4 ms·

Scientists suggest that cancer is purely man-made

12 points by absconditus 16y ago

rue 16y ago
> There is nothing in the natural environment that can cause cancer. Except naturally occurring cell mutation, specialisation and growth? The argument itself seems somewhat feasible if formulated to say that something about modern life drastically increases the occurrence of cancers. The data seems to suggest that one popular counterargument, that people tended to die of something else before cancer got a chance (since the risk seems to grow as a person ages), is not valid. The data set is still not quite large nor heterogenous enough to be enough evidence on its own.
- thisisnotmyname 16y ago
  Not to mention the sun.
  - wwortiz 16y ago
    Well that is partly our fault as well, HFCs and all that jazz eating the ozone layer. But considering Uranium isn't man made and all the other radioactive elements and radiation that occurs naturally, cancer is not man made. There is pretty much radiation everywhere, anything above absolute zero is emitting infrared. When you take everything into account cancer can't be man made but perhaps we did lead to the widespread amount of cancer.
InclinedPlane 16y ago
Until the industrial age humans didn't often live long enough for cancer to become a leading cause of death. Moreover, the vast majority of people who died in pre-industrial times were survived by relatives who were poor, uneducated, and illiterate. Determination of their causes of death was by such uneducated and superstitious folks, and the details of any pre-death symptoms are lost to history due to the lack of record keeping. Even in those rare cases where a person lived long enough to where cancer would be a likely cause of death and were lucky enough to be surrounded by folks who were literate and educated there is still very little chance that the symptoms of cancer would be noted or recorded accurately. More so amidst the myriad routine disease epidemics and pandemics of history. If Quuxocles dies of a mystery illness in ancient Greece it's as likely to be attributed to whichever deadly epidemic occured most recently. The idea that testing a few mummies is sufficient evidence to make such a sweeping conclusion of cancer being primarily a modern phenomenon is rather ridiculous.
abecedarius 16y ago
There've been many studies showing almost no cancer among traditionally-living peoples. E.g. http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/07/cancer-in-other-non-industrialized.html http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/07/cancer-in-othe... http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/07/cancer-among-inuit.html http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/07/cancer-among-i... What surprises me most in this article is, I'd have guessed ancient Egypt to be 'advanced' enough to get cancer rates more like ours (among survivors to similar ages).
JunkDNA 16y ago
There is nothing in the natural environment that can cause cancer. Blatantly incorrect statements like this make me question the attention to detail of these researchers. There are numerous viruses, most notably human papillomavirus which are known to cause cancer. The sun causes cancer through large amounts of UV radiation. Both are natural by even the most strict definition o the word. Until the advent of antibiotics and vaccines, you were way more likely to die of an infectious disease than anything else. There is just no way their sample size was big enough to overcome that.
ljosa 16y ago
I haven't read the paper, but it's worth noting that the paper is not in Nature, as the linked article claims, but in Nature Cancer Review. Nature Cancer Review publishes news and commentary. The paper is published as a "Perspectives" article; such articles are meant to provide commentary on "the implications and applications of science in our society." It looks like "Perspectives" articles are not even peer-reviewed (only "Review"-type articles are). Very unlike Nature. Rosalie David's last paper in Nature was in 1987.

12 points by absconditus 16y ago

rue 16y ago

> There is nothing in the natural environment that can cause cancer. Except naturally occurring cell mutation, specialisation and growth? The argument itself seems somewhat feasible if formulated to say that something about modern life drastically increases the occurrence of cancers. The data seems to suggest that one popular counterargument, that people tended to die of something else before cancer got a chance (since the risk seems to grow as a person ages), is not valid. The data set is still not quite large nor heterogenous enough to be enough evidence on its own.

thisisnotmyname 16y ago
Not to mention the sun.
- wwortiz 16y ago
  Well that is partly our fault as well, HFCs and all that jazz eating the ozone layer. But considering Uranium isn't man made and all the other radioactive elements and radiation that occurs naturally, cancer is not man made. There is pretty much radiation everywhere, anything above absolute zero is emitting infrared. When you take everything into account cancer can't be man made but perhaps we did lead to the widespread amount of cancer.

InclinedPlane 16y ago

Until the industrial age humans didn't often live long enough for cancer to become a leading cause of death. Moreover, the vast majority of people who died in pre-industrial times were survived by relatives who were poor, uneducated, and illiterate. Determination of their causes of death was by such uneducated and superstitious folks, and the details of any pre-death symptoms are lost to history due to the lack of record keeping. Even in those rare cases where a person lived long enough to where cancer would be a likely cause of death and were lucky enough to be surrounded by folks who were literate and educated there is still very little chance that the symptoms of cancer would be noted or recorded accurately. More so amidst the myriad routine disease epidemics and pandemics of history. If Quuxocles dies of a mystery illness in ancient Greece it's as likely to be attributed to whichever deadly epidemic occured most recently. The idea that testing a few mummies is sufficient evidence to make such a sweeping conclusion of cancer being primarily a modern phenomenon is rather ridiculous.

abecedarius 16y ago

There've been many studies showing almost no cancer among traditionally-living peoples. E.g. http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/07/cancer-in-other-non-industrialized.html http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/07/cancer-in-othe... http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/07/cancer-among-inuit.html http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/07/cancer-among-i... What surprises me most in this article is, I'd have guessed ancient Egypt to be 'advanced' enough to get cancer rates more like ours (among survivors to similar ages).

JunkDNA 16y ago

There is nothing in the natural environment that can cause cancer. Blatantly incorrect statements like this make me question the attention to detail of these researchers. There are numerous viruses, most notably human papillomavirus which are known to cause cancer. The sun causes cancer through large amounts of UV radiation. Both are natural by even the most strict definition o the word. Until the advent of antibiotics and vaccines, you were way more likely to die of an infectious disease than anything else. There is just no way their sample size was big enough to overcome that.

ljosa 16y ago

I haven't read the paper, but it's worth noting that the paper is not in Nature, as the linked article claims, but in Nature Cancer Review. Nature Cancer Review publishes news and commentary. The paper is published as a "Perspectives" article; such articles are meant to provide commentary on "the implications and applications of science in our society." It looks like "Perspectives" articles are not even peer-reviewed (only "Review"-type articles are). Very unlike Nature. Rosalie David's last paper in Nature was in 1987.