Cancer...Is there more of it around now?

Prick! · 30-09-2012 01:09AM

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

The industrial revolution apparently sparked the rise of cancer as the top killer. When you think about modern society today, people tell us that a 101 different things cause the disease. I suppose lifestyles and the things we're exposed to each day can have an effect.

Definitely. How come cows, cats and dogs don't have as high a rate as cancer?

Or maybe we just don't know they have it. Most dogs live a good old age though.

30-09-2012 01:15AM

Prick! wrote: »

Definitely. How come cows, cats and dogs don't have as high a rate as cancer?

Or maybe we just don't know they have it. Most dogs live a good old age though.

In my experience I've known of a higher proportion of dogs than humans to have cancer despite living less than 20% as long.

As for cows etc., they only live a couple of years before they're killed and processed. Talk to anyone who worked in a meat factory back in the day and ask them if they noticed any unhealthy-looking carcasses, it didn't take being a vet to see some of it.

Reindeer · 30-09-2012 01:41AM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

RADIOACTIVITY – http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-421140/As-radioactive-spy-buried-bar-…;
SPACE TRAVEL – http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1015482/How-astronauts-risk-cancer–p…;
X-RAYS http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-207035/X-rays-bring-risk-cancer.html

That's a good list there. Ionizing radiation(high energy UV rays, X-Rays, Gamma rays) can and will physically damage your DNA, among other things. Which will almost always end in cancer if something else doesn't do you in first. In large amounts they can treat cancer as well.

msg11 · 30-09-2012 02:28AM

Prick! wrote: »

Definitely. How come cows, cats and dogs don't have as high a rate as cancer?

Or maybe we just don't know they have it. Most dogs live a good old age though.

They do develop cancers. If they live long enoght to do so.

Carnogenics take a long time to become active in the body, hence if we live longer we see more effects.

As for GM crops, if they didn't modify them, there would be a serious shortage of food in the world.

Look we will all die at one stage or another, if I live till my 90s I would be happy.

K-9 · 30-09-2012 03:16AM

Detection rates are higher now so I'd say that's a big factor. Years ago, we wouldn't have even known that many people died of cancer, years ago people wouldn't have stood a chance of a cure.

I'd be suspicious of chemicals in water and stuff like that but our rate of heart disease has reduced significantly over the last decade.

Prick! · 30-09-2012 01:53PM

msg11 wrote: »

They do develop cancers. If they live long enoght to do so.

Carnogenics take a long time to become active in the body, hence if we live longer we see more effects.

As for GM crops, if they didn't modify them, there would be a serious shortage of food in the world.

Look we will all die at one stage or another, if I live till my 90s I would be happy.

Yeah but I don't want a member of family to die of cancer relatively young.

Capt'n Midnight · 30-09-2012 02:03PM

*dust's off this one*

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6646012

Oxygen: our major carcinogen?

Evidence has accumulated implicating that atmospheric oxygen can be considered as an important environmental mutagen, whose action can be potentiated by a variety of environmental factors. Under normal conditions oxygen genotoxicity is largely prevented by a cellular antioxygenic defense system, which must be extremely efficient, but might not be entirely safe. A better understanding of this defense system may help to suggest how the incidence of carcinogenesis can be minimized.

/game over

boiledsweets · 30-09-2012 03:01PM

our modern lifestyle is a contributing factor,there are carcinogens in deodrants,perfumes and talc,stuff that we use everyday,they even have soap salt processed into pringles,its even in our food sources..

musings · 30-09-2012 11:51PM

Prick! wrote: »

Shocked by the general concensus that just because living longer means more chance to get cancer. It's terrible the amount of 40-50 year olds that are getting it.

I blame radiation from masts.

That's the age group I'm noticing too!

We've been living beyond 50 for a long time at this stage, so I don't buy the living longer theory either.

Whatever about radiation from masts...I wonder about the radiation from the cold war weapons testing programs, chernobyl etc. The fallout from it is still in our atmosphere. Plutonium, Cesium, Stontium never existed on this planet until the mid 20th century

msg11 · 01-10-2012 12:24AM

musings wrote: »

That's the age group I'm noticing too!

We've been living beyond 50 for a long time at this stage, so I don't buy the living longer theory either.

Whatever about radiation from masts...I wonder about the radiation from the cold war weapons testing programs, chernobyl etc. The fallout from it is still in our atmosphere. Plutonium, Cesium, Stontium never existed on this planet until the mid 20th century

On the subject of weapons testing, I do fear that one human will be the downfall/wipeout of the human race. There are some half doors in charge of the countries running these weapons programmes that shouldn't be let near a toy gun.

darlett · 01-10-2012 12:48AM

msg11 wrote: »

On the subject of weapons testing, I do fear that one human will be the downfall/wipeout of the human race. There are some half doors in charge of the countries running these weapons programmes that shouldn't be let near a toy gun.

