Cancer is it spreading?

Sqaull20

I dont know about yee, but the amount of people I/my family know, who have got cancer in the last 2 years is frightening the sh*t out of me....

I was reading up on it on a few us sites and the cancer epidemic is sweeping through America...

The facts are crazy....

1 in 3 get cancer now.

1 IN 3.

1 in 3 women and 1 in *2* men in the U.S. alone.

Thats 100.000.000 people who will get cancer...

One in four people die from cancer now, so 25.000.000 will die in the US alone :eek:

Crazy Christ

I would like to hear from Gerry Ryan.

Witcher

**** it if your gonna get it you'll get it, no point worrying



:cool::cool::cool:

2Scoops

Sqaull20 wrote: »

I was reading up on it on a few us sites and the cancer epidemic is sweeping through America...

Is it increased incidence of cancer, or increased incidence of cancer diagnosis? Just wondering...

Witcher

Sqaull20 wrote: »

I dont know about yee, but the amount of people I/my family know, who have got cancer in the last 2 years is frightening the sh*t out of me....

I was reading up on it on a few us sites and the cancer epidemic is sweeping through America...

The facts are crazy....

1 in 3 get cancer now.

1 IN 3.

1 in 3 women and 1 in *2* men in the U.S. alone.

Thats 100.000.000 people who will get cancer...

One in four people die from cancer now, so 25.000.000 will die in the US alone :eek:

thats a BS figure, that figure assumes everyones cancer is terminal,try

looking up survival rates and deduct them from your research





:cool::cool::cool:

spurious

blay1 wrote: »

thats a BS figure, that figure assumes everyones cancer is terminal,try

looking up survival rates and deduct them from your research





:cool::cool::cool:

Sadly, I know very few people who once they have had cancer, it hasn't come back (even after many years) and got them in the end.

Witcher

spurious wrote: »

Sadly, I know very few people who once they have had cancer, it hasn't come back (even after many years) and got them in the end.

yeah but you cant just whip out a calculator and add up the death rate for a

disease, you have to allow for it having been caught in the early stages

when theres a chance of it being cured


:cool::cool::cool:

Overheal

Oh well - something had to happen to the species. Cancer is just a mutation - one that wouldnt be present if Natural Selection was still involved. Society changed all that.

Muff_Daddy

I have something to say about cancer rates that probably belings in the conspiricy forum......

Basically, the rise to cancer is linked to the amount of chemicals we consume, radiation and the sheer amount of fat people there are nowadays compared to days gone by. 1 in 3 people in America, is it any wonder when you look at how obese they are.

2Scoops

Overheal wrote: »

Oh well - something had to happen to the species. Cancer is just a mutation - one that wouldnt be present if Natural Selection was still involved. Society changed all that.

Cancer usually manifests in older age and therefore won't apply a great selection pressure - looks like natural selection was already at work. Society did nothing except improve outcome in people who already reached reproductive maturity long before cancer was going to kill them.

Cancer is not just a mutation, btw.

2Scoops

Muff_Daddy wrote: »

I have something to say about cancer rates that probably belings in the conspiricy forum......

Basically, the rise to cancer is linked to the amount of chemicals we consume, radiation and the sheer amount of fat people there are nowadays compared to days gone by. 1 in 3 people in America, is it any wonder when you look at how obese they are.

Obesity is associated (correlation, not causation) with only a small, small minority of cancers.

Seems people want to blame obesity for everything - now there's a real conspiracy!

Witcher

2Scoops wrote: »

Seems people want to blame obesity for everything - now there's a real conspiracy!

agreed about the only thing it doesnt cause is anorexia




:cool::cool::cool:

ninebeanrows

Remember most cancers are curable if caught early..

It beggers believe that we ALL dont get CT scans once a year to check us out, this will be the case in the future.

Go to the doctore, get scans and feel no fear.

I recently had a scare and the best thing to do it to get it totally checked out, you'll end up happy and secure either way.

There is no fear like that of not knowinhg;)

Fremen

Oh well - something had to happen to the species. Cancer is just a mutation - one that wouldnt be present if Natural Selection was still involved. Society changed all that.

Common misconception. Just because people aren't swinging through the trees and being eaten by lions doesn't mean natural selection isn't still going on.

Ballerina

no point even thinking about it, theres sooooo many things that could kill someone(more than we can even point out!) that statistics like that are nothing to be thinking about


very morbid thread....

WhiteWashMan

about 99% of men have cancer of the prostate at the age of about 80 i heard recently.

Terry

I have a cure for cancer, but I'm keeping under wraps along with the corn oil powered car.
I want 33% of America to die.

