4 ms·

If we really want to cure cancer we should stop polluting our air, water and food. And even if we can't stop we need to find ways to disincentivize making produ

• ackfoo 7y ago
  I applaud your motivation, and I agree with your suggestion, but that's not where most cancer comes from. Most cancer arises out of a random failure of the mechanisms underlying apoptosis. Random mutation rates are linked to rates of cell division. There is an error every x number of times a cell divides. The faster cells divide (say, because of inflammation caused by cigarette smoke), the greater the risk of a random mutation that will disable the normal mechanisms of cell death. Environmental mutagens and carcinogens play a part by damaging DNA or increasing cell division rates (asbestos, for example, which destroys immune cells come to engulf the invader, leading to a cycle of cell damage) but they are only a tiny part of the picture. Cancer is caused by math, in a very real sense. Mutation rates * cell division rates = risk of cancer. You can absolutely get cancer without any adverse environmental exposure, which is why some children get cancer very early on--genetic factors increase risk. The universe is chaotic. There is often no reason for what happens to an individual. It's just random chance. Man's search for meaning is often futile.
• ben-schaaf 7y ago
  We better also stop polluting the sun so we can cure skin cancer.
• cannonedhamster 7y ago
  Cancer has always existed regardless of pollution. It's cell mutation, which is part of evolution. You can't fix it by getting rid of pollution. You fix it by making your own immune system recognize it again so that it can not the cell properly. Either that or restore the proper cell death instruction. Cancer deaths have been going down for years, firstly due to less smoking and less salted meat in our diets and now due to better understanding. It's slow, but it's steady and every oncologist in the world is waiting for the hockey stick moment.
  • rjf72 7y ago
    There was an interesting study here [1]. They researched the prevalence of cancer in ancient societies using a variety of methods - remains, reporting, etc. The goal was to determine whether the relative lack of cancer in ancient societies was driven by some sort of external factor such as inability to detect cancer in remains, poor reporting, lower life expectancies, etc or rather it was simply because cancer was simply much less common. The evidence available tends to point very much towards the latter which, in turn, suggests that we have created environmental conditions which are driving cancer. The paper references two papers which have pointed to general pollution as a major potential driver there. Death rates are not a relevant measurement on this topic either since they're heavily confounded by increase in survival rates. You need to look at incident rates, which continue to increase worldwide. Even lung cancer is now on the rise among females. [1] - https://www.nature.com/articles/nrc2914 https://www.nature.com/articles/nrc2914
    • gmueckl 7y ago
      How does this paper account for the increase in life expectancy? Many types of cancer appear in people of older age and reaching that age was not nearly as common in ancient societies.
      • rjf72 7y ago
        Two ways. By looking at the causes of death of those that did live to old age as well as by considering cancers (such as bone) that tend to occur disproportionately in young people.
        • wasdfff 7y ago
          I think the study is biased towards cancers that are visible in the remains. If you died from leukemia, would that be evident based on your skeleton?
          • rjf72 7y ago
• refurb 7y ago
  Something like 60% of cancers are due to genetics - you inherit a faulty gene or a spontaneous mutation gives you one. When it comes to environmental causes, tobacco smoke and diet make up the vast majority. Pollution barely registers.
  • DanBC 7y ago
    Genetics are important, but when people from one population move to a different region they tend to get the cancers of the new population. Prostate cancer and breast cancer rates are low in Osaka, but in Japanese people living in Hawaii the rates match the Hawaiian population. Japanese people living in Japan have high rates of stomach cancer, but those rates drop for Japanese people living in Hawaii.
    • kochikame 7y ago
      Yes, the difference in diets and smoking and drinking habits will do that. It's still not pollution in the examples you gave.