I think sheer volume will do it (it was 6 billion feck all ago, has it gone 7 bill recently. Im 28 now, Ill probably see 10 billion by say 50 at this rate) Or if it doesnt, it will make life totally unfun.

Depressing when you think of it.

01-10-2012 12:52AM

boiledsweets wrote: »

our modern lifestyle is a contributing factor,there are carcinogens in deodrants,perfumes and talc,stuff that we use everyday,they even have soap salt processed into pringles,its even in our food sources..

Less asbestos around though, less smog etc. etc.

musings wrote: »

We've been living beyond 50 for a long time at this stage, so I don't buy the living longer theory either.

Not that long really.

Calibos · 01-10-2012 12:58AM

I think without a shadow of a doubt we can lay the blame for a lot of the increase in cancer rates at the door of that insidious compound called dihydrogen monoxide. Its caused the deaths either directly or indirectly of millions of people just in the last decade alone.

01-10-2012 01:01AM

Calibos wrote: »

I think without a shadow of a doubt we can lay the blame for a lot of the increase in cancer rates at the door of that insidious compound called dihydrogen monoxide. Its caused the deaths either directly or indirectly of millions of people just in the last decade alone.

I have a bottle of it beside me right now and am seriously considering consuming it. It's a major contributor to global warming too I believe.

Ziphius · 01-10-2012 01:13AM

musings wrote: »

That's the age group I'm noticing too!

We've been living beyond 50 for a long time at this stage, so I don't buy the living longer theory either.

Whatever about radiation from masts...I wonder about the radiation from the cold war weapons testing programs, chernobyl etc. The fallout from it is still in our atmosphere. Plutonium, Cesium, Stontium never existed on this planet until the mid 20th century

Increased life-span is almost certainly a major cause. As is better methods of cancer detection. Rates of prostate cancer have increased not because more men are developing cancer but because detection rates have improved.

Some cancers have also decreased. Lung cancer for example. Due to a decrease in smoking.

Other cancers, breast cancer for example, have increased not only because of increased age but also because of increases in other risk factors such as women having children later in life and a reduction in breast feeding rates.

There are some interesting reports on cancer in Ireland available here: http://www.ncri.ie/pubs/pubs.shtml

Calibos wrote: »

I think without a shadow of a doubt we can lay the blame for a lot of the increase in cancer rates at the door of that insidious compound called dihydrogen monoxide. Its caused the deaths either directly or indirectly of millions of people just in the last decade alone.

It has some role to play, no doubt.

gctest50 · 01-10-2012 01:15AM

musings wrote: »

Whatever about radiation from masts...I wonder about the radiation from the cold war weapons testing programs, chernobyl etc. The fallout from it is still in our atmosphere. Plutonium, Cesium, Stontium never existed on this planet until the mid 20th century

The 2000 + nuclear explosions ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=856fWEltiXo

DesperateDan · 01-10-2012 03:10AM

Remember that crazy German doctor who cut up some cadavers live on Channel 4 a while back? I remember him saying an average of 1 in 3 people get cancer and of those, 1 in 4 die from it. It's something that's always stuck with me because it's rather terrifying....

paulsgirl · 21-10-2012 09:34PM

I'm a cancer survivor and have done a lot of research on the topic.

We are only "living longer" with cancer because its diagnosed earlier than before.

The food we put in our mouths has a huge, huge impact on our cancer rates. Lots of people like to blame pollution etc (which is also some of the cause) but the most important thing, is the one thing we can control and thats whether we decide to eat processed/GMO,hormone pumped food or fresh, organic produce.

To me, that side of it is a no brainer.

force eleven · 21-10-2012 10:20PM

Much more. Plastics, nitrites in meat, deodorants, nuclear radiation, electromagnetic radiation, air pollution, fluoridation of water. Etc etc. It seems like cancer in young people is much more prevalent now than before.

21-10-2012 10:24PM

It's all very well saying it's because people live longer, but what about all the young people getting cancer? I know plenty of people under 35 who have or have had it and many have died of it. Neither of my parents remember anyone from their school or neighbourhood having cancer at a young age.

Turtwig · 21-10-2012 10:28PM

Felicity Polite Rubber wrote: »

It's all very well saying it's because people live longer, but what about all the young people getting cancer? I know plenty of people under 35 who have or have had it and many have died of it. Neither of my parents remember anyone from their school or neighbourhood having cancer at a young age.

