10-28-10, 12:50 AM #1
Cancer Is Man Made
Cancer Is Man Made
"Cancers are primarily an environmental disease with 90-95% of cases due to lifestyle and environmental factors and 5-10% due to genetics. Common environmental factors leading to cancer death include: tobacco (25-30%), diet and obesity (30-35%), infections (15-20%), radiation, stress, lack of physical activity, environmental pollutants. These environmental factors cause abnormalities in the genetic material of cells."
Cancer was virtually unknown 150 years ago before coal and oil. Today, you are statistically likely to get one form of cancer or another within your industrialized lifetime.
I had thyroid cancer when I was 37- they removed my thyroid and I now take pills for the rest of my life to replace the effects my thyroid served in my body before it went cancerous. You are destined to encounter cancer directly or indirectly in your life.
I grew up in The Bronx, which is cleaner than any other borough but still full of stale, used air and contaminants everywhere. I say this because I now live with my son in the country with fresh mountain air and fresh streams and forests full of ferns and trees far removed from Bronx air.
I am pretty sure my son won't get cancer in his lifetime. If nothing else, all his cousins, aunts and uncles here in the mountains- all cancer free- are a testament.
I point this out because I wonder how many country women get breast cancer- you know- the cancer that gets the most attention- versus how many city women get it.
But overall, I am amazed that science has come to the clinical realization that cancer is man made.
What are your thoughts on cancer?
10-28-10, 01:01 PM #2
I think it's probably correct to say most cancers are environmental (the genetic component is actually a predisposition, or sensitivity) but that still leaves plenty of complication, beyond that list, to unravel.
People living in the country may not be so much better off, though, because of pesticides, fertilizers and fuels, as well as the same building materials, clothing and home furnishings as the rest of us have. Maybe better diet, but many farmers smoke. So you may not find such a big difference.
10-28-10, 01:12 PM #3
10-28-10, 01:16 PM #4
Yeah, I said this way back during the health care debate, but everyone ignored me. I said we were debating the wrong thing, and instead we should discuss why the government, schools, society, and market place WANTS us all ill so they can continually treat us rather than cure us. There is no money in cures and keeping us healthy, only treatments.
I recommend everyone view a documentary called "The Beautiful Truth" or look into Dr. Gerson's Therapy. Individual medical practitioners are kind people that are concerned about our health. However, the system and the paradigm they were educated in is one that has been set up now for well over two hundred years and is more designed for profit, not healing. If you look at it's structure, the way it's designed for licensing, and drug approval, it's FIRST priority is to maximize profits of the entrenched powers, then to ensure safety, and lastly to promote cures, technical advancements, and efficiency.
10-28-10, 01:27 PM #5
Well, on the bright side, it will certainly boost profits in the medical care industry with all the ill health effects, yes? lol
This is just the tip of the sinister iceberg. You should all do your own research. . . . if you wish to pay low medical bills, have healthy children, and live a long healthy life.
10-28-10, 01:52 PM #6
Today, you are statistically likely to get one form of cancer or another within your industrialized lifetime.
Anyway, sure, I might die of cancer. But I'm 67. Two of my grandparents, born in the 1880s, didn't live to be this old. We're all gonna die from something.I say this because I now live with my son in the country with fresh mountain air and fresh streams and forests full of ferns and trees far removed from Bronx air.
The life expectancy of an adult who had survived the rigors of childhood was in the low 50s at the end of the Paleolithic Era, when the human diet was primarily meat. The Agricultural Revolution 12KYA slowly converted pasture to farmland, so before long all but the wealthy and powerful people subsisted on a grain-based diet. Nobody knew anything about vitamins and minerals, and grains are a very poor source of anything except protein and starch. By Roman times, adult life expectancy had dropped to the mid 20s. It made remarkably little recovery until the late 19th century, when modern science discovered the nutrients we were missing by feeding grains to the only predatory species of ape.
By 1900, in the prosperous United States, life expectancy had risen into the high 30s. The vaccines and antibiotics provided by modern scientific medicine then took over, especially reducing infant mortality. By the 1950s, the life expectancy of a newborn baby was in the 50s, one of science's most remarkable achievements. Adults expected to live into their 70s.
Your point is well taken. In extremely recent times, most people simply did not live long enough to die of cancer.
10-28-10, 02:35 PM #7
There are many factors to consider. Sure, including the approach of health-care professionals and the administrators who oversee their activities.
