Cancer Is Man Made

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

  1. WillNever Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,594
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Giambattista sssssssssssssssssssssssss sssss Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,878
    Not sure who is the intended recipient, but I found this gem amusing:

    Three whole people!!! WOW! Stop the PRESS!!!! :fright:

    http://healthwellnesspost.com/warning-pain-relievers-like-tylenol-can-cause-death.htm
    Uh, oh! Alternative medical treatment causes one death! RED ALERT!
    Acceptable medicine causes thousands of deaths, per year? YAWN ALERT!

    The FDA is on the job!
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. WillNever Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,594
    Some guy just posted a video promoting that gerson stuff.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Giambattista sssssssssssssssssssssssss sssss Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,878
    Esotericist is not "some guy" but rather a being of light temporarily housed in a biological vehicle whose outward gender is inconsequential.

    The video looked interesting. I'll have a go at it when I have the urge to watch a whole documentary.

    The Gerson stuff sounded a little kooky, but I've come to have a well-placed distrust of anything Wikipedia has to say about controversial subjects, be it global warming alarmism or alternative medicine.
     
  8. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    For a very long time, life expectancy was just enough to survive long enough to reproduce and bring up children to an age where they could stand on their own feet. The body only had to cope with surviving for that long. So all "repair" mechanisms in the body are geared toward survival and reproduction in the short term.

    According to molecular biologists there are 10,000 attacks on the DNA of every cell every day. Thats a pretty impressive survival and defense rate. But this daily damage accumulates and was not a factor when life expectancy was short. Now however, with better nutrition and medicine, we live long enough that all that damage corresponds to lifestyle diseases like cancer, obesity, diabetes etc. The only factor we can control is exposure to environmental agents which contribute to such damage and paying attention to those environmental factors which aid in combating this damage.
     
  9. Giambattista sssssssssssssssssssssssss sssss Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,878
    Would you say that environmental toxicity has increased, and that even with the overall improvement in nutrition in one sense, that there is an increasing level of food additives, GMO, and other impure things?
     
  10. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    We're living longer and healthier lives in modern society. We have more leisure, less life threatening disease, less hunger and better physical attributes with modernisation. Is that toxic?
     
  11. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    Yes four. They're called Wisdom teeth.
     
  12. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    Yes, but put it in perspective, it is the most widely used Analgesic in the country. Over 100 million Americans take acetaminophen every year.

    And of the 450 deaths, about 100 aren't intentional, or roughly one out of a million users. Unfortunately it is one of the drugs of choice for suicide (which turns out to be a BAD choice since you die slowly of liver failure), so the 26,000 hospitalizations to the 100 unintentional deaths actually indicates that a low dose of acetaminophen does not put us at risk for severe liver damage, a liver transplant, or death.

    BUT

    If you are anorexic and/or routinely abuse alcohol or have existing liver damage and then use as little as twice the the recommended dose of acetaminophen, you are asking for possible serious trouble. Because there are some formulas with very high levels of acetaminonphen in them this can be just a few extra pills. Also the drug is often included in other medicines and consumers might not notice they are getting the drug from multiple sources, which can cause unintentional overdosing.

    Arthur
     
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2010
  13. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
  14. WillNever Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,594
    As an aggregate of the long term (~35 years), that says it has gone up. It is unwise to cut out all but the most recent decade. This seems to fall in line with the OP's suggestion, however. Air pollution in North America since the 1990's has decreased somewhat. It was exceptionally bad in the mid 1980's. Could there be a relationship?
     
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2010
  15. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    Nah,
    Cancer takes far far longer to develop to trace it to changes the same year that the levels dropped.
    The more realistic view is that stop smoking efforts from decades before finally started to pay off by the 90s.

    Of all we do, smoking (creating your own personal level of air pollution) is by far the one most likely to be associated with your getting cancer, and not just lung cancer.

    The risk from general external environmental factors are swamped by the direct effects of Tobacco, Alcohol use and Obesity (and several other known occupational risks), such that trying to tease realistic data about general environmental effects, after those have been accounted for is quite difficult.

    Arthur
     
  16. WillNever Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,594
    Cancer can develop within less than 5 years. As well, obesity has also increased recently -- another risk factor for cancer.
     
  17. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    It can, but that's also not typical.

    Nor can you point to a significant change in our air that you can correlate to those numbers.
     
  18. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Usually such cancer has a genetic basis or is due to acute/sustained exposure to carcinogens, sometimes from as far back as the neonatal stage. Exposure to cigarette smoke, alcohol, other teratogens or even a family history of malnutrition could all be confounding variables. Even exposure to unfamiliar foods or drastic alterations in lifestyle - such as the example of Pima Indians in the case of obesity and diabetes, could lead to unknown changes that contribute to cancer. Bottom line, cancer does not have a single cause and we don't know which of the 10,000 attacks on each cell of the body everyday could become eventually life threatening
     
  19. Skeptical Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,449
    On hormesis

    Attached is an essay on the effects of radioactivity on the human body, by Professor John Cameron of the University of Missouri.
    http://www.angelfire.com/mo/radioadaptive/jcameron1.html

    He points out that Hiroshima survivors who received 150 years worth of background radiation in one dose (which I calculate as 50 to 80 millisieverts) actually live longer and get less cancer than average Japanese.

    Nuclear ship builders live longer and get less cancer than conventional ship builders. Radon in homes reduces lung cancer, while the same radioactive gas, in much greater amounts increases lung cancer in miners.

    Radioactive exposure below a certain levels reduces cancer, while above the threshold it increases cancer. The principle of hormesis.
     
  20. Mr MacGillivray Banned Banned

    Messages:
    527
    How does that explain cancer in children and a possible increase in cancer in children?
     
  21. Skeptical Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,449
    MacGillivray

    You quote possible increases in cancer, like others on this thread, but without evidence.

    I dispute the so-called increase in cancers of children. If you disagree, find evidence.
     
  22. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,133
    It seems that people are disregarding the very simple fact that any increase in cancers is possibly as a result of better screening and people being a lot more vigilant and aware and actually having tests done.

    We know there is a rise in cancers, be it in children and adults. Skin cancer figures is a prime example. The same with breast cancer figures as women are now a lot more aware than, say 50 years ago. Especially younger women.

    As for it being "man made". In some instances, one could say that man's interference has resulted in some cancers becoming more prevalent. But that does not mean it is "man made". The cancers existed regardless, but sometimes, some things will exacerbate the issue can cause the cell damage that can then develop into cancerous cells developing.

    You mean this?

    Over the past 20 years, there has been some increase in the incidence of children diagnosed with all forms of invasive cancer, from 11.5 cases per 100,000 children in 1975 to 14.8 per 100,000 children in 2004.


    (Source)
     
  23. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    In the same way, previously people buried a lot more children than they do today. Which is why the trend is no longer to have a dozen children with the expectation that a couple will surrvive. As I previously said, we don't know which of the attacks on DNA could be life threatening, if more children survive, more children will live long enough to exhibit disease.

    And as Bells has rightly indicated, we now have means of screening and diagnosing cancers we didn't even know about before.

    From Bells quote above:

    Over the past 20 years, there has been some increase in the incidence of children diagnosed with all forms of invasive cancer, from 11.5 cases per 100,000 children in 1975 to 14.8 per 100,000 children in 2004.
     

Share This Page