Reku

Muff_Daddy wrote: »

I have something to say about cancer rates that probably belings in the conspiricy forum......

Basically, the rise to cancer is linked to the amount of chemicals we consume, radiation and the sheer amount of fat people there are nowadays compared to days gone by. 1 in 3 people in America, is it any wonder when you look at how obese they are.

Not sure about being obese and cancer but certainly WRT the chemicals and radiation I'd have to agree.
The amount of processed foods we eat, chemicals we wash, exfoliate and moisturise with, chemicals we put in the water to make it "safe" to drink, chemicals in our drinks and leeching into them from their containers. All the industry to produce these is probably also putting similar chemicals into the air and water via pollution. Very little of what we eat is genuinely fresh, with most of it being frozen foods, and even what is has undoubtedly been sprayed with chemicals to prevent nature (via pests and disease) from taking its course and causing some losses of the produce.

Then for radiation you have the ever increasing EM from powerlines and electronics, radio stations, broadband transmitters, mobile phones and the masts for the mobile phones.

Lets face it, all that stuff can't be good for us.:(

F.B.I Suit

Terry wrote: »

I have a cure for cancer, but I'm keeping under wraps along with the corn oil powered car.
I want 33% of America to die.

Please step into this side room sir. We have a few questions to ask. *snaps rubber glove*

View Profile

I agree about the chemicals and toxins point. All this stuff we regularly use is very bad for us. Household cleaning agents are highly toxic and we use them too easily.

Although, how many animals living in the remote jungles die of cancer, and we just dont know about it or what caused it!?

galah

I find it highly disturbing as well - here in Ireland, I've never met so many people who had to bury their parents early due to cancer (especially women).

Especially with breast cancer and other forms of 'female' cancer, I think it's simply due to the lack of early screening - back home (Germany), every woman starts to see a gynocologist from an early age onwards (usually around the time of her first period), at least once a year for a proper check-up (including breast check, smear tests, ultrasound, etc). That means that anything unusal is detected early on, and can be acted upon swiftly.

Here, you wait 6 weeks for the results of a smear test, breast checks are done only when you want a prescription for the pill, you're not really taught how to check your breasts yourself - and you only get to see a gyno if things are bad already, or if you're pregnant...

(that doesn't mean that women in Germany don't get cancer, but honestly, I only know one woman who died from it in my circle of friends at home, while here, I've been to 4 funerals of friend's mums last year only...)

Reku

It may not just be screening as a reason for the perceived (not seen statistics so it may or may not be genuine, probably is though I'd guess) difference in cancer mortality rates between Ireland and Germany, many of our houses have problems regarding ventilation of Radon, and as such are a potential reason for elevated cancer levels in Ireland compared to some other countries.

ems_12

"ONE Irish person in three will develop cancer, while one in four will die from it."
http://www.sligoweekender.ie/news/story/?trs=mheyqlkfcw&cat=news

To be honest, v. skeptic every time a new study comes out saying such-and-such causes cancer....it's getting so common practically everything causes it!! :eek:

Seriously though, there is more people with it.....but you never know if it's more people that know they have cancer (Compared to when it wasn't diagonosed in the past) or the quantity of people with cancer is increasing

Dave!

Is the title of this thread intentional BTW? Y'know..... cos cancer "spreads" throughout the body..... and the topic is about is "spreading" throughout society...... the play being on the word "spread".......

Dr_Teeth

Weathercheck wrote: »

Remember most cancers are curable if caught early..

It beggers believe that we ALL dont get CT scans once a year to check us out, this will be the case in the future.

That number of CT Scans will give you cancer even more quickly than crappy diet I think.

Capt'n Midnight

SHOCK - 1 in three people now live long enough to get Cancer

tallaght01

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

SHOCK - 1 in three people now live long enough to get Cancer

dr teeth wrote:

That number of CT Scans will give you cancer even more quickly than crappy diet I think

I think those 2 points sum things up nicely.

ScumLord

Is this really a new revelation? Cancers probably been around since the dawn of time, I always assumed it has??

We just know it's cancer now and it's easier to diagnose it. You can't undo or really prevent the damage that life causes to the body. Breathing oxygen irreversibly damages your DNA which is the leading cause of aging.

Red Hand

Many people now live longer than people did before, so there is more time for cancer to develop in the body.

But, I think we should do what taxi drivers do when they have a question/opinion/observation and that is go ring Joe Duffy...

JC 2K3

farohar wrote: »

Not sure about being obese and cancer but certainly WRT the chemicals and radiation I'd have to agree.
The amount of processed foods we eat, chemicals we wash, exfoliate and moisturise with, chemicals we put in the water to make it "safe" to drink, chemicals in our drinks and leeching into them from their containers. All the industry to produce these is probably also putting similar chemicals into the air and water via pollution. Very little of what we eat is genuinely fresh, with most of it being frozen foods, and even what is has undoubtedly been sprayed with chemicals to prevent nature (via pests and disease) from taking its course and causing some losses of the produce.

Then for radiation you have the ever increasing EM from powerlines and electronics, radio stations, broadband transmitters, mobile phones and the masts for the mobile phones.

Lets face it, all that stuff can't be good for us.:(

Why not? What basis have you for saying all this stuff is bad for us and causes cancer?

Just because a chemical is synthesised doesn't mean it's any more harmful than a naturally occurring chemical, and food that's preserved isn't necessarily any less healthy than fresh food. Yes there are things that genuinely do cause cancer and have been definitively proven to do so, but it's a lot more complex than simply "natural" and "fresh" things don't cause cancer whereas synthesised chemicals, processed foods and any form of electromagnetic radiation does.

IvyTheTerrible

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote: »

Many people now live longer than people did before, so there is more time for cancer to develop in the body.

I think that has an awful lot to do with it.

andrew

ah sure we'll have cancer cured in the next few years :rolleyes:

DublinWriter

galah wrote: »

I find it highly disturbing as well - here in Ireland, I've never met so many people who had to bury their parents early due to cancer (especially women).

My Mum died of a brain tumor last July aged 61. She didn't drink or smoke.

I heard recently that obesity puts you more at risk of contracting cancer than smoking. Certainly that would explain the recent rise in the states.

Another possible contributor could be Aspartame, the artificial sweetener used in just about everything. The whole story about Donald Rumsfeld getting this rushed through FDA approval in the early 1980's is a story everyone should check out.

Last but not least, we have the stress of modern life. The stress factors involved in the home and workplace now are far greater than even 30 years ago.

whatsgoinon

We all have to die sometime, granted a long drawn out terminal illness is not my preferred way to go. My mam only goes for mamograms at my insistence, she says she'd rather not know, if god wants her she'll go. I try to understand her, but it's hard, she's all healthy anyway thank god.

My dad has had cancer 4 times, the first time almost 30 years ago, the last time about 6. Different place every time. I fear it will get him eventually, he is perfectly healthy in every other way. He doesn't eat any processed foods, all organic, he follows all reports on what does and doesn't give you cancer, load of poppycock in my book. What's point in wasting time worrying about what you should and shouldn't be doing while you could be doing something with the life that you have?

Reku

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Why not? What basis have you for saying all this stuff is bad for us and causes cancer?

Just because a chemical is synthesised doesn't mean it's any more harmful than a naturally occurring chemical, and food that's preserved isn't necessarily any less healthy than fresh food. Yes there are things that genuinely do cause cancer and have been definitively proven to do so, but it's a lot more complex than simply "natural" and "fresh" things don't cause cancer whereas synthesised chemicals, processed foods and any form of electromagnetic radiation does.

Preserved effectively made such that even bacteria won't eat it.
There are a few ways of doing this:
1. Antibiotics, clearly not done in foods.
2. Reduce the water content so that it is too low to support the bacteria.
3. Freezing, too low a temperature for the enzymes the bacteria use to consume the food to work effectively.
4. Salting, works similarly to reducing the water content (known to cause both high blood pressure and stomach cancer, yet it is still done).
5. Chemical, basically same principle as worming, poisons in doses big enough to poison the bacteria or pests but small enough not to obviously make a person ill. As to long term effects they don't do 70 year tests of such things.



And as regards my use of the word "all" in my prior post:

All the industry to produce these is probably also putting similar chemicals into the air and water via pollution.

Pretty self explainatory.

Lets face it, all that stuff can't be good for us.

Not everything mentioned can be entirely benign. If you want to argue this how about you go drink a can of pesticide, give it a day and post your response?:rolleyes:

I simply pointed out that we are exposed to far more chemicals and radiation than prior generations and as such it is unsurprising that cancer is on the rise.

There's also the issue of the state of the ozone layer, we all know there's a hole in it but it is also possible that the layer on the whole has been thinned and as such more UV radiation is getting through than for previous generations.

JC 2K3

farohar wrote: »

I simply pointed out that we are exposed to far more chemicals and radiation than prior generations and as such it is unsurprising that cancer is on the rise.

So how do you account for the longer lifespans?

Capt'n Midnight

farohar wrote:

I simply pointed out that we are exposed to far more chemicals and radiation than prior generations and as such it is unsurprising that cancer is on the rise.

not even close

Before 1850 food safety just didn't exist, and water in cities was unsafe. Bread was adulterated with any cheap white powder, hence the bakers dozen.

Our food is probably safer now than ever, it's just we can test for stuff that wasn't possible before. Yes there are new concerns because of hormones and pesticides and irradiating tainted food. But apart from the odd multinational saving money we don't get lead in food or on toys anymore. Unless you have major allergies there is very little that is truly toxic in the stuff you get at a supermarket.

rubadub

2Scoops wrote: »

Is it increased incidence of cancer, or increased incidence of cancer diagnosis? Just wondering...

Thats what I am thinking too. You used to hear "died of old age" all the time years back, now it is more common to hear a disease mentioned. If the average age of death was dropping dramatically then that would be a worry. You have to go somehow.

2Scoops wrote: »

Obesity is associated (correlation, not causation) with only a small, small minority of cancers.

Seems people want to blame obesity for everything - now there's a real conspiracy!

Thing is most people do not get obese by eating tons of lean meat and veg and fruit. It can be a whole multitude of things that bring about the camels back breaking.

There are always these bogus stats. One a while back was "if women drink 2+ glasses of wine per day, their chance of developing xyz disease increases 200%". The thing is somebody drinking 2 glasses of wine per day is not doing everything the exact same as others, the only difference being the wine. They are more likely to be smoking and sitting in, or conversely you could say an athletic person eating healthy food is more likely not to be drinking everyday.

If they found a cure for cancer, the average age of death might rise a little, then a thread would be started worrying about whatever most people die from if not cancer.

If you didnt eat any food or drink that was rumoured to cause cancer you would die of starvation.

Smythie

interesting reading this thread. I am currently undergoing treatment for cancer. This time last year I would never have thought this would happen to me. I'm slim, exercise , don't smoke, drink only occasionally etc etc so I don't know where this cancer came from especially as I was 26 at diagnosis.
One thing I would say is that the health system here left me down. I was told my lump was benign nearly a year before I was diagnosed, and now I have stage IIIb Grade III cancer. I only found my way on to this thread by accident.

CreepingDeath

Sqaull20 wrote: »

I was reading up on it on a few us sites and the cancer epidemic is sweeping through America...

But the American results would be skewed.
You should watch Michael Moores film "Sicko" about the American health system.
Basically there's no state health service, you "have" to have health insurance.
Some hospitals are basically throwing homeless people into taxis and sending them to the local free health clinics.
The doctors reviewing insurance claims for treatment are getting bonuses/promotions for the more claims they reject, especially for expensive treatments.

So more people are probably dying from lack of treatment over there.
While over here, more people are probably being treated, and living long enough to die from heart disease, strokes etc...

So I reckon the "incidence" of cancer is probably the same, just the mortality rate is different.

Hydroquinone

I'd go along wth the notion that seeing as people are living longer because the diseases which used to wipe us out at a young age have been conquered.
Measles, mumps, chicken pox, flu, scarlet fever - all those sorts of diseases are more or less eradicated in the western world. They used to kill swathes of people.
Also, there is a pretty well accepted the notion that there is a genetic predisposition to some cancers - so if the predisposition is in your DNA, then you most likely will develop it, at some stage.

When doctors ask you if your parents or grandparents died of cancer or have ever been treated for it; they're not asking for the good of their health. It's for the good of yours.

Reku

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

not even close

Before 1850 food safety just didn't exist, and water in cities was unsafe. Bread was adulterated with any cheap white powder, hence the bakers dozen.

Bakers dozen was where you bought 12 loaves & got a 13th free, it has nothing to do with what was added to the bread. And water in Ireland is still unsafe in many places, it's just gotten a lot of attention lately due to the illnesses being traced to it in Galway.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Our food is probably safer now than ever, it's just we can test for stuff that wasn't possible before. Yes there are new concerns because of hormones and pesticides and irradiating tainted food. But apart from the odd multinational saving money we don't get lead in food or on toys anymore. Unless you have major allergies there is very little that is truly toxic in the stuff you get at a supermarket.

Yeah, and for years (late 40s to early 70s) they thought DDT was safe to use as a pesticide, doesn't mean it was.:rolleyes:

Ponster

Isn't it kinda pointless to reply to an OP that mentions research but no links or facts that points to this research?

Cancer.org says that ~560,000 people died in the USA in 2007 due to cancer which puts the ratio of mortality close to 1/500

So even if 1/3 got cancer of some sort (very hard to believe but open to debate) your chances of survival are quite large.

jawlie

farohar wrote: »

Bakers dozen was where you bought 12 loaves & got a 13th free, it has nothing to do with what was added to the bread. And water in Ireland is still unsafe in many places, it's just gotten a lot of attention lately due to the illnesses being traced to it in Galway.


