Breast Cancer and Bras: Recent Research Raises an Alarm Bell

Four years ago, one large study found a compelling connection. In an article entitled Wearing a Tight Bra for Many Hours a Day is Associated with Increased Risk of Breast Cancer [Journal of Oncology Research and Treatment, 2016. 1:1, Vol 1(1)], a group of six authors concluded that “This study demonstrated a correlation between wearing a tight bra for several hours a day and an increased risk of developing breast cancer” due in part to constriction on the lymph nodes. The authors also quoted another study (Hsieh et al, 1991) that “demonstrated that premenopausal women who did not wear a bra had half the risk of developing breast cancer compared with bra wearers.” Yet overall, studies of bra-wearing leading to cancer “have been inconclusive.”

This journal publication of 2016 is one of the more recent, compelling, and so far unchallenged, discoveries of a relationship. Mentioned were the more “well known” factors implicated in breast cancer: early menarche, late menopause, the use of hormone replacement therapy, alcoholism, obesity, smoking, and genetic mutations. The ‘bra and cancer relationship’ has thus returned from one of its original beginnings, the book Dressed to Kill , 1995, by S.R. Singer and S. Grismaijer (Avery Publishing, New York). These two particular authors had claimed:

“We have developed a new theory about breast cancer and have tested that theory by conducting original research on thousands of women (4,730 from San Francisco, Denver, Phoenix, Dallas and New York) and we feel confident that we have discovered something tremendously important. We believe we have found a trigger for breast cancer. It is a trigger that is pulled by women themselves – but the gun is loaded by society.”

Of course, since then, bra manufacturers, fashion designers and some researchers have poo-pooed this idea, only to be facing now new evidence. In discussing primarily how bras block or retard the flow of the lymphatic system of the body, the authors also addressed the effects of culture in controlling what women wear and how they wear it. Their research led them to conclude that not only age, genetics, toxin intake, diet and hormone factors, but especially social factors, contribute to higher breast cancer rates. For example, in studying cultures in which bras are traditionally not worn (e.g., Asia, Mexico, Japan, South America, Egypt) breast cancer rates are four-fold lower than cultures in which bras are customarily worn, i.e., most Western or “Westernizing” cultures. Further, since public nudity is not permitted yet in most societies, pretend nudity is acceptable, namely that an ad seen on television or the internet today stresses that a bra makes a woman look ‘natural, not naked’. Yet the ‘braless look’ from the ’60s Flower Children, evoled to be included in the Women’s Movement, and “was put into high gear by movies and television.” So underwear manufacturers countered this movemnt with ads and propaganda attacking this freedom, and hitting hard with the claim that women ‘needed to support’ their breasts. When this didn’t work particularly well, the industry took another direction, making underwear that looked as though the wearer had nothing on at all” (pretend nudity). [See The Naked Child: Growing Up without Shame, by D.C. Smith and Dr. W. Sparks, 1986. Elysium Press].

As I had learned (and thereafter personally corrected) from a Mayo Clinic specialist in the ’70s, how prolonged wearing of tight underwear and bluejeans for men lowered sperm counts, and that prolonged tight clothing generally was not a good idea for anyone, I tend to lean towards these latest findings about women and bras. Many lessons can be learned also from the 35 million declared nudists/naturists around the world about why clothing shouldn’t be worn (weather permitting) at all. But that’s another, much larger, topic.

Terry L. Hill, PhD, Medical Sociologist

Clothes or No Clothes, and COVID-19

Research today shows a connection between the virus and how clothes can harbour it. One recommended protection move is to shed and wash your work clothes when you get home, and then not wear clothes until the next day. Silly?

Perhaps.

Of course, apartment dwellers might have a more difficult time with this concept, and suburbanites too. Owners of acreage-size lots and farmers? Not so much. (trees and fences work great!)

