Follow @PoliticsIE
 
 
 
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 26

Thread: Cancer is a Man Made Disease

  1. #1
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aontas Sóvéideach na hÉireann
    Posts
    13,343
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default Cancer is a Man Made Disease

    Cancer is a man-made disease caused by modern day environmental factors such as pollution and diet, a new study suggests.

    After analysing the remains of hundreds of Egyptian mummies, researchers at the University of Manchester concluded that cancer was extremely rare in ancient times.

    Ancient Greek literature rarely refers to illnesses resembling cancer, and there is scant evidence of tumour growth in animal fossils and non-human primates, the researchers said.

    Cancer rates in have risen massively since the Industrial Revolution, in particular childhood cancer, suggesting that the rise is not simply due to people living longer.

    Professor Rosalie David, an expert in biomedical Egyptology said: “In industrialised societies, cancer is second only to cardiovascular disease as a cause of death. But in ancient times, it was extremely rare.

    There is nothing in the natural environment that can cause cancer. So it has to be a man-made disease, down to pollution and changes to our diet and lifestyle.

    “The important thing about our study is that it gives a historical perspective to this disease. We can make very clear statements on the cancer rates in societies because we have a full overview. We have looked at millennia, not one hundred years, and have masses of data.”

    Full article:

    Cancer is a man made disease

  2. #2
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,433
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Very interesting topic.

    Bit hard to make that case for skin cancer caused by UV light though, unless maybe the sudden exposure from indoors all the time to soaking up too much sunlight is to blame.

    They also smoked plants (lung cancer) back then.

    They didn't live very long on average and cancer needs time to work.

    You are incorrect in claiming that nothing in the natural environment is carcinogenic, cook a steak, it is crawling with carcinogens - many foods are but especially meats (amines), then as i said there is also the sun. Cancer is natural, a consequence of the complicated nature of our cellular genetics and it's reliance on making copies of these complicated nucleic acids (which allows things to go wrong), given how many times it is copied and how complex it is it's amazing the good job our body does in preventing the errors that can lead to cancer.

    I am also not sure that analysing merely 'hundreds of mummies' is enough to claim that it was 'very rare'.

  3. #3
    Politics.ie Member Squire Allworthy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Usually on the move.
    Posts
    1,404
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Thanks interesting.


    Cancer is more likely as you grow older and the ancients tended to die young.

    The childhood comment would therefore be very significant.

    We live in a world surrounded by substances that can cause cancer.

  4. #4
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,433
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Strange times, don't worry cancer won't kill you but a toothache might.

  5. #5
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    548
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Well as a cancer patient, there is no doubt that modern factors do influence cancer and the cause of it.

    But its 2010 and nobody really knows what causes cancer, but modern science would tend to fall into the line that its genetic, ie dna based.

    Mankind is evolving daily, and there is new things being discovered about us and cancer daily, if the theory is based solely on mummified dummies I would question the study.

    There are many cancers that are only prevalent to white people, asian, hispanic, and black people simply do not get certain types of cancer, due to life styles, diet, dna etc.

    But to blame industrialisation alone is nonsense, as the number of factors contribute, it should also be mentioned that industrialisation now cures more cancers than it ever did and will continue to do so.

    At the OP, to use cancer to further your political view, is simply disqusting, you really are a poor excuse for a human being, and should be ashamed of yourself. You clearly have no appreciation of what this disease is or how it affects families on a daily basis.

  6. #6
    Politics.ie Newbie
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    71
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    In The Sceptical Environmentalist there's a statistical analysis of the sources of cancer. Less than 2% comes from pollution. Almost two-thirds of cancers come from smoking and fatty foods, in other words from people's behavioural decisions not the environment.