Plenty of your parents probably remember people dying at a young age from illnesses of some kind. It just wanted diagnosed as cancer. They might have thought they simply died from the flu or something similar.

Mint Sauce · 21-10-2012 10:33PM

The stats are actully shocking, 1 in 3 people will be diagnosed or treated for cancer. So far in my own family alone, 3 people have either died of a cancer related illness, or was diagnosed with cancer in their system at time of death when being treated for an unrelated condition, with a forth currently being treated for cancer, and this is only in the last 7-8 years. 2 of them I was/am extreamly fond of, and it broke/brakes my heart to see or have seen them so sick and theres nothing I can do about it.

Calibos · 22-10-2012 01:23AM

I'd imagine genetics plays a huge part. Luck of the draw really. 2 Parents, 4 grandparents, 25 1st cousins and 9 aunts/uncles and no cancers in my extended family. You might have 7 or 8 out of 10 in another family ultimately suffer or die of some form of cancer.

In other words I don't think the statistics are that 1 out of every 3 family members for all families will die of cancer, its that 1 third of the population as a whole will suffer cancer at some point. One family gets through life unscathed and another is decimated. Sad but true.

3ndahalfof6 · 22-10-2012 01:48AM

I know quiet a few young people that died from cancer, from the age of 11 up to 30, it is in all of us, it is just a case if it switches on.

Grayson · 22-10-2012 08:10AM

i've read that the number and percentage of people under the age of 50 who are getting pretty much all cancers is decreasing. The number above 50 is increasing. But the percentage is about the same. It's not because a greater percentage of over 50's are getting it. It's because there's more of them.

So if we all agree to top ourselves at 50, we can cut the number of cancer cases drastically.

smash · 22-10-2012 08:17AM

Godge wrote: »

Say we cure cancer

Sorry, I don't mean to nit pick but this statement gets thrown around a lot and people generally don't know what they're saying. It's like saying "say we can kill all insects..." There's so many types that a generic cure will never be found. It's also mutating constantly and depends on the actual person who has it because it develops from bad cells which are unique in them self anyway.

gbee · 22-10-2012 08:23AM

Two things:

Various environmental occurrences are know to spark cancers, ie, chemical spills, asbestos breaking, Windscale Fires, sun burn and so on ~ many had been denied in the past.

Almost everyone has the potential to become cancerous, cancer has a few triggers, genetics is one so if your grandparents had it, you will [be at risk if you don't die from other causes the cancer will eventually]. Screening is better medicine can detect precancerous conditions. Cancer responds to various treatments.

Keep in mind that cancer is actually the bodys' own defence system running wild so to speak.

Tar.Aldarion · 22-10-2012 08:59AM

We can't tell due to not knowing as much about before. It's not simply 'no' because we can detect it better now.

the_syco · 22-10-2012 10:06AM

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

There will be plenty more of it about if the government dose not place an immediate ban on genetically modified crops and their by products ie beef etc.

When you ban genetically modified crops, you increase food prices for less food.

An example would be potatoes; a large amount are spoiled this year, but there are trials to genetically modify it to becomes less susceptible to disease.

Prick! wrote: »

I blame radiation from masts.

As opposed to radiation form the sun?

Ziphius · 22-10-2012 10:13AM

Felicity Polite Rubber wrote: »

It's all very well saying it's because people live longer, but what about all the young people getting cancer? I know plenty of people under 35 who have or have had it and many have died of it. Neither of my parents remember anyone from their school or neighbourhood having cancer at a young age.

While this may be true in your experience the data tell a different story.

Cancer incidences in the 15-24 age group account for less than 2% of all cancer rates.http://www.ncri.ie/pubs/pubfiles/young%20adults.pdf

I am aware you were referring to ages up of 35. Finding specific numbers for this age is difficult but it you look at figure 1.2 in this report:http://www.ncri.ie/pubs/pubfiles/ALL_IRELAND_1994-2004_SUMMARY.pdf you can see that the rates are very low.

From 2000 to 2004 the median age of patients diagnosed with cancer was 68. This means half of all cancer diagnoses were in patients over the age of 68. http://www.ncri.ie/pubs/pubfiles/ALL_IRELAND_1994-2004_SUMMARY.pdf
(section 1.4)

Of the 20 cancers listed by the ncri only two (testes and cervical) have a median age at diagnosis less than 50 years for the period of 2007 to 2009. http://www.ncri.ie/pubs/pubfiles/AnnualReport2011.pdf (Table 8)

Cancer rates certainly are, on average, increasing. However cancer is still a disease that disproportionately affects older people.

Interestingly incidence rates in most cancers are higher in the Republic of Ireland than in Northern Ireland and higher in urban areas than rural areas.

Cancer...Is there more of it around now?

Comments