lung cancer

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by sculptor, Feb 13, 2017.

  1. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,801
    Two Main Types of lung cancer:
    Small-cell lung cancer is more aggressive, meaning it can spread quickly to other parts of the body early in the disease. It is strongly tied to cigarette use and is rare in nonsmokers. Non-small-cell lung cancer grows more slowly and is more common. It's responsible for almost 85% of all lung cancers.

    Accurate?

    So is this saying that 85% of lung cancers are not smoking related?

    ......................
    (I just had a friend die of cancer----------from prostate to lymph nodes to lungs to death.)
    One helluva bad year for him.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,808
    No. That is too strong a conclusion.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    A bit of a logic fail there: you improperly created a conclusion based on an incorrect belief that the lack of a statement about smoking in the second meant none are tied to smoking. It doesn't say that. It is almost all of the first type and an unspecified fraction of the second.

    Checking the ALA's website, I see they cite about 85% of total lung cancers as being smoking related. Doing the math and assuming the first 15% of lung cancers is near 100% smoking related, that makes the other 85% of lung cancers roughly 82% smoking related.
     
    exchemist likes this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,063
    Nope. Per the CDC, 80 to 90% of the lung cancers out there are linked to smoking. Your odds of contracting lung cancer go up by a factor of between 1500% and 3000% when you smoke.
     
  8. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,270
    This article does not support your claim. Nowhere is it said that cancerous growth is experienced by almost everyone or multiple times. What it says is that errors in genetic copying occur frequently during cell division, but the body deals with most of those. There is a big difference between a copying error and an outbreak of cancer.

    But it is an interesting article. Two other points struck me.

    First, this:
    "Two-thirds of mutations in cancer are due to (random mutation)," Tomasetti told reporters. "It does not say at all that two-thirds of cancer cases are due to (random mutations)."
    This is an important distinction when one realises that, as explained n the article, cancers typically result from an accumulation of genetic damage rather than a single mutation.

    And second:
    "Vogelstein said the new findings do not contradict the general wisdom that 89 percent of lung cancer cases are preventable. Men who smoke are 23 times more likely than nonsmokers to develop lung tumors, and women smokers are 13 times more likely to.

    So which cancer types are mostly random? Brain tumors, for one, the researchers said, as well as almost all pediatric cancers.

    And cancers that affect tissues that are frequently dividing, such as colon cancer, have a high input from random mutation, the Johns Hopkins team found, although diet, smoking and exercise play a big role as well."

    So there you have it. Lung cancer, which is the subject of this thread, is very largely due to smoking. No question.
     
  9. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,415
    Ummmm as I understand it

    and feel free to correct me if I err

    breathing is not a choice if you wish to stay alive

    Sucking in burning toxic and addictive substances

    is a choice

    Paying for the substance which frequently will manage to allow the user to commit suicide by installments is the height (or depth) of stupidity

    HSIRI = How Stupid It Really Is

    I put my definetion there to avoid plagiarism and being confused with the other HSIRI

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Mar 25, 2017 at 7:15 AM
  10. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,280

    To stop the bla bla nonce let's get back to cancer


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    The mouse in the back received a drug to eliminate senescent cells and looks healthier than its scraggly companion.

    Peter de Keizer
    Molecule kills elderly cells, reduces signs of aging in mice
    By Mitch LeslieMar. 23, 2017 , 12:00 PM

    Even if you aren’t elderly, your body is home to agents of senility—frail and damaged cells that age us and promote disease. Now, researchers have developed a molecule that selectively destroys these so-called senescent cells. The compound makes old mice act and appear more youthful, providing hope that it may do the same for us.

    “It’s definitely a landmark advance in the field,” says cell and molecular biologist Francis Rodier of the University of Montreal in Canada who wasn’t connected to the study. “This is the first time that somebody has shown that you can get rid of senescent cells without having any obvious side effects.”

    As we get older, senescent cells build up in our tissues, where researchers think they contribute to illnesses such as heart disease, arthritis, and diabetes. In the past, scientists have genetically modified mice to dispatch their senescent cells, allowing the rodents to live longer and reducing plaque buildup in their arteries. Such genetic alterations aren’t practical for people, but researchers have reported at least seven compounds, known as senolytics, that kill senescent cells. A clinical trial is testing two of the drugs in patients with kidney disease, and other trials are in the works.

    However, current senolytic compounds, many of which are cancer drugs, come with downsides. They can kill healthy cells or trigger side effects such as a drop in the number of platelets, the cellular chunks that help our blood clot.

    Cell biologist Peter de Keizer of Erasmus University Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, and colleagues were investigating how senescent cells stay alive when they uncovered a different strategy for attacking them. Senescent cells carry the type of DNA damage that should spur a protective protein, called p53, to put them down. Instead, the researchers found that a different protein, FOXO4, latches onto p53 and prevents it from doing its duty.

    To counteract this effect, De Keizer and colleagues designed a molecule, known as a peptide, that carries a shortened version of the segment of FOXO4 that attaches to p53. In a petri dish, this peptide prevented FOXO4 and p53 from hooking up, prompting senescent cells to commit suicide. But it spared healthy cells.

    The researchers then injected the molecule into mutant mice that age rapidly. These rodents live about half as long as normal mice, and when they are only a few months old, their fur starts to fall out, their kidneys begin to falter, and they become sluggish. However, the peptide boosted the density of their fur, reversed the kidney damage, and increased the amount of time they could scurry in a running wheel, the scientists report online today in Cell. When the researchers tested the molecule in normal, elderly mice, they saw a similar picture: In addition to helping their kidneys and fur, the molecule also increased their willingness to explore their surroundings.
    Bell, please don't buth in
     
  11. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,415
    LUNG CANCER

    Causes of cancer

    We do not know all of the risks and causes of cancer. However, there are a number of chemical, physical and biological agents that have been shown to trigger the mistakes in the cell blueprint that cause cancer. These are called carcinogens and include tobacco, ultraviolet radiation and asbestos.

    A number of cancers share risk factors:
    • one in nine cancers, and one in five cancer deaths, are due to smoking
    • about 3% of cancers are related to alcohol consumption
    • many cancers occur as a direct result of dietary influences, from infectious agents or exposure to radiation (especially skin cancers from ultraviolet radiation)
    • some cancers result from inherited ‘faulty’ genes
    • cancer is NOT caused by injury or stress.
    It is important to note that not all cancers are associated to the risk factors mentioned above. Cancer can sometimes develop without any specific causes.

    Causes

    Cigarette smoking is the major cause, although some people diagnosed with lung cancer have never smoked. Occupational exposures to asbestos, radon, hydrocarbons and metals (e.g. chromium, nickel) are also associated with lung cancer. (My emphasis)

    Mesothelioma

    The only known cause of mesothelioma is exposure to asbestos. It can take many years after being exposed to asbestos for mesothelioma to develop.

    Sometimes mesothelioma is linked to previous radiotherapy to the chest
    .

    http://www.cancer.org.au/about-cancer/types-of-cancer/lung-cancer.html

    I singled out mesothelioma because it is a single cause cancer

    Radon

    ........
    to date there are no scientific studies that have ever actually shown that radon gas, as typically seen in houses, increases the risk of cancer. To be clear: There are NO valid studies that have conclusively demonstrated that typical residential exposures to radon increase the risk of cancer at all...........

    http://www.forensic-applications.com/radon/radon.html#Radon And Health

    I have not found the Occupational risk of radon causing cancer

    Don't smoke

    In the world you live and work in be aware of the risk to your health

    Your best safety officer is your brain

    If you are over 21 and are somewhat responsible for others under 21 pay particular attention to them as their brain safety officer has yet to kick in

    Don't smoke and do all you can to help others from starting and help those trying to quit

    And while this thread is about lung cancer smoking causes so many other forms none of them nice

    Sorry about the soap box rant

    Will you forgive a retired registered nurse / Industrial safety officer?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!







     
  12. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,808
    I've tried to look up stats for cigar smoking as opposed to cigarette smoking, but have found little data.
    Somewhere I read lung cancer is statistically insignificant until you get up into 4-5 a day.
    It's much more a mouth cancer thing.
     
  13. karenmansker HSIRI Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    327
    You might find significant databases/published artcles regarding occupational radon risk by having a look at the uranium mining industry or data from the (Google) UMTRA (aka Uranium Mill Tailings Reclamation Action) project. Inquire also for SNL (Sandia National Laboratories) and LANL (Los Alamos National Laboratories) publications. They managed many of the UMTRA contractors and conducted related in-house research. (HSIRI)
     
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2017 at 5:50 AM
  14. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,415
    Thanks for the info

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,415
    I have no hard evidence to rebut your statement but I doubt it is true

    It would be like saying a little bit of poison is OK

    The poison may take a longer time to manifest but it will

    I'm waiting for the results of vaping to appear to see if they match the hype of being safer than regular smoking

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2017 at 6:28 AM
  16. Nacho Registered Member

    Messages:
    75
    I've noticed that too. It may very well be because cigars, and pipes too, are not meant to be inhaled. The nicotine delivery is supposed to be through the mouth. Now granted that some cigar or pipe smokers do inhale regularly and some inhale incidentally, but that is not the designed delivery for that product (like cancer really cares about that).
     
    exchemist likes this.
  17. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,801
    Cancer caused by mutated genes?
     
  18. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,808
    Look up 'popcorn lung' in relation to e-cigarettes.
     
  19. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,270
    Yes. I quote the first 2 paras in the Wiki entry on carcinogenesis:
    "Carcinogenesis or oncogenesis or tumorigenesis is the formation of a cancer, whereby normal cells are transformed into cancer cells. The process is characterized by changes at the cellular, genetic, and epigenetic levels and abnormal cell division, in some cancers forming a malignant mass. Cell division is a physiological process that occurs in almost all tissues and under a variety circumstances. Normally the balance between proliferation and programmed cell death, in the form of apoptosis, is maintained to ensure the integrity of tissues and organs. According to the prevailing accepted theory of carcinogenesis, the somatic mutation theory, mutations and epimutations in DNA that lead to cancer disrupt these orderly processes by disrupting the programming regulating the processes, upsetting the normal balance between proliferation and cell death. This results in uncontrolled cell division and the evolution of those cells by natural selection in the body. Only certain mutations lead to cancer whereas the majority of mutations do not.

    Variants of inherited genes may predispose individuals to cancer. In addition, environmental factors such as carcinogens and radiation cause mutations that may contribute to the development of cancer. Finally random mistakes in normal DNA replication may result in cancer causing mutations.[1] A series of several mutations to certain classes of genes is usually required before a normal cell will transform into a cancer cell.[2][3][4] On average, for example, 15 "driver mutations" and 60 "passenger" mutations are found in colon cancers.[2] Mutations in genes that regulate cell division, apoptosis (cell death), and DNA repair may result in uncontrolled cell proliferation and cancer."

    At issue is what genetic or environmental factors lead to those combinations of mutations - note it is not generally just a single one - that eventually gives rise to various types of cancer.
     
  20. karenmansker HSIRI Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    327
    Agree
     
  21. rpenner Fully Wired Staff Member

    Messages:
    4,765

Share This Page