But there are other possible roadblocks to this virus prevention idea. Some that come to mind are:

  1. religious values that associate nudity with shame, sex, sin
  2. traditional family values about the human body
  3. strangers and non-sypathetic relatives who might randomly come to your door, etc.
  4. how many and how large are your windows (in principle, windows are for looking out of, not for looking into).

Nonetheless, if you can get away with it, or you are already doing this, or are a bona fide nudist/naturist, then a no-clothes homelife might not be a bad idea…at least until the pandemic has reached the bottom side of the curve. We have enough trouble as it is accepting the human body as made, so this idea, if it catches on, might alleviate our body prejudices as well as help keep us healthy (and make the world a safer place in more ways than one; but that’s another blog).

Cheers!

GUEST APPEARANCE by Paul Bassett: Cosmologist, internationally-known AI specialist, keynote speaker and published author. His third contribution follows, speaking on Our Universe.

It gives me tremendous pleasure (again) in introducing my long-time friend and colleague, Paul Bassett. Paul has written a blog contribution below, which I know you will find extremely thought-provoking. Your responses are of course, solicited.

Paul Bassett photo Paul Bassett is a retired software engineer, author, entrepreneur, and inventor. His invention of Frame Technology (used around the world to automate software development) won him CIP’s Technology Innovation Award. He’s published numerous papers and a book Framing Software Reuse. Paul was a member of IEEE’s Distinguished Visitor Program, and has given keynote addresses, taught computer science at York University, and co-founded several businesses, including two successful software engineering companies. His MSc in artificial intelligence (U. of Toronto) imbued him with a life-long passion for divining the role and future life in the universe.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

What is the Name of Our Universe?

“Our universe” means different things in cultures with different creation myths. In my culture, “our universe” usually means the observable universe, which is a sphere with the Earth at its centre; it is the largest volume of matter that can ever affect us. Its radius is 46.6 billion light-years (1 light-year = 9.46 billion km.) and growing at one light-year per year. But the universe created at the “Big Bang” (13.8 billion years ago) surrounds “our universe”, and is unimaginably larger still. Virtually all the matter in the “Big Bang universe” is moving away from us faster than the speed of light, so can never affect us.

In “our universe”, we can see galaxies that can never see each other because any pair of galaxies that are more than 13.8 billion light-years apart have not had enough time since the Big Bang for light to travel from one to the other. So one could say that those galaxies are outside each other’s universes.

Finally, there is the notion of a ‘multiverse’, a universe some cosmologists speculate is spawning universes all the time, just as it spawned our “Big Bang universe”. With so many universes, there is no name for any of them! That said, “our universe” is the de facto name for the one and only universe that matters to us.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Is artificial intelligence intelligent? or is it just machine learning?

There are many ways to define intelligence. Almost all of them involve problem solving proficiency. Problem-solving in turn, is deeply connected to the notion of algorithm, a method for converting inputs to outputs, or in mathematics, computing a function. Every computable function* has a countably infinite number of algorithms that can compute it, each varying greatly in its proficiency – the time and memory it requires to compute its outputs.

All brains and computers work by performing algorithms*. Brains have algorithms whose outputs are algorithms. Normally, brains invent/improve algorithms that computers use, as is. But ever since computers were invented, a goal has been to enable computers to invent/improve their own algorithms, what is commonly referred to as machine learning.

Human intelligence correlates with how quickly one can learn, with the vastness of one’s knowledge, expertise, wisdom, creativity,…This somewhat vague list of attributes all boil down, as I said, to the proficiency of various algorithms. After decades of frustratingly small advances, algorithms have recently been devised that allow simulated, multi-layered neural networks to learn to become much better than any human at quite a few impressive problem domains: from playing games such as checkers, chess, backgammon, poker and go, to medical diagnoses, to language translation, to facial recognition, to driving cars, to big-data pattern recognition, and so on. These machines are said to employ deep learning (“deep” means many layers of simulated neurons, each learning a different aspect of how to solve an overall problem).

Are these machines intelligent? In their domains of expertise, YES. Do they exhibit general intelligence? NO, because they still lack many key algorithms. In particular, no deep learning system today can give reasons for its choices (e.g., why it makes particular chess moves); nor do we know how to enable a machine to be an expert in multiple domains (e.g., chess and medicine). Billions of dollars are being spent on achieving general-purpose AI. And recent rapid progress leaves less and less room for skepticism*.

What is clear now is this: Like humans do, AIs will acquire their intelligence, not from human programmers, but by learning from experience, aided and unaided by teachers. Programmers may give them their initial learning algorithms, but what they learn, including learning to learn better, will emerge from an AI’s interactions with its environments.

*For those who still believe brains can think in ways that machines never can: Almost a century ago computer science pioneer Alan Turing and mathematician Alonzo Church, conjectured that a certain well-defined set contained all and only the functions that matter and energy can ever compute. (This countably infinite set is infinitesimal compared to the uncountably infinite set of all functions.) Since then, many have tried to refute it and failed. More recently, physicist David Deutsch finally proved the conjecture, assuming only that matter and energy obey the laws of quantum mechanics. Thus both brains and (quantum) computers are confined to thinking using algorithms in that set.

Comments……………..?

Naturism As A Lifestyle

Naturism is not:

  • just sunbathing
  • just visiting nudist clubs
  • just going nude in or around the house
  • just eating, washing and entertaining guests in the nude
  • just camping, hiking, or canoeing in the nude
  • just writing and talking about it.

Naturism is all of these things and more. It not only represents a value system shared by over 20 million people worldwide, it also represents a lifestyle, a way of life.

In more conservative Western societies such as Canada, England and the United States, naturism presents hurdles for those who embrace its gymnos philosophy – hurdles of public and private roles, image definition, balancing textile (clothed) and naturist behaviours, and of habitation arrangements regarding location, privacy and access.

As with other things people hold true or worthwhile, naturism is called upon to be defended or justified. Due to its basic value of body shamelessness, it is defended more frequently than believing in abortion, nuclear defense, or gay/lesbian rights. This is in part because strangers and even friends have never asked themselves: Are clothes necessary? Why? or, why must the moral majority prevail over this particularly primordial life ethos? What virtues has ‘civilised’ modern society gained over our ancient nude cultures to make our birth nakedness (as nature intended) now immoral, disgusting, lewd and to be hidden from view? What happened to those tens of thousands of years of body acceptance?

For some advocates today, naturism represents a kind of ‘social movement’, akin to Green Peace, Amnesty International, Pro-Choice, and so forth. It has several characteristics that help define it this way: 1. a defined philosophy, 2. a central political core (INF, FCN, INA), 3. active (several no deceased) protagonists (Erickson, Weinberg, Vais, Baxandall, Cunningham, Hill, Erlickmyer, Williams, Scheller), and 4. internal communication devices (INF Newsletter, Going Natural, ASA Bulletin, Australian H & E, Naturist Society N & N). It lacks however, several more defining aspects of a true movement: a) a shared and clearly defined set of strategies; b) effective charismatic and/or consistent leadership; c) a wide supportive economic base; d) unified human resources.

A ‘collective conscience’ across the world has never been achieved among naturists because:

  • in several European countries (France, Denmark, Germany, Holland Bulgaria) it has not been necessary to coalesce because most practical naturist recreational needs have been met through protective by-laws or local ordinances;
  • the sub-groups (ASA,BNS, INF, FCN, ANF, etc.) are fractured among themselves over issues of leadership, goals, and priorities;
  • relatively few precedents in law have been won in most non-European countries (except Canada), through collective or cooperative efforts;
  • there are great economic and inter-member organizational difficulties (travel costs, postage, exchange rates);
  • many member groups and federations of naturists are too busy fighting issues at home to lend time and resources for INF (global body) objectives.

In these ways, naturism differs from religions, cults, clubs and international organizations.

Nonetheless, most naturists, politically active or not, perceive naturism as a lifestyle, not mere recreation or short-term sunbathing. They live nude as much as fences, by-laws, and neighbours will allow. This conscious choice sometimes forces naturists into the social role of ‘marginals, living in two worlds. Textile cultures enforce dress codes in most public places, whereas naturist (and nudist) resorts or communities enforce the opposite norm requiring nudity most of the time (weather and first-timers excluded). Naturists see nudity as a rational or logical lifestyle for beaches, cities, towns, or countryside, because body taboos, shame, modesty and over-sexualizing the body are psychologically damaging. Naturists stridently distinguish sexuality from sensuality in their groups, and social norms are created to control for harassment of any kind. Latent norms are so strong for example, that male erections are extremely rare, and if they do occur, a man is encouraged to sit down or cover himself until it subsides. They are not shamed, but helped to understand there is a time and place (naturists do not cease to sexual beings!). Research has shown children brought up in a naturist family or community, become much better adjusted psychologically than their textile counterparts. They would never pay money to go to a strip-bar, or to engage in viewing pornography.

Optimally, naturists can find enough at-home privacy that their lifestyle is minimally interfered with. Even the smallest of properties with properly erected fences, can protect their privacy rights. Suburbia presents the ‘toughest’ challenges however, to naturist living because of the proximity to the public. Solutions sometimes take the form of:

  • telling your neighbours before you move in;
  • joining a nearby club or group and curtailing your back-yard practices;
  • moving to country property where you are completely out of view, and can install a lockable gate; (note: If you are private, but someone goes out of their way to see you, you are protected by law; also, in remote areas or parks the law protects you [Canada])
  • move to nude communities that have apartments, condos, modular homes, for sale or rent, e.g., Cypress Cove, Cap d’Agde, and dozens more around the world.

In her famous book, Therapy, Nudity & Joy, Elysium Growth Press, 1991, Forward by Ashley Montagu, Dr. Aileen Goodson describes the therapeutic use of nudity through the ages from ancient ritual to modern psychology. The inner fly-leaf states:

“Therapy, Nudity & Joy is a brightly-written exploration of body-shame —– how it develops during infancy and childhood and later manifests in potentially debilitating problems such as guilt, loss of self-esteem, intimacy disorders and general stress symptoms. Author Aileen Goodson brings a fresh perspective to what she refers to as ‘an hysteria in our culture toward the natural unclothed body and its functions.”

Finally, a text endorsement is included as follows:

“This fascinating book is a ‘must read’ for parents who want their children to develop healthy attitudes and behaviors about their bodies and their sexuality. The ability to understand nudity and sexuality as separate, but sometimes compatible phenomena, will protect against sexual exploitation, guilt, and low self-esteem.”

  • Loretta Haroian, PhD. Department Chair and Professor of Child and Adolescent Sexuality, The Institute for Advanced Study of Human sexuality, San Francisco, California

Naturism accepts wholeheartedly overweight or ultra-thin bodies, scarred bodies, young and old bodies, short and tall bodies, people with poor self-concept/body image problems, and black/white/all shades bodies. Naturists are poor, middle-class, wealthy, highly or not-so-highly educated, male/female/LGBT, physicians, supreme court judges, waitresses, pilots, truckers, hockey players, salespersons, Christians, yes…Muslims, Buddhists, Atheists/Humanists, and Hindu (I’ve met all of the above people described at resorts in Canada, US, England and France).

There are always risks associated with adopting a different lifestyle, naturism being no exception. The human body continues to be a formidable frontier for people bent on associating only carnal interpretations to social nudity. Women have gained the legal right in Ontario, and more recently in Montreal (February, 2016), to join men in being topless in public places. Equality rights and increased body acceptance are occurring, but disgust, patriarchy, shame, guilt, and exploitation are still associated with being totally or even partially nude. We have a long way to go. The media can be our best friends or our worst enemies in this quest.

“Naked is the best disguise”  –  Sherlock Holmes