I don't disagree that we ought to concentrate more on staying well, but the whole concept 'health-care' - as distinct from care of the sick - is a fairly recent one. People have not traditionally considered illness a social or political concern. It's not entirely fair to expect a single component of our civilization to be qualitatively different from all others. If we have an impersonal, industrial, technological, profit-driven society, chances are it will include an impersonal industrial, technological, profit-driven .......-system (fill in the blank).
While those same doctors and chemists have devised terrific vaccines, testing procedures, safety controls and aseptic technique, our lifestyle has not really made prevention and wellness all that practical. The disparity of populations within a single nation, for example; the variety of working conditions, diets and environments; the range of medical, support and educational services available... Figuring out why people get sick is difficult enough - keeping them all healthy is impossible.
And our messy, self-indulgent lifestyle isn't altogether forced upon us.
How long have environmentalists, reformers and documentary film-makers
been warning about the dangers of smoking, industrial pollution, food additives and untested drugs? Do we get excited an elect representatives dedicated to tighter regulation? Do we lobby to close down the factory that's killing a town - or to keep those jobs? Do we stop buying the poisons?
I'm pretty sure that if we took out the youthful deaths from unnatural causes and compared groups with similar incomes, then and now, the life expectancy wouldn't be quite so different.
And i imagine there were cancers, too, that went undiagnosed, or by other names.
10-28-10, 02:59 PM #8
10-28-10, 03:04 PM #9
This is the origin of the medieval witch image. There were very few old men and rather more old women. This meant that there were a lot of experienced, wise women around. Add to that the fact that women did the domestic work and knew a lot more about healing and plain old getting along in the world that men did, and this encouraged people to seek the advice of women rather than men. Men of course could not tolerate this, so they identified old women as witches. The classic image of a toothless mouth, hunched back and sagging skin is simply how any old person looked in those days, and most of them were women.
But to get back to your original question, there were a fair number of older people alive in the 19th century. What this observation doesn't take into account is that life expectancy was not a smooth curve. The majority of people did not die in their 30s and 40s. They either died before age ten, or after age 50.If the average is accurate, i'd want to know what population was included in making it. World? Industrial nations? US? What causes of death were counted? War wounds? Infants damaged in birthing? Famine victims?I'm pretty sure that if we took out the youthful deaths from unnatural causes and compared groups with similar incomes, then and now, the life expectancy wouldn't be quite so different.
The reasons include: sanitation; vaccination; antibiotics; other medical advances; safer working conditions; safety improvements (notably in auto transportation); less war (the American Civil War killed three percent of the nation's population).
One of the leading causes of death for adolescents in America is suicide. That's a sad statistic, but it says a lot about all the other causes of death that have been mitigated over the millennia.
10-28-10, 05:10 PM #10
As for the dangerous work, that's why When, Where and Who matter so much in averaging life-spans. While railway-building and mining might balance childbirth in cause of early death, war takes out more males, and the post-war epidemic and starvation takes out more children. So, in that decade, US stats would be skewed by the Civil War; another place, by some other local catastrophe.
This is the origin of the medieval witch image.
There were very few old men and rather more old women. This meant that there were a lot of experienced, wise women around.
Add to that the fact that women did the domestic work and knew a lot more about healing and plain old getting along in the world that men did,
and this encouraged people to seek the advice of women rather than men.
Men of course could not tolerate this
But to get back to your original question, there were a fair number of older people alive in the 19th century. .... in the United States was 35 in 1800 and 47 in 1900.I have seen wildly different figures
A small irony is that the increase in life-expectancy in the last three decades is partly because of huge improvements in cancer treatment. I'm proof: twenty, even 15, years ago, i would have died; now it looks like i'll be a burden on society for another decade.
Last edited by Jeeves; 10-28-10 at 05:23 PM. Reason: eta
10-28-10, 05:58 PM #11
Not men, i think - priests. The herbalist midwives were practicing pagan medicine, and at least suspected of practicing pagan rituals, as well. Nothing like religious jealousy to ignite murder.Yes, that's the kind of thing i was after. We still don't know how many polls were taken among people who had a roughly similar standard of living to the people who were polled in 1920, 1950, 1980 and 2010, which would account for . . . .A small irony is that the increase in life-expectancy in the last three decades is partly because of huge improvements in cancer treatment.I'm proof: twenty, even 15, years ago, i would have died; now it looks like i'll be a burden on society for another decade.
Of course I still miss my cyclamate.
10-28-10, 08:41 PM #12
One is most gratified, Sir.
I am in awe of medical research - that would be equal parts reverence and terror. I've never seen that engraving over a lab door. Suppose we tattoo it on the back of all scientists' hands?
Maltodextrin is quite satisfactory. It remains to be seen what it causes.
Returning to the OP. Four of us with the same cancer started therapy together. Three men, one woman; ages 41 to 62. Two smokers, two non-; three drinkers or ex-drinkers, one non-. Two carnivores, one omnivore, one herbivore. Two urban, two rural. One worked in a nuclear power station, one retired from medical laboratory, one in an office, one on a farm. We spent all evening discussing this (the stuff they give you to tolerate a massive chemo session leaves you slightly manic for hours) and could not find a single common environmental factor. And yet, i still think there may be one - something as ubiquitous, perhaps, as benzene fumes.
10-29-10, 05:34 PM #13
Returning to the OP. Four of us with the same cancer started therapy together. . . . We spent all evening discussing this (the stuff they give you to tolerate a massive chemo session leaves you slightly manic for hours). . . .. . . . and could not find a single common environmental factor. And yet, i still think there may be one - something as ubiquitous, perhaps, as benzene fumes.
10-29-10, 06:15 PM #14
Like, proof of the the absence of a common factor in four concurrent cases isn't proof of the absence of a unifying factor in 4000 cases over ten years? Maybe so.
Stevia also has an icky metallic aftertaste. Fortunately, i'm not diabetic and can have plain old refined sugar. I mean, you've got to die of something, and sugar at least takes its time.
11-01-10, 03:13 AM #15
There is a lot of bullsh!t spoken about the causes of cancer. The dominant cause is, and has always been, age. The probability of a 75 year old getting cancer in his/her 75th year is about 100 times the probability of a 25 year old getting it in his/her 25th year.
In centuries gone past, as has already been mentioned, cancer was less common for the very simple reason that there were a lot fewer 75 year old people.
If age is taken into account, it appears that cancer rates have not increased much, if at all, in the last 100 years. However, cancer survival has increased dramatically. I am 61 years old, and when I was a kid cancer was a death sentence - almost 100%. Today about half of all cancer patients live at least 5 years after diagnosis.
You might think 5 years is not much. However, this takes into account the fact that most cancer patients are rather older. Lots die of age, rather than cancer. Thus a minimum increase in survival of 5 years is massive. The increase in survival of childhood cancer is dramatically greater.
11-01-10, 06:03 AM #16
There is also a link between environment and Parkinson's.
Many modern illnesses are linked to the modern environment.
But once again, what are you going to do about it? It will be impossible to clean up the environment. You would have to close down the world economy as we know it. It's not going to happen.
11-01-10, 06:06 AM #17
11-01-10, 06:38 AM #18
11-01-10, 07:16 AM #19
11-01-10, 07:59 AM #20
For instance, smoking has been around since this country started, but consider that the average age of diagnosis of Lung Cancer is 71 years of age. Yes 71. So the fact is until a significant amount of people started living this long the number of people who died of lung cancer was a lot smaller, yet today, Lung cancer is one of the most common cancers.
Lung cancer is one of the most common cancers. In 2007, lung cancer will account for approximately 15% of all cancer diagnoses and 28% of all cancer deaths. It is the second most diagnosed cancer in men and women (after prostate and breast, respectively), but it is the number one cause of death from cancer each year in both men and women. Because lung cancer can take years to develop, it is mostly found in older people. The average age of a person receiving a lung cancer diagnosis is 71 years.
Nor do I buy that cancer is significantly linked to industrialization. Yes there have been incidents that have had specific effects, but not in general.
As your figures show, the biggest cause of cancer is self induced, the rest is guessing that modern industrial effects were worse than pre industrial,
"Age specific cancer mortality rates have been steadily declining in the United States since the early 1950s, beginning with children and young adults and now including all age groups," the researchers write.
In the second half of the 20th century, each successive decade of births from 1925 to 1995 had a lower risk of cancer death than its predecessor, suggesting that earlier detection, prevention, and treatment programs have been effective.
The youngest age groups experienced the steepest average rate of decline at 25.9% per decade, the researchers say. But even the oldest groups recorded a 6.8% decline per decade.
Which shows that instead of your OP, the actual result of increasing industrialization is a steady decline in cancer mortality rates for the last 60 years in the US.
Last edited by adoucette; 11-01-10 at 08:18 AM.
By Alan McDougall in forum Free ThoughtsLast Post: 08-08-10, 11:39 PMReplies: 9
By cosmictraveler in forum Free ThoughtsLast Post: 01-26-09, 08:40 AMReplies: 0
By stin10 in forum Biology & GeneticsLast Post: 12-18-08, 09:41 PMReplies: 4
By Present in forum Biology & GeneticsLast Post: 01-04-06, 10:10 PMReplies: 19