Yeah, and for years (late 40s to early 70s) they thought DDT was safe to use as a pesticide, doesn't mean it was.:rolleyes:

Are you seriously suggesting that water now is less safe than it was historically?

"they" may well have thought it was safe to use DDT, but when the evidence came to show it was not safe, "they" stopped using it.

The life expectancy in the western world is many years more than it has ever been. Think about that.

Reku

jawlie wrote: »

Are you seriously suggesting that water now is less safe than it was historically?

"they" may well have thought it was safe to use DDT, but when the evidence came to show it was not safe, "they" stopped using it.

Yet evidence has shown that the bottled water may not be as safe as people think due to toxins leaching out of the bottle, into the water, do people still buy bottled water? Hell yes! As it's still more trustworthy than the tap water in this country. And that' just looking at how ineffective the chlorine is at preventing disease. There is evidence that fluorine is more harmful than helpful to us.

jawlie wrote: »

The life expectancy in the western world is many years more than it has ever been. Think about that.

Food, i.e. nutrition, and good medical healthcare, as well as treatments for many of the diseases that used to be fatal is far more readily available than it ever has been. Think about that.

jawlie

farohar wrote: »

Yet evidence has shown that the bottled water may not be as safe as people think due to toxins leaching out of the bottle, into the water, do people still buy bottled water? Hell yes! As it's still more trustworthy than the tap water in this country. And that' just looking at how ineffective the chlorine is at preventing disease. There is evidence that fluorine is more harmful than helpful to us.

When we were talking about water, I assumed we were talking about the mains water, and not bottled water. IN any case, I really can't speak for "people" but only for myself. I';m not sure "and that' just looking at how ineffective chloring is at preventing disease" or "there is evidence fluorine is more harmful than helpful to us", is must use as an argument. Have you got the evidence? And, if so, why have you not produced it here?

farohar wrote: »

Food, i.e. nutrition, and good medical healthcare, as well as treatments for many of the diseases that used to be fatal is far more readily available than it ever has been. Think about that.

Of course all that is true. Is your argument that water quality somehow takes from that , and if the water quality was better we would live even longer and longer? You don't seem to put forward an argument so it's difficult to know what your argument is.

ems_12

"Ireland will be coping with a "cancer epidemic" in the next 12 years, with an increase in new cases of more than 60pc, experts warned yesterday

As the population ages and grows, we will be more prone to the disease - but our unhealthy lifestyles will also contribute to the annual numbers diagnosed with cancer reaching 41,743 by 2020.
This contrasts with around 25,465 cases in 2005, said John McCormack, chief executive of the Irish Cancer Society."

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/cancer-experts-fear-epidemic-with-big-jump-in-new-cases-1282545.html

kevmy

farohar wrote: »

Not sure about being obese and cancer but certainly WRT the chemicals and radiation I'd have to agree.
The amount of processed foods we eat, chemicals we wash, exfoliate and moisturise with, chemicals we put in the water to make it "safe" to drink, chemicals in our drinks and leeching into them from their containers. All the industry to produce these is probably also putting similar chemicals into the air and water via pollution. Very little of what we eat is genuinely fresh, with most of it being frozen foods, and even what is has undoubtedly been sprayed with chemicals to prevent nature (via pests and disease) from taking its course and causing some losses of the produce.

Then for radiation you have the ever increasing EM from powerlines and electronics, radio stations, broadband transmitters, mobile phones and the masts for the mobile phones.

Lets face it, all that stuff can't be good for us.:(

Please don't start me on this. The EM fields from mobiles, radio transmitters etc. do not give you cancer. They are non-ionising and do not make cells mutate. No evidence has been produced to support this wild assumption.

What has been proven to 'cause' cancer are smoking, exposure to UV rays (that means sunbathing), radon gas from the ground trapped in our homes (open your windows or get a sump), medical equipment (X-rays, CT etc.) and good old genetics.

As for chemicals in our food don't worry about fish in the Irish Sea have about 16 times more naturally occurring damaging elements in them than from processing or Sellafield. But it's still at such a low level that fish's benefits outweigh there risks.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

SHOCK - 1 in three people now live long enough to get Cancer

Dr_Teeth wrote: »

That number of CT Scans will give you cancer even more quickly than crappy diet I think.

Some sense comments. People live longer. The longer you live the more likely you are to get cancer.

farohar wrote: »

And water in Ireland is still unsafe in many places, it's just gotten a lot of attention lately due to the illnesses being traced to it in Galway.

Yes water quality is poor in Ireland but it doesn't cause cancer.

farohar wrote: »

Yeah, and for years (late 40s to early 70s) they thought DDT was safe to use as a pesticide, doesn't mean it was.:rolleyes:

They should have continued to use it. The rates of cancer were no higher than smoking and it would have wiped out malaria in Africa. Malaria was nearly finished in the 70's now it one of the biggest killers in Africa where there are millions of people dying from it every year and they don't live long enough to get cancer so it's fcuk all good to them.


Basically there are a few things you can do to prevent cancer: wear sunscreen, don't smoke, don't drink too much, don't eat too much red meat, don't work with radioactive sources, reduce your radon risk, don't get too many scans in the hospital.

After that there is feck all you or anyone else can do. You gotta hope you have good genes and hope that if it happens you catch it early and hope you don't get lung cancer (5% survival rate) or prostate cancer (horribly invasive, if effective, treatment)

Reku

jawlie wrote: »

When we were talking about water, I assumed we were talking about the mains water, and not bottled water. IN any case, I really can't speak for "people" but only for myself. I';m not sure "and that' just looking at how ineffective chloring is at preventing disease" or "there is evidence fluorine is more harmful than helpful to us", is must use as an argument. Have you got the evidence? And, if so, why have you not produced it here?

Mains water in my area goes stale (smells sulphurous or "eggy") in the glass after 10-20mins, would you drink that, as clearly there is something wrong with it? In Kilkenny last year there was a week where the water was thoroughly undrinkable due to all the crap in it, and this is a place they pay water rates.

jawlie wrote: »

Of course all that is true. Is your argument that water quality somehow takes from that , and if the water quality was better we would live even longer and longer? You don't seem to put forward an argument so it's difficult to know what your argument is.

My point is that they are putting in these chemicals which aren't really doing as much for the water quality as we're lead to believe. So the benefit in terms of improvement of the bacterial risk of the water may not be worth the increased risk of the harmful aspects of Chlorine and Fluorine (then there's how Aluminium in the water, used to coagulate the dirt particles, has been linked to Alzheimers).

kevmy wrote: »

Please don't start me on this. The EM fields from mobiles, radio transmitters etc. do not give you cancer. They are non-ionising and do not make cells mutate. No evidence has been produced to support this wild assumption.

That we know of, but then in the late 1970s/early 80s heterosexuals couldn't get aids that we knew of either. All the assumptions in the world won't protect you if it turns out that something is harmful. Perhaps you should look up the lists of statistical breakdowns of life expectancy vs. job, you'll find that scientists have one of the lowest life expectancies because they work with all these chemicals and radiation sources that people thought were safe, but oops no, it wasn't.

kevmy wrote: »

What has been proven to 'cause' cancer are smoking, exposure to UV rays (that means sunbathing), radon gas from the ground trapped in our homes (open your windows or get a sump), medical equipment (X-rays, CT etc.) and good old genetics.

ALL EM RADIATION CAN CAUSE IONISATION! It's just a matter of supplying enough energy to free an electron, the probability is simply proportional to the energy of the EM packets.

kevmy wrote: »

As for chemicals in our food don't worry about fish in the Irish Sea have about 16 times more naturally occurring damaging elements in them than from processing or Sellafield. But it's still at such a low level that fish's benefits outweigh there risks.

That's one food group where the sea is diluting much of the pollution, land based foods will suffer far more from localised water pollution or pollution from further afield via precipitation and dust carried on the wind.

kevmy wrote: »

Some sense comments. People live longer. The longer you live the more likely you are to get cancer.

Agreed. But explain things such as childhood leukemia, those kids haven't lived very long, yet they have cancer.

kevmy wrote: »

Yes water quality is poor in Ireland but it doesn't cause cancer.

As explained above my point was that we are adding these chemicals that aren't helping our water quality enough and yet may themselves be doing us harm, e.g. fluorosis.

kevmy wrote: »

They should have continued to use it. The rates of cancer were no higher than smoking and it would have wiped out malaria in Africa. Malaria was nearly finished in the 70's now it one of the biggest killers in Africa where there are millions of people dying from it every year and they don't live long enough to get cancer so it's fcuk all good to them.

And the devastating effect on the ecosystem be damned I take it (it poisons everything and remains in the fat tissues, being passed up the food chain)?

kevmy wrote: »

Basically there are a few things you can do to prevent cancer: wear sunscreen, don't smoke, don't drink too much, don't eat too much red meat, don't work with radioactive sources, reduce your radon risk, don't get too many scans in the hospital.