    [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_sceptical_environmentalist"]The Skeptical Environmentalist - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Bj%C3%B8rn_Lomborg_small.JPG" class="image"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/76/Bj%C3%B8rn_Lomborg_small.JPG/100px-Bj%C3%B8rn_Lomborg_small.JPG"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/7/76/Bj%C3%B8rn_Lomborg_small.JPG/100px-Bj%C3%B8rn_Lomborg_small.JPG[/ame]

  7. #7
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    23,513
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cael View Post
    Cancer is a man-made disease caused by modern day environmental factors such as pollution and diet, a new study suggests.

    After analysing the remains of hundreds of Egyptian mummies, researchers at the University of Manchester concluded that cancer was extremely rare in ancient times.

    Ancient Greek literature rarely refers to illnesses resembling cancer, and there is scant evidence of tumour growth in animal fossils and non-human primates, the researchers said.

    Cancer rates in have risen massively since the Industrial Revolution, in particular childhood cancer, suggesting that the rise is not simply due to people living longer.

    Professor Rosalie David, an expert in biomedical Egyptology said: “In industrialised societies, cancer is second only to cardiovascular disease as a cause of death. But in ancient times, it was extremely rare.

    There is nothing in the natural environment that can cause cancer. So it has to be a man-made disease, down to pollution and changes to our diet and lifestyle.

    “The important thing about our study is that it gives a historical perspective to this disease. We can make very clear statements on the cancer rates in societies because we have a full overview. We have looked at millennia, not one hundred years, and have masses of data.”

    Full article:

    Cancer is a man made disease
    Yet there are medieval tracts in which is mentioned a condition of cankers, 'growths that may appear on or in the body'.

    It is not that modern lifestyles have caused cancers, it is that we are more aware of their existence. We also investigate the causes of death in much more detail than was done in the past.
    A peasant dying of cancer was not noted as a death by canker, it was just another death and he was buried.

    edit.
    The use of mummies as the base examples focuses on the highest levels of Egyptian society, ignoring the huge peasant population.
    The enemy of my enemy is the enemy of my enemy. EU Army coming to be, the feckin' conspiracy nuts on Lisbon were right on this one.

  8. #8
    Politics.ie Member Catalpa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Dublin West
    Posts
    10,302
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Cancer rates are affected by diet and location that is true.

    But there is no guarantee against getting it no matter who or where you are.

    Don't smoke, eat in moderation and take exercise & avoid dealing with in or near industrial waste products all help to lessen your chances.

  9. #9
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    308
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by myksav View Post
    Yet there are medieval tracts in which is mentioned a condition of cankers, 'growths that may appear on or in the body'.

    It is not that modern lifestyles have caused cancers, it is that we are more aware of their existence. We also investigate the causes of death in much more detail than was done in the past.
    A peasant dying of cancer was not noted as a death by canker, it was just another death and he was buried.

    edit.
    The use of mummies as the base examples focuses on the highest levels of Egyptian society, ignoring the huge peasant population.
    If I remember Herodotus correctly, mummification was not solely for the upper classes. Poorer types could opt for a less extravagant form of it. That said, it is not clear here what class of mummies were used in the analysis.


    From Wikipedia:

    Grmek and Gourevitch speculate that during the Classical Greek Period, anyone who made it past the age of five years — surviving all the common childhood illness of that day — had a reasonable chance of living to a ripe old age. Life expectancy at 400 B.C. was estimated to be around 30 years of age. One demographer of ancient civilizations reported that Greek men lived to 45 years (based on a sample size of 91), while women lived to 36.2 years (based on a sample size of 55).
    [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centenarian"]Centenarian - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:MosulChaldean107yrs.jpg" class="image"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0d/MosulChaldean107yrs.jpg/220px-MosulChaldean107yrs.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/0/0d/MosulChaldean107yrs.jpg/220px-MosulChaldean107yrs.jpg[/ame]

    With a life-expectancy (after childhood, I assume, from the above) of 45, and many of course living beyond the average, cancer would surely have been common enough not to be unknown; unless the thesis in the article is correct.

  10. #10
    Politics.ie Member cry freedom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    2,399
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Amazing!
    Nine posts and not a word about Windscale, Sellafield or the famous "clusters".
    Sir Charles must be on holidays?

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •