Most Cancer types 'just bad luck'

SharpshooterTom

Most types of cancer can be put down to bad luck rather than risk factors such as smoking, a study has suggested.

A US team were trying to explain why some tissues were millions of times more vulnerable to cancer than others.

The results, in the journal science, showed two thirds of the cancer types analysed were caused just by chance mutations rather than lifestyle.

However some of the most common and deadly cancers are still heavily influenced by lifestyle.

And Cancer Research UK said a healthy lifestyle would still heavily stack the odds in a person's favour.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-30641833

As a 28 year old, I've taken an interest in (making a new years resolution like many I suppose) to live a more healthier lifestyle and to look after myself a lot better.

The reason why this prompted me more so is my father only 7 weeks ago has been diagnosed with stage 4 bowel cancer. We have absolutely no history of cancer in our family, so we were in total shock upon hearing the news and the grim statistics for his stage (only 5-10% stage 4 bowel cancer survive 5 or more years after diagnosis). But Cancer research does say that most people who get Bowel Cancer have previously had no family history of it. He's only 56.

However my father is overweight (5'9/10' and 15 stone) and has been like that most of my life, did eat a lot of processed meats, didn't do an awful lot of exercise, did drink 50-100 units of alcohol a week since he was a teenager, smoked till he was 40. All these are risk factors, but did they cause his cancer?

So of course I've become a neurotic idiot now looking to rapidly change my lifestyle, I'm a teetotaller and I don't smoke anyway and now I want to overhaul my diet as well, but this report suggests most cancers, regardless of if you're healthy or not, are actually down to pure luck, and its making me wonder about what I can really do.

What do you think? Is it actually worth being totally neurotic about health, concentrating on trying to live a lifestyle that reduces your risk of cancer or is it in many ways with the increased worry and stress more counterproductive?

AnonoBoy

Research would show that smoking, drinking and an unhealthy lifestyle will probably increase your chances of having this bad luck though.

SharpshooterTom

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Research would show that smoking, drinking and an unhealthy lifestyle will probably increase your chances of having this bad luck though.

True.

Some statistics like lung cancer for example I found, a non-smoker has a 1% chance of developing lung cancer, a lifetime 40 a day smoker has around 20% chance. So that means most heavy smokers don't ever get lung cancer and a non-smoker could still get it, but a heavy smoker is far more likely to get lung cancer, so lifestyle does have some impact perhaps, but the article suggests most cancers we can't do bugger all about apparently.

Worth being neurotic and denying oneself any pleasure from vices? No. Worth trying to be sensible and drawing the line short of outright self-destruction? Yes.

Sorry to hear about your ould lad btw.

TwoShedsJackson

If you're teetotal and don't smoke you are already way ahead of most of us in the healthiness stakes.

It's entirely conterproductive to worry too much about health, and start eating only lettuce and getting your colon cleansed. Just get on with it and try to enjoy yourself.

Aint Eazy Being Cheezy

I believe you need to strike a balance. You don't want to be an overweight, alcoholic, 60 a day smoker but there's no point going out of your way to deprive yourself of a few pints, or cigarettes if it makes you happy, in order to live a long but miserable life.

ThomasFlynn

ThomasFlynn wrote: »

True.

Some statistics like lung cancer for example I found, a non-smoker has a 1% chance of developing lung cancer, a lifetime 40 a day smoker has around 20% chance. So that means most heavy smokers don't ever get lung cancer and a non-smoker could still get it, but a heavy smoker is far more likely to get lung cancer, so lifestyle does have some impact perhaps, but the article suggests most cancers we can't do bugger all about. Russian roulette.

Smoking also raises the chances of other cancers, so smokers have a 50/50 chance of getting cancer of some kind during their lifetime. There's also the heart conditions, blood pressure, clots/strokes, COPD and other associated lung issues to contend with. Some people are lucky, some aren't. My dad smoked until he had a heart attack and until about 5 years before that he was fairly OK. Had he stopped then he likely wouldn't have ended up with COPD and the issues he has now. I on the other hand developed a smoker's cough within 6 months because I was unfit/unhealthy to begin with. I quit for a while and within a month of going back on them my chest was in ribbons again. It's rarely a pure either/or situation based on one variable, even before accounting for luck.

EoghanIRL

"Most types of cancer can be put down to bad luck rather than risk factors such as smoking, a study has suggested."

