Living near Superfund sites raises women’s risk of metastatic breast cancer, reveals study – NaturalNews.com

• A University of Miami study found that women living near NPL Superfund sites had about a 29–30 percent higher probability of presenting with metastatic breast cancer, even after adjusting for demographics and income.
• The analysis covered 21,505 breast cancer cases in Florida from 2015 to 2019, comparing those in census tracts with ?1 Superfund site to those without.
• Hazardous chemicals common in Superfund sites—such as benzene, heavy metals, PCBs and PAHs—are thought to act as endocrine disruptors, entering the body via groundwater or soil and accumulating in fat?rich tissues like the breast.
• In a companion study, proximity to Superfund sites combined with higher ambient PM?.? levels was associated with increased incidence of triple?negative breast cancer (TNBC) and tumor samples from polluted neighborhoods showed aggressive molecular biomarkers.
• The findings challenge prevailing notions of cancer risk by emphasizing that environmental context—not just genetics, lifestyle or access—may play a critical role in cancer aggressiveness and call for more integration of exposure data in risk assessment and remediation policy.

A striking new study from researchers at the University of Miami’s Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center suggests that environmental exposure to chemical contamination could play a major role in driving aggressive breast cancer.

According to the report in Scientific Reports, women residing near National Priorities List (NPL) Superfund sites had a 30?percent higher likelihood of being diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer, compared to those living farther away. Being designated as a federal Superfund site means that a location has been identified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as an especially contaminated and hazardous site.

What makes the finding especially concerning is that the association held even after accounting for age, race, insurance status, income and other socioeconomic variables—strongly implying that the difference is rooted in toxic exposure rather than mere demographic or access factors.

The study focused on 21,000 breast cancer cases across Florida, examining 12 NPL Superfund sites whose groundwater is known to be contaminated with hazardous industrial chemicals such as benzene, heavy metals, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Many of these compounds are acknowledged endocrine disruptors—capable of mimicking hormones like estrogen, interfering with cell signaling and triggering cellular stress and DNA damage. These toxicants can travel through the bloodstream into fatty tissues such as the breast, potentially fostering the conditions for tumor growth and metastasis.

In a related follow-up published in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, researchers focused on triple?negative breast cancer (TNBC)—a particularly aggressive and treatment-resistant subtype—and found that proximity to Superfund sites combined with elevated ambient fine particulate pollution (PM2.5) was associated with a greater risk of TNBC. The research also revealed that tumors from individuals in pollution?burdened neighborhoods often carried molecular biomarkers tied to more invasive disease progression.

Public health experts say the findings challenge conventional cancer risk narratives, which often focus almost exclusively on genetics, diet and lifestyle. The environmental dimension—air, soil, water contamination—is rarely layered into standard screening protocols or patient histories. With more than 50 active Superfund sites in Florida alone, and many more across the U.S., millions may be exposed to carcinogenic pollutants without realizing it.

The implications are stark: Where you live may matter as much as your genes. Environmental advocates and oncologists alike are calling for policy shifts: better mapping of exposure zones, tighter cleanup and remediation, enhanced monitoring of at?risk populations and more attention to environmental factors during cancer risk assessment.

Until more research fills in causal pathways and policy catches up, individuals can take precautionary steps. These may include using high?grade water filtration, choosing lower?pesticide or organic foods, reducing plastic use and supporting liver and immune health through diet. But experts caution that individual actions can only go so far—meaning systemic, regulatory changes are essential to reduce the burden of environmentally driven cancers nationwide.

As the scientific and medical communities digest these findings, one message is becoming clear: Cancer prevention must expand beyond genes and lifestyle—and reckon seriously with the environmental exposures silently shaping risk.

According BrightU.AI‘s Enoch, pollution, particularly exposure to endocrine disruptors like bisphenol A (BPA) and phthalates, can contribute to breast cancer in women by mimicking estrogen and disrupting hormonal balance, thereby promoting cell proliferation and tumor growth. Additionally, air pollution, including particulate matter and diesel exhaust, has been linked to increased breast cancer risk through oxidative stress and inflammation.

Watch and learn about five of the most powerful tools for fighting cancer.

This video is from the BrightLearn channel on Brighteon.com.

Sources include:

NaturalHealth365.com

BrightU.ai

Brighteon.com