So wait, you accept alcohol, which has been taken in one form or another for thousands of years, as a carcinogen, yet not chemicals sprayed on our food with the specific intent of poisoning life forms?

jawlie

farohar wrote: »

Mains water in my area goes stale (smells sulphurous or "eggy") in the glass after 10-20mins, would you drink that, as clearly there is something wrong with it? In Kilkenny last year there was a week where the water was thoroughly undrinkable due to all the crap in it, and this is a place they pay water rates.

Are you suggesting that because your water goes “stale” (whatever that might mean), and smell “sulpherous or “eggy””, that there are lessons to be drawn suggesting the general quality of water in Ireland is less good than it was in the past?

While we would all agree that water quality is certain areas is appalling, we only know it is appalling due to modern testing methods. As in the past there was no testing, it’s impossible to say, but it does seem rash to produce anecdotal evidence about ones own local water, (more especially as the evidence is largely opinion based “staleness” and “sulphurous”), and then use that evidence to make conclusions about the general water conditions around the country.

farohar wrote: »

My point is that they are putting in these chemicals which aren't really doing as much for the water quality as we're lead to believe. So the benefit in terms of improvement of the bacterial risk of the water may not be worth the increased risk of the harmful aspects of Chlorine and Fluorine (then there's how Aluminium in the water, used to coagulate the dirt particles, has been linked to Alzheimer’s).

Q; Are you saying that the water would be of better quality if it were subject to no treatment whatever?

Q;And, if not, what treatment would you suggest?

farohar wrote: »

That we know of, but then in the late 1970s/early 80s heterosexuals couldn't get aids that we knew of either. All the assumptions in the world won't protect you if it turns out that something is harmful.

While I am not sure of the relevance of HIV/AIDS to this discussion, it has always been the case that ones knowledge of infectious disease depends on where one gets ones information. While I am not certain of the timeline, it was evident from day 1 that anyone could contract HIV/AIDS, and to suggest that there was a generally held view that heterosexuals had some sort of immunity from it, all I can say is that heterosexuals I know ( and knew) all were aware that they could catch HIV/AIDS.

farohar wrote: »

Perhaps you should look up the lists of statistical breakdowns of life expectancy vs. job, you'll find that scientists have one of the lowest life expectancies because they work with all these chemicals and radiation sources that people thought were safe, but oops no, it wasn't.

I’d love to look up the statistical breakdowns as you suggest and, if you have the statistics to hand it’s a shame you didn’t reproduce them here. Where can I look them up?

farohar wrote: »

But explain things such as childhood leukaemia, those kids haven't lived very long, yet they have cancer.

Of course your question is impossible to answer as, if it could be explained, then we would probably be able to solve it.

Are you able to explain why you think some children get childhood leukaemia, and others do not?

Are you able to explain why some heavy smokers don’t get lung cancer and others do?

Sometimes, we don’t have the answers and it’s no good simply deciding that we want to blame the water, or the air quality, or potato skins or whatever we feel might be the culprit. Just because we want to believe something is responsible for causing cancer, doesn’t mean that we are right especially in the absence of any proper evidence.

Of course we all want to see a cure for many cancers, but blaming “the water” or “mobile phone masts” is not going to help find a cure.

farohar wrote: »

As explained above my point was that we are adding these chemicals that aren't helping our water quality enough and yet may themselves be doing us harm, e.g. fluorosis.

The fluorine added to water is 1 part per million. The fluoride in fluoride toothpaste, for example, is 150 parts per million.

Q; Are you seriously suggesting that the fluoride added to water is solely or even chiefly responsible for fluorosis?

Q; If so, how does it affect so few people and not large swathes of the population?


[/QUOTE]

Reku

jawlie wrote: »

Are you suggesting that because your water goes “stale” (whatever that might mean), and smell “sulpherous or “eggy””, that there are lessons to be drawn suggesting the general quality of water in Ireland is less good than it was in the past?

While we would all agree that water quality is certain areas is appalling, we only know it is appalling due to modern testing methods. As in the past there was no testing, it’s impossible to say, but it does seem rash to produce anecdotal evidence about ones own local water, (more especially as the evidence is largely opinion based “staleness” and “sulphurous”), and then use that evidence to make conclusions about the general water conditions around the country.

Maybe your ancestors were a bit dim and drank water that smelled like that:rolleyes: but I doubt most peoples' ancestors required "testing" to tell them not to drink it.

jawlie wrote: »

Q; Are you saying that the water would be of better quality if it were subject to no treatment whatever?

Q;And, if not, what treatment would you suggest?

Where the sod have I said that?! Once again for those with reduced mental capacity:
"the benefit in terms of improvement of the bacterial risk of the water may not be worth the increased risk of the harmful aspects of Chlorine and Fluorine (then there's how Aluminium in the water, used to coagulate the dirt particles, has been linked to Alzheimer’s)."

jawlie wrote: »

While I am not sure of the relevance of HIV/AIDS to this discussion, it has always been the case that ones knowledge of infectious disease depends on where one gets ones information. While I am not certain of the timeline, it was evident from day 1 that anyone could contract HIV/AIDS, and to suggest that there was a generally held view that heterosexuals had some sort of immunity from it, all I can say is that heterosexuals I know ( and knew) all were aware that they could catch HIV/AIDS.

No, it wasn't it was originally called GRIDS, Gay Related Immuno Deficiency Syndrome as everyone thought it was strictly to do with something the gay community did that the hetero community didn't.Just as we now think that all these things are harmless when they may not be, there just hasn't been a proven link to negative effects.

jawlie wrote: »

I’d love to look up the statistical breakdowns as you suggest and, if you have the statistics to hand it’s a shame you didn’t reproduce them here. Where can I look them up?

Well here's certainly something for you to think on:

http://www.cdc.gov/PCD/issues/2006/oct/06_0032.htm
The Amish living in the Holmes County area of Ohio Appalachia have lower overall cancer incidence rates (34). To evaluate the role that lifestyle factors may play in the low cancer incidence rates, an interdisciplinary team of researchers was established at The Ohio State University. The Amish Cancer-related Lifestyle Project uses community-based participatory research methods and is in a partnership with the Amish communities of Ohio Appalachia (35). The study was approved by the university’s institutional review board.

As for by occupation I can't find an on-line copy, of the research but this should do the trick:
Title: [Occupational differences in life expectancy for males: 1980]
Author: Ishikawa A
Source: Jinko Mondai Kenkyu/Journal of Population Problems. 1985 Jan;(173):64-72.
Abstract: Differences in male life expectancy by occupation in Japan in 1980 are examined in a series of life tables. Consideration is also given to changes since 1970. (ANNOTATION)
My class were horrified in college when they read a newspaper article about the topic and since there appears to be so little on the topic I must assume it probably came from the above research.

jawlie wrote: »

Of course your question is impossible to answer as, if it could be explained, then we would probably be able to solve it.

Are you able to explain why you think some children get childhood leukaemia, and others do not?

I'm not required to, I'm simply pointing out that it is not simply down to age that more people get cancer.

jawlie wrote: »

Are you able to explain why some heavy smokers don’t get lung cancer and others do?

2/3 of all people who get lung cancer have suffered damage to OGG1 on chromosome 3, so actually yes, I have read a bit on the topic of cancer.
http://www.cdc.gov/genomics/hugenet/ejournal/OGGSmokeabst.htm
Whether a mutation causes cancer or not depends on where the mutation happens, many can remain unseen and benign, as such it's a matter of probability as you keep exposing yourself to the mutagen, some people get lucky and avoid cancer, others get hit early on because they were unlucky.

jawlie wrote: »

Sometimes, we don’t have the answers and it’s no good simply deciding that we want to blame the water, or the air quality, or potato skins or whatever we feel might be the culprit. Just because we want to believe something is responsible for causing cancer, doesn’t mean that we are right especially in the absence of any proper evidence.

I'm simply stating that not all this stuff can be good for us, telling people to keep an open mind, fussy eaters have been shown to be less likely to get food poisoning so surely being concientious about what other stuff you expose your body too is also wise.

jawlie wrote: »

Of course we all want to see a cure for many cancers, but blaming “the water” or “mobile phone masts” is not going to help find a cure.

No but keeping an open mind and not just assuming that they are safe because no one hass dumped millions into examining a link when there are billions spent on getting people using them might help.

jawlie wrote: »

The fluorine added to water is 1 part per million. The fluoride in fluoride toothpaste, for example, is 150 parts per million.

Q; Are you seriously suggesting that the fluoride added to water is solely or even chiefly responsible for fluorosis?

Q; If so, how does it affect so few people and not large swathes of the population?

*edit* missed this bit. Sorry.:(
People above the age of ~8 and with an average intelligence don't swallow much toothpaste, so in terms of ingestion water is the primary source of fluorine for most people in first world countries. As for why it affects some and not others, is there a standard dose of tap water we all drink? Last I checked it varied a lot! Also you'll find that the fluorine concentractions can vary quite a bit depending on when (if they've just added some to the supply at the treatment site it will be higher) and where (different treatment sites serve different areas) you fill up your glass as the system is not designed that well. In Russia, I was told yesterday by a coworker from there, they used to have a problem whereby at times the water would have too much chlorine added due to faults in the automated system and so was completely undrinkable for that reason (it could kill you).