This is rubbish .

lukesmom

The Cunning Linguist wrote: »

I believe you need to strike a balance. You don't want to be an overweight, alcoholic, 60 a day smoker but there's no point going out of your way to deprive yourself of a few pints, or cigarettes if it makes you happy, in order to live a long but miserable life.

Agree completely with the above. Sorry about your dad OP I really hope he has many more years ahead xx

The Backwards Man

People are a lot like Volkswagen Jettas.

Some last for years even though some farmer has dogged the crap out of them for thirty years up and down a hill with bullocks in the back seat.

Some last for thirty years because they are treated like a princess by their owner, oil and change every 5000 miles, garaged every night, full service long before its due.

And some just conk out thirty yards down the road from the dealership..

unkel

A lot of it is luck / genes

I read somewhere that only 1 in 6 life long smokers die of lung cancer

Macker2001

Also agree with striking a balance. Sorry about your dad hopefully he beats it. Once you turn 40 it's suggested you have colonoscopys if it's in your family. Though by then they may have an easier detection method.

Vomit

Important to remember the 'over the course of ones lifetime' bit - I mean you could be fine until you're 85..and sure when you're that old anything can happen.

duckcfc

Cancer isn't down to bad luck, cancer is down to ones eating drinking smoking and lifestyle choices. I hate hearing some people spout sh1t that Joe bloggs didn't smoke or drink, used to run everyday but still got cancer.

Yes Joe bloggs did but Joe blogs also woke up every morning and brushed his teeth filled with mercury fillings in toxic toothpaste washes his mouth out with toxic ridden water contaminated with fluoride. After tgat he jumps in shower and washs in same water only to make matters worse, he covers himself in a concoction of chemicals that Wash's him.

Before he put on clothes that has been dyed in other cancer ridden chemicals, he sprays himself all over with something that might smell nice but is loaded with heavy metals and otger cancer ridden chemicals.

Next up is his breakfast that consists of food that technically isnt fit for human consumption but is widely accepted as food. Yes there might be protein and carbs in said food but its missing very essential nutrients. He'll proply have wee cup tea filled with tea grown with chemical fertilizer and sprayed with pesticides and washed down with same poison water he brushed his teeth and washed with.

Of he goes into the car but before he steps foot into it he's now breathing in toxic air. I could go on and in here but I think you get the just of it.

But hey, Joe blogs never smoked or drunk so he's just been one of the unlucky ones!! Lol

duckcfc

Macker2001 wrote: »

Also agree with striking a balance. Sorry about your dad hopefully he beats it. Once you turn 40 it's suggested you have colonoscopys if it's in your family. Though by then they may have an easier detection method.

If his da truely wants to beat he best stay away from the doctors and hospitals!!!!!! The amount of people that have been killed by said people/place is staggering!! If he wants to heal his cancer, he best do it himself with the gearson therapy or other similar approach because the hospital ain't going to save him!

Highflyer13

I dont know. I'd love to know how common cancer was maybe 100 years ago. The conspiracy theorist in me is telling me that cures are being found but the patents are being bought out by big pharma companies. Something about the whole cancer thing doesn't sit right with me. I've seen so many ravaged by it. Cancer really is big business for medical companies.

I do think what we eat could be a cause and a lot of what we eat is controlled by 10 major companies nowadays.

http://brightsideglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/10-companies.jpg

Just a thought.

Macker2001

duckcfc wrote: »

Cancer isn't down to bad luck, cancer is down to ones eating drinking smoking and lifestyle choices. I hate hearing some people spout sh1t that Joe bloggs didn't smoke or drink, used to run everyday but still got cancer.

Yes Joe bloggs did but Joe blogs also woke up every morning and brushed his teeth filled with mercury fillings in toxic toothpaste washes his mouth out with toxic ridden water contaminated with fluoride. After tgat he jumps in shower and washs in same water only to make matters worse, he covers himself in a concoction of chemicals that Wash's him.

Before he put on clothes that has been dyed in other cancer ridden chemicals, he sprays himself all over with something that might smell nice but is loaded with heavy metals and otger cancer ridden chemicals.

Next up is his breakfast that consists of food that technically isnt fit for human consumption but is widely accepted as food. Yes there might be protein and carbs in said food but its missing very essential nutrients. He'll proply have wee cup tea filled with tea grown with chemical fertilizer and sprayed with pesticides and washed down with same poison water he brushed his teeth and washed with.

Of he goes into the car but before he steps foot into it he's now breathing in toxic air. I could go on and in here but I think you get the just of it.

But hey, Joe blogs never smoked or drunk so he's just been one of the unlucky ones!! Lol

Agree but why does Joe get cancer and someone else with the same routine doesn't get it?...Luck??? genes ???

SharpshooterTom

duckcfc wrote: »

If his da truely wants to beat he best stay away from the doctors and hospitals!!!!!! The amount of people that have been killed by said people/place is staggering!! If he wants to heal his cancer, he best do it himself with the gearson therapy or other similar approach because the hospital ain't going to save him!

Well he had an emergency operation to take out his tumour in his bowel, still has a few specs of it in his lungs and liver, begins chemo on the 14th. If he stayed away from the hospital and never had the op he'd probably be dead by now, so yes some of the NHS hospitals (city hospital in Belfast we live in the north) aren't the cleanest, we didn't have enough money to go private, but I think they did a pretty good job.

Martin567

duckcfc wrote: »

But hey, Joe blogs never smoked or drunk so he's just been one of the unlucky ones!! Lol

But all of these apparent "risks" that you say Joe Bloggs is taking are being taken by almost everyone else as well. As a majority of people will likely not get cancer, your post seems to support the view that bad luck is the most important factor!

Saipanne

Not a lot of cancer, in my family. So I might be in the good luck group. We have plenty of strokes and heart problems though.


















Yay? :-/

Kiwi in IE

duckcfc wrote: »

Cancer isn't down to bad luck, cancer is down to ones eating drinking smoking and lifestyle choices. I hate hearing some people spout sh1t that Joe bloggs didn't smoke or drink, used to run everyday but still got cancer.

Yes Joe bloggs did but Joe blogs also woke up every morning and brushed his teeth filled with mercury fillings in toxic toothpaste washes his mouth out with toxic ridden water contaminated with fluoride. After tgat he jumps in shower and washs in same water only to make matters worse, he covers himself in a concoction of chemicals that Wash's him.

Before he put on clothes that has been dyed in other cancer ridden chemicals, he sprays himself all over with something that might smell nice but is loaded with heavy metals and otger cancer ridden chemicals.

Next up is his breakfast that consists of food that technically isnt fit for human consumption but is widely accepted as food. Yes there might be protein and carbs in said food but its missing very essential nutrients. He'll proply have wee cup tea filled with tea grown with chemical fertilizer and sprayed with pesticides and washed down with same poison water he brushed his teeth and washed with.

Of he goes into the car but before he steps foot into it he's now breathing in toxic air. I could go on and in here but I think you get the just of it.

But hey, Joe blogs never smoked or drunk so he's just been one of the unlucky ones!! Lol

Ah for fecks sake! I was going to say Joe Bloggs should have lived in a plastic bubble, but I am sure the plastic used to construct the bubble is carcinogenic too, so I won't bother.

So we can't drive, get dressed, eat, drink, walk, get dental treatment, wash or even breathe without risking cancer! What do you suggest? Perhaps we should just all kill ourselves now to prevent the inevitability of cancer!

I hope Joe Bloggs wasn't taking carcinogenic anti psychotics for his paranoia as well.

Tin Foil Hat

duckcfc wrote: »

Cancer isn't down to bad luck, cancer is down to ones eating drinking smoking and lifestyle choices. I hate hearing some people spout sh1t that Joe bloggs didn't smoke or drink, used to run everyday but still got cancer.

Yes Joe bloggs did but Joe blogs also woke up every morning and brushed his teeth filled with mercury fillings in toxic toothpaste washes his mouth out with toxic ridden water contaminated with fluoride. After tgat he jumps in shower and washs in same water only to make matters worse, he covers himself in a concoction of chemicals that Wash's him.

Before he put on clothes that has been dyed in other cancer ridden chemicals, he sprays himself all over with something that might smell nice but is loaded with heavy metals and otger cancer ridden chemicals.

Next up is his breakfast that consists of food that technically isnt fit for human consumption but is widely accepted as food. Yes there might be protein and carbs in said food but its missing very essential nutrients. He'll proply have wee cup tea filled with tea grown with chemical fertilizer and sprayed with pesticides and washed down with same poison water he brushed his teeth and washed with.

Of he goes into the car but before he steps foot into it he's now breathing in toxic air. I could go on and in here but I think you get the just of it.

But hey, Joe blogs never smoked or drunk so he's just been one of the unlucky ones!! Lol

You are actually arguing against yourself.

citrus burst

duckcfc wrote: »

Cancer isn't down to bad luck, cancer is down to ones eating drinking smoking and lifestyle choices. I hate hearing some people spout sh1t that Joe bloggs didn't smoke or drink, used to run everyday but still got cancer.

Yes Joe bloggs did but Joe blogs also woke up every morning and brushed his teeth filled with mercury fillings in toxic toothpaste washes his mouth out with toxic ridden water contaminated with fluoride. After tgat he jumps in shower and washs in same water only to make matters worse, he covers himself in a concoction of chemicals that Wash's him.

Before he put on clothes that has been dyed in other cancer ridden chemicals, he sprays himself all over with something that might smell nice but is loaded with heavy metals and otger cancer ridden chemicals.

Next up is his breakfast that consists of food that technically isnt fit for human consumption but is widely accepted as food. Yes there might be protein and carbs in said food but its missing very essential nutrients. He'll proply have wee cup tea filled with tea grown with chemical fertilizer and sprayed with pesticides and washed down with same poison water he brushed his teeth and washed with.

Of he goes into the car but before he steps foot into it he's now breathing in toxic air. I could go on and in here but I think you get the just of it.

But hey, Joe blogs never smoked or drunk so he's just been one of the unlucky ones!! Lol

But do you not think that what you described above supports the idea of the paper?

If there were N Joe Bloggs all living the same life style why would some develop cancers and others not? That's the whole point of statistics they analyse a large data set and are pretty much meaningless when used on an individual.

hmmm

ThomasFlynn wrote: »

What do you think? Is it actually worth being totally neurotic about health, concentrating on trying to live a lifestyle that reduces your risk of cancer or is it in many ways with the increased worry and stress more counterproductive?

Sorry to hear about your Dad, mine passed away from the same disease. It seems to trigger a realisation in everyone that life is short, no matter what age you live.

I think it's about a balance - and there are plenty of reasons to stay healthy, not just tipping the odds against cancer. If you're reasonably fit, and eat well, you're more likely to both live longer and most importantly live a happier life, particularly when you're older. It's no fun being in your 40s hobbling around because your joints are knackered from years of being overweight, or spending your 50s,60s and 70s with a hacking couch from smoking. The cancer benefits are secondary.

gladrags

unkel wrote: »

A lot of it is luck / genes

I read somewhere that only 1 in 6 life long smokers die of lung cancer

There are many other diseases to which smoking is associated.

If you inhale smoke,you are looking for trouble.

My name is URL

duckcfc wrote: »

Cancer isn't down to bad luck, cancer is down to ones eating drinking smoking and lifestyle choices.

Aging causes cancer too.. that's hardly a 'lifestyle choice'

Highflyer13

gladrags wrote: »

There are many other diseases to which smoking is associated.

If you inhale smoke,you are looking for trouble.

Yep smoke was never meant to go into our bodies. A ridiculous past time.

Padraig Mor

EoghanIRL wrote: »

"Most types of cancer can be put down to bad luck rather than risk factors such as smoking, a study has suggested."

This is rubbish .

A peer reviewed, major study, published in arguably the world's most prestigious scientific journal - ripped to shreds by a cutting, evidence based, post by a Boards member! Call the Science editors!

fedor.2.

EoghanIRL wrote: »

"Most types of cancer can be put down to bad luck rather than risk factors such as smoking, a study has suggested."

This is rubbish .

Thanks for clearing that up, doc

rossie1977

lung cancer was almost unheard of pre 1920

Calibos

Probably mis-diagnosed as TB pre 1920.

Side-note: nothing like a cancer thread to bring out the CT nuts....

RobertKK

Great advances are being made by biotech companies with cancer treatments and cures.

The future is gene therapy and drugs that make one immune.

Even pancreatic cancer will not be the dead sentence it usually is at present.
Cancer will be a 100% curable disease.

In the future, treatments will be individual in nature to match one's genes. Chemotherapy will be history in the not too distant future, it will be all about your genes and turning off cancer cell genes.

duckcfc

duckcfc wrote: »

Cancer isn't down to bad luck, cancer is down to ones eating drinking smoking and lifestyle choices. I hate hearing some people spout sh1t that Joe bloggs didn't smoke or drink, used to run everyday but still got cancer.

Yes Joe bloggs did but Joe blogs also woke up every morning and brushed his teeth filled with mercury fillings in toxic toothpaste washes his mouth out with toxic ridden water contaminated with fluoride. After tgat he jumps in shower and washs in same water only to make matters worse, he covers himself in a concoction of chemicals that Wash's him.

Before he put on clothes that has been dyed in other cancer ridden chemicals, he sprays himself all over with something that might smell nice but is loaded with heavy metals and otger cancer ridden chemicals.

Next up is his breakfast that consists of food that technically isnt fit for human consumption but is widely accepted as food. Yes there might be protein and carbs in said food but its missing very essential nutrients. He'll proply have wee cup tea filled with tea grown with chemical fertilizer and sprayed with pesticides and washed down with same poison water he brushed his teeth and washed with.

Of he goes into the car but before he steps foot into it he's now breathing in toxic air. I could go on and in here but I think you get the just of it.

But hey, Joe blogs never smoked or drunk so he's just been one of the unlucky ones!! Lol

What are these cancer ridden chemicals? What cancer are they?

What is fit for human consumption? Who's the arbiter, you?

The Peanut

RobertKK wrote: »

Great advances are being made by biotech companies with cancer treatments and cures.

The future is gene therapy and drugs that make one immune.

Even pancreatic cancer will not be the dead sentence it usually is at present.
Cancer will be a 100% curable disease.

In the future, treatments will be individual in nature to match one's genes. Chemotherapy will be history in the not too distant future, it will be all about your genes and turning off cancer cell genes.

This is very true. Many of the chemotherapy treatments - like many traditional pharmaceutical medecines - are blunt instruments. They are synthetically developed and as such are effective to a point but typically have noticeable side-effects. The body has inherent obstacles such as the blood/ brain barrier which the medicines cannot traverse and so their target efficiency is lessened.

The biopharma industry is developing mechanisms to transfer perfectly matching treatments and mechanisms to allow the drug to get to its target destination, where it is most effective.

Tarzana2

rossie1977 wrote: »

lung cancer was almost unheard of pre 1920

Yup, it's quite illuminating to see it rise (with a 20 year delay) in tandem with the rise in smoking.

Calibos wrote: »

Probably mis-diagnosed as TB pre 1920.

Side-note: nothing like a cancer thread to bring out the CT nuts....

I love the irony between the two statements in this post.

EoghanIRL

My name is URL wrote: »

Aging causes cancer too.. that's hardly a 'lifestyle choice'

Aging doesn't cause cancer .Causation and causality aren't the same thing . Aging increases your risk of getting cancer but it doesn't cause cancer.

Calibos

Tarzana2 wrote: »

I love the irony between the two statements in this post.

Explain?

gladrags

RobertKK wrote: »

Great advances are being made by biotech companies with cancer treatments and cures.

The future is gene therapy and drugs that make one immune.

Even pancreatic cancer will not be the dead sentence it usually is at present.
Cancer will be a 100% curable disease.

In the future, treatments will be individual in nature to match one's genes. Chemotherapy will be history in the not too distant future, it will be all about your genes and turning off cancer cell genes.

There is no scientific evidence to support you're fantasy.

Anyway, mitigating factors exist.

Genes,for example,will not eradicate radiation,solar,that is.

Wibbs

Tarzana2 wrote: »

Yup, it's quite illuminating to see it rise (with a 20 year delay) in tandem with the rise in smoking.

Aye, though interestingly a California study looking at the lung cancer rates from IIRC 1950 and 2005, found that although the rate of smoking had gone down from nigh on 50% to 10% in the population the rate of LC stayed remarkably stable over that time. I'll try and dig a link up. Similar was seen in Japan. Even though smoking was high in the population their cancer rates were/are much lower and their longevity higher. Diet seems to be much of it. Even though the Japanese diet seems to increase the rates of other cancers like bowel.

The problem with cancer is that it's a loaded word and it's not a single disease. It's many different diseases, with many different causes. It's akin to labeling all viral diseases by one name, where the common cold and ebola are seen as the same and requiring the same treatments. IMHO there will never be a one stop shop "cure for cancer", as it's a disease that is as individual as we are.

Cure is another loaded word. I can see more and more that people will live with cancer, rather than die from it. That's happening today. Prostate cancer a good example. A large cohort of men over 70 and certainly over 80 have the disease, but they will end up dying with it, rather than from it.

There have been huge leaps in treatment and outcomes with various cancers, even in the last decade, where cancers that were a death sentence in the 1990's are either curable or manageable today. The "problem" with these amazing steps forward is that they were slow and cumulative, not like a new vaccine that can generate headlines for the short of attention span. But the fact is men and women are surviving longer and even beating the various cancers, who 20 years ago were in a pine box 6 months after diagnosis.

deseil

EoghanIRL wrote: »

Aging doesn't cause cancer .Causation and causality aren't the same thing . Aging increases your risk of getting cancer but it doesn't cause cancer.

Yes but aging causes death, something is going to kill us that is undeniable.

It has to boil down to luck what eventually gets you, its a lottery of disease and ailments but one will eventually cause your death. Arguing about the how and why is pointless!
* apologies for the morbidness

Wibbs

gladrags wrote: »

Genes,for example,will not eradicate radiation,solar,that is.

Ehhhh, nope. Showing your ignorance on such matters there I'm afraid. The glaring example is different populations susceptibility to melanoma. The obvious one is that a dark skinned African lad from Tanzania has significantly less risk from melanoma than a fair skinned Finnish chap. The difference? Genes. Oh it gets better. Asians, even the very palest Asians have about the same lifetime risk of melanoma as dark skinned African folks and way lower risk than pale Europeans. At some point in the evolution of pale skin for less sunny climes Asians selected for a different set, a better set of genes for paler skin. Switch those genes on in Europeans and melanoma rates would plummet.


An easier way? eat lots of processed tomato products. A few studies have shown that this basically gives you built in sunblock(factor 15 to 20 apparently). And it's one example where processed is better than the raw deal. More lycopene is released in the processing and adding fat makes it more bioavailable.

Tarzana2

Wibbs wrote: »

Aye, though interestingly a California study looking at the lung cancer rates from IIRC 1950 and 2005, found that although the rate of smoking had gone down from nigh on 50% to 10% in the population the rate of LC stayed remarkably stable over that time. I'll try and dig a link up. Similar was seen in Japan. Even though smoking was high in the population their cancer rates were/are much lower and their longevity higher. Diet seems to be much of it. Even though the Japanese diet seems to increase the rates of other cancers like bowel.

Can you link to the studie(s)? Were they any good? Might seem an odd question, but even some peer-reviewed studies are absolute stinkers.

Mr_Muffin

Cancer will be curable in the future as will every other disease and illness.

Probably not in our life times though.

gladrags

Wibbs wrote: »

Ehhhh, nope. Showing your ignorance on such matters there I'm afraid. The glaring example is different populations susceptibility to melanoma. The obvious one is that a dark skinned African lad from Tanzania has significantly less risk from melanoma than a fair skinned Finnish chap. The difference? Genes. Oh it gets better. Asians, even the very palest Asians have about the same lifetime risk of melanoma as dark skinned African folks and way lower risk than pale Europeans. At some point in the evolution of pale skin for less sunny climes Asians selected for a different set, a better set of genes for paler skin. Switch those genes on in Europeans and melanoma rates would plummet.


An easier way? eat lots of processed tomato products. A few studies have shown that this basically gives you built in sunblock(factor 15 to 20 apparently). And it's one example where processed is better than the raw deal. More lycopene is released in the processing and adding fat makes it more bioavailable.

Nope,indeed.

A vacuous explanation.

Malignant growth,is not specific to human life forms!

Or for that matter,animal life forms.

DNA is not ONLY, a human traite.

Think.

challengemaster

EoghanIRL wrote: »

Aging doesn't cause cancer .Causation and causality aren't the same thing . Aging increases your risk of getting cancer but it doesn't cause cancer.

Actually ageing does cause cancer. To age you must remain alive. The process of being alive requires cell replication to grow and survive. That requires DNA replication events (around 300 quintillion base pair replications every day). Mistakes happen during this process naturally, resulting in mutations that can lead to cancer. The reason it doesn't happen more is due to mistake fixing proteins, the immune system , mistakes having no effect, etc etc.

Carcinogens can alter any part of this cycle resulting in increased risk. For example UV radiation can cause increased mutation occurrence. Other carcinogens can alter the proteins that fix cancer mutations. Others can result in a weakened immune system allowing a cancer to survive (although cancerous cells naturally have mechanisms to evade the immune system)

Cancer is a by product of living and subsequently ageing. The news article isn't really a surprise.

Calibos

Wibbs wrote: »

An easier way? eat lots of processed tomato products. A few studies have shown that this basically gives you built in sunblock(factor 15 to 20 apparently). And it's one example where processed is better than the raw deal. More lycopene is released in the processing and adding fat makes it more bioavailable.

No wonder my skin and thus the rest of me looks over 10 years younger than I actually am. So its not simply the fact that I'm not a sun worshipper nor work outdoors. Its also down to my lifetime chronic addiction to tomato ketchup and spaghetti bolognese! Next time loved ones give out to me for trimming the hedge during a heatwave without applying sunblock, I can put their minds at ease by telling them I already applied my Heinz Factor 57 varieties at lunch time.

gladrags wrote: »

Nope,indeed.

A vacuous explanation.

Malignant growth,is not specific to human life forms!

Or for that matter,animal life forms.

DNA is not ONLY, a human traite.

Think.

You forgot to call him a sheeple

I don't think that Wibbs needs to 'think'. I don't think there is a poster on boards whos opinion on any given matter I respect more.

Wibbs

Calibos wrote: »

I don't think that Wibbs needs to 'think'. I don't think there is a poster on boards whos opinion on any given matter I respect more.

*paypal sent* Jayzuz, this is getting expensive. :eek::)

Wibbs

gladrags wrote: »

Nope,indeed.

Indeed. Squared.

A vacuous explanation

I think you may have a comprehension problem with both the word vacuous and explanation. Or, please point out where I am incorrect. You do know that just because you hold an opinion that doesn't make it correct?

Malignant growth,is not specific to human life forms!

Or for that matter,animal life forms.

No shít Sherlock. Still doesn't address a single one of my points mind you.

DNA is not ONLY, a human traite.

Getaway? Really? *mind blown*.

Think.

Physician, heal thyself. Hippies. Sheesh.

Wibbs

Calibos wrote: »

No wonder my skin and thus the rest of me looks over 10 years younger than I actually am. So its not simply the fact that I'm not a sun worshipper nor work outdoors. Its also down to my lifetime chronic addiction to tomato ketchup and spaghetti bolognese! Next time loved ones give out to me for trimming the hedge during a heatwave without applying sunblock, I can put their minds at ease by telling them I already applied my Heinz Factor 57 varieties at lunch time.

Maybe not too far off C. One kinda odd thing about skin cancers is that the further south you go in Europe, the rate declines on average. Now local adaptation is gonna be some of it(not a lot of pale redheads in Italy), but some of it may be in the diet and the oul tomato stuff may well be a big factor in it. In mouth cancers lycopene from said fruit may have a big beneficial effect.

delw

duckcfc wrote: »

But hey, Joe blogs never smoked or drunk so he's just been one of the unlucky ones!! Lol

So how do you explain a young child being diagnosed with cancer probably the parents fault or all the drinking & smoking the child has done

bb1234567

duckcfc wrote: »

Cancer isn't down to bad luck, cancer is down to ones eating drinking smoking and lifestyle choices. I hate hearing some people spout sh1t that Joe bloggs didn't smoke or drink, used to run everyday but still got cancer.

Yes Joe bloggs did but Joe blogs also woke up every morning and brushed his teeth filled with mercury fillings in toxic toothpaste washes his mouth out with toxic ridden water contaminated with fluoride. After tgat he jumps in shower and washs in same water only to make matters worse, he covers himself in a concoction of chemicals that Wash's him.

Before he put on clothes that has been dyed in other cancer ridden chemicals, he sprays himself all over with something that might smell nice but is loaded with heavy metals and otger cancer ridden chemicals.

Next up is his breakfast that consists of food that technically isnt fit for human consumption but is widely accepted as food. Yes there might be protein and carbs in said food but its missing very essential nutrients. He'll proply have wee cup tea filled with tea grown with chemical fertilizer and sprayed with pesticides and washed down with same poison water he brushed his teeth and washed with.

Of he goes into the car but before he steps foot into it he's now breathing in toxic air. I could go on and in here but I think you get the just of it.

But hey, Joe blogs never smoked or drunk so he's just been one of the unlucky ones!! Lol

I think calling our water toxic is a bit much considering were part of the small number of privileged people in this world with access to clean drinking water 24/7. Half the world have to drink water with literal **** in it.