, Room 10A03 Bethesda, MD 20892 301-402-3963 American College of Radiology 1891 Preston White Drive Reston, VA 20091 703-648-8910 AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals 1800 Concord Pike Wilmington, DE 19897 1-800-236-9933