Cancer Is Man Made

Discussion in 'Human Science' started by jmpet, Oct 28, 2010.

  1. Skeptical Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,449
    This thread is a perfect example of a piece of greenie horsesh!t.

    The idea that cancers are increasing due to more industrial or other synthetic chemicals is pure nonsense.

    There are a couple of cancers that have increased over the past 100 years. Lung cancer, and Karposi's sarcoma (caused by AIDS). I do not think I need to elaborate on why lung cancer has increased.

    Apart from those, cancers have not increased in rate, except in line with the increase in the number of older people. Cancer rates can be adjusted for age. When we do that, we find such things as breast cancer and prostate cancer rates have not changed much, if at all, over 100 years.

    Overall, longevity has increased substantially in the past 200 years. We live longer and much healthier lives than any time in human history. Those who try to say otherwise are p#ss&ng into the wind.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. WillNever Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,594
    I'm afraid that isn't altogether true, skeptical. Cancer has increased. We are still living longer in general because of improvements in cancer treatments. I don't agree with the OP fully, but identifying age as a cause of cancer is flawed. Ask yourself why you think age is a cause. When you realize that the answer is a little deeper than "you're just getting older," you'll realize why it's flawed.

    Here's some literature from one of my nursing reference books that I scanned for you, which will help:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    Exactly how does this help your case? In fact, it looks like the opposite.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. WillNever Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,594
    How so? Perhaps you need to look up the difference between "risk factor" and "cause" or "etiology." In pathophysiology, these are different things. The cause of cancer is DNA damage leading to cell dysplasia and rapid proliferation. A risk factor for that cause is advanced age -- which is due to accumulated carcinogenic exposure and a decreased immune response.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  8. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    The problem is that little snippet you add at the end of nearly every post in this thread (or a variation of it) is not something you can substantiate. Whereas we are telling you some very basic and obvious reasons why cancer has always been a factor in human existence. You really cant get any more basic than knowing what to look for, where to look and the means to look for it. Then you say "well its increasing" without even taking into account the sentence before this one.
     
  9. WillNever Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,594
    Actually, I can. Here's another page that might help you. More specifically, look at the bottom paragraphs on the right column, where it talks about external factors accounting for about 80% of cancer diagnoses in North America, the 58 known cancer-causing agents, and the suspected 188.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Game.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    I've seen nothing to support that general conclusion when you adjust the statistics for age.

    This is about cancer mortality, which is going down for all the reasons mentioned, but also part of that is because of decreasing rates of some cancers, most holding pretty steady, and just a few that are increasing.

    Age factors in because of probability and decreasing effectiveness of the immune system to halt new cancers before they gain a foothold, but also because the result of decades of carcinogens just takes that long, when you see that the average age of Lung cancer diagnosis is 71, and that smokers are 23 times as likely to get lung cancer, then it is reasonable to assume that the effect of carcinogens, even at the rate applied by smokers, simply takes decades to have a cancerous effect. Thus an aging population will see more lung cancer than one that doesn't live quite so long even given the same number of youthful smokers.

    Arthur
     
  11. WillNever Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,594
    Most academic sources which cite an increased cancer rate are already adjusted for age. Often, they are based on cross sectional studies that compare varying cancer rates among developed countries with similar life expectancies but different external factors. Also, can you source that quotation?
     
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2010
  12. Skeptical Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,449
    There is a widely spread myth that says the agents that cause cancers are human synthesized. Not true.

    The biggest cancer causers are tobacco and alcohol. Tobacco is the leaf of a plant, and alcohol is a natural byproduct of yeast fermentation. Alcohol has been a part of human life for a long time, but tobacco use has been increasing up into the 1970's. This is, of course, the reason for the increase in lung cancer.

    Lots of cancer causing agents exist, and most are totally natural. I could make a case to argue that tobacco and alcohol are natural. In addition, every food plant contains poisons and carcinogens. Something as common as potato contains two carcinogens (solanine and calchicine). This is not in any way a problem. Carcinogens in the human diet has been ubiquitous since before we evolved into Homo sapiens. Evolution has equipped us with genetic mechanisms to repair DNA damage and avoid such cancers. In fact, there is evidence that the presense of carcinogens actually stimulates such mechanisms and lowers cancer rates.
     
  13. WillNever Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,594
    Skeptical: inhaled tobacco smoke and alcohol are not age-related factors.
    Those genetic mechanisms are not immune from mutation. That is why we humans develop cancer in spite of those mechanisms. The safeguards against DNA damage fail.
    Do you have evidence? Show us the evidence. I will actually read it. By definition, a carcinogen is "a substance that changes the activity of a cell's genes so that the cell becomes a cancer cell." That's according to my medical-surgical book, and it doesn't bode well for your theory that carcinogens lower cancer rates.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    What I've seen doesn't support the overall conclusion of an increase in cancer when age is adjusted for, but I'll have to research this later.

    Since I'd already posted the link I didn't post it again.

    http://www.idph.state.il.us/cancer/pdf/AARarticle.PDF

    Arthur
     
  15. Skeptical Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,449
    To Willnever

    The major carcinogenic influence for which there is evidence of low dose protection is radiation. The idea is that low dose radiation stimulates repair mechanisms in the body, and is hence protective against cancer. This is termed radio-hormesis.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis

    The evidence for chemical mutagens protecting against cancer is less well researched, but there is data suggesting that it will also work.
    http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=...UQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=mutagen+hormesis&f=false

    If you think about it, there is nothing so strange about it. The human body is capable of adapting in many ways to various stresses. In medieval times, it was common practise for politicians to take small doses of poison on a regular basis so that they had resistance against heavier doses that might be supplied by an enemy.

    Even exercise is a version of this. Stress your muscles with pumping iron, and they get stronger. Condition your muscles by lifting dumb bells 50 times at a go. When you can do that comfortably, try for 100. You may be surprised to realise that you can, with an effort, do 100. Your body 'over-adapts' allowing more stress on your muscles than you would predict.

    Taking small amounts of carcinogen causes your body to strengthen its cancer protections. This 'over-adaptation' leaves you more resistant to cancer than if you never ingested those carcinogens.

    Of course, if you take in more than a little carcinogen, it may lead to cancer. Heavy doses of tobacco smoke over a lifetime may mean death from lung cancer.
     
  16. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    I am not putting him down but he is ain some kind of healthcare, and looks at things based on his manuals. A long time ago someone said to me "did you ever notice that people who shield their kids alsways have kids who are sick" (parhprasing) meaning colds etc. and then he said "and the ones who let their kids out and get in the dirt are not the sick kids". These are principals lost on him. A long time ago i went to a doctor, i havent been to a doctor in over ten years as i heal myself, but this is not for everyone and i am not recommending this. At the doctor i said, "it hurts when i do this" pushing down on my hand or something like that and he said "then dont do that". Meaning that sometimes the simplest solution is the correct one. Btw, I have been to the dentist about three times in the last ten years or so and i cannot bring myself to pull my own teeth...but i though about ways to do it.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Its just too difficult and painful, not to mention my teeth have long roots. My dentist told me he never seen roots that big. Its true and i thought that was the funniest thing i ever heard. Another thing i found stange was that the roots were fuse together into two seperate roots but i always thought there was four separate roots on the molars.

    Edit: Actually it was the tendon in the arch of my foot. The large one that runs almost in the center, lengthwise.
     
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2010
  17. WillNever Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,594
    If you are already missing teeth by the age of 32, then that probably means that your remaining teeth aren't healthy. Have fun being edentulous before the age of 60.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  18. WillNever Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,594
    But the studies listed at the bottom of the wiki all state that they are flawed. Do you have something other than wikipedia? It's an interesting theory but there's no backing to it on that page.
    That isn't data suggesting it will work. I've taken pharmacology. What that book is describing is drug tolerance. We know how tolerance occurs: increased activation of drug-metabolizing enzymes in the liver and a decreased sensitivity or or number of receptor sites. These processes are entirely separate from what you are describing. Comparing it to getting stronger due to exercise is pseudoscience.
     
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2010
  19. Giambattista sssssssssssssssssssssssss sssss Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,878
    AIDS is the cause of Kaposi's sarcoma?!?!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    You mean, immune dysfunction, in general? Or possibly, Kaposi's sarcoma-associated herpesvirus (KSHV)???
     
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2010
  20. Giambattista sssssssssssssssssssssssss sssss Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,878
    Do roving x-ray vans that scan through walls count as low-dose "hormesis"? If so, then the Police State really IS good for my health. I can't wait to fly the FRIENDLY skies just so I can go through the nude picture generator/body scanner!!! :yay:
     
  21. Gremmie "Happiness is a warm gun" Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,593
    I'm bored...I just googled this...You are right on the money Giambattista.

    Except it says,HHV8..Human herpesvirus8.
     
  22. WillNever Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,594
    Hah, that's a good point. By the way, airline staff are exposed to low level radiation a lot and statistically speaking, they are more likely than the general population to develop cancer.
     
  23. The Esotericist Getting the message to Garcia Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,119

Share This Page