3 ms·

It's a bit odd to see an article on the efforts to reduce cancer incidence that doesn't include the terms 'carcinogen' or 'mutagen' anywhere in its body, or tha

It's a bit odd to see an article on the efforts to reduce cancer incidence that doesn't include the terms 'carcinogen' or 'mutagen' anywhere in its body, or that doesn't reference Rachel Carson's significant role in the understanding that many pesticides and herbicides have carcinogenic properties, and doesn't even reference the well-studied linkages between tobacco and lung cancer. Obviously, the industries involved in producing agricultural and industrial chemicals have an interest in suppressing this aspect of the cancer story, but entirely ignoring it is pretty ridiculous on the part of NPR. Clearly there are a wide variety of both naturally occurring and synthetic chemicals that can damage DNA and otherwise cause the cell cycle to go out of control, which is thought to be the fundamental process leading to cancers. A major part of the reduction in the incidence of cancer has been the removal of such substances from the water and food supply, right? The recent judgment against Bayer/Monstanto over the carcinogenic properties of their Roundup-Ready formulation wrt non-Hodgkins Lymphoma is one such example. (Note there that it's the surfactants causing the problem most likely, not the glyphosate itself, although without the surfactants the plants don't absorb the glyphosate). As far as the 'war on cancer' theme, one of the most curious books on the topic is about the German 'war on cancer' in the Nazi era, a period when the science of carcinogens (and toxicology in general) was making a lot of advances. It's a bit disturbing as well [1] [1] https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691070513/the-nazi-war-on-cancer https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691070513/th... I can't help thinking that NPR's silence on this rather fundamental feature of cancer, i.e. the role of environmental carcinogens, is in some way related to the money they take from their advertisers in the fossil fuel / pharmaceutical sector.

vharuck 5y ago
>I can't help thinking that NPR's silence on this rather fundamental feature of cancer, i.e. the role of environmental carcinogens, is in some way related to the money they take from their advertisers in the fossil fuel / pharmaceutical sector. I think their "silence" is related to the small proportion of cases linked to environmental contaminants or carcinogens besides alcohol and tobacco. I work with my state's cancer prevention program, and cancer incidence and mortality rates are heavily and undeniably correlated to behaviors and social determinants: alcohol consumption, smoking rates, exercise, access to healthcare, poverty. The only environmental causes worth any money or time are radon gas and sun exposure. In a morbid way, we'd love a localized environmental cause. That'd be easy to fix compared to convincing people to exercise and get colonoscopies. It's just that "hot spots" are almost always statistical anomalies that occur about as often as expected. Usually in communities near industrial zones, because they're high poverty (so already prone to high incidence), low population (better chance of deviating far from the mean rate), and have been convinced that all unknown chemicals are highly carcinogenic. There are so many of these communities, it would be surprising to not see one or two a year with a very high number of similar cancer diagnoses. And, please believe me, I have never seen a dime from anyone besides the state government. I've never been told to avoid any topics when combing through data for any patterns. And I have never gotten the sense anyone I work with, especially the epidemiologists who interview communities when a cancer cluster is feared, are on the take. It is incredibly unlikely that major news media, cancer researchers, practicing oncologists, and all public health experts working on cancer are corrupt.
- voldacar 5y ago
  What's a good breakdown of the relationship between exercise and the likelihood of cancer? On the extreme end, I'd imagine that if you're very muscular your chance of getting a tumor would increase, simply because your body has more cells, but I'm not sure what effect exercise would have for the average human.
  - vharuck 5y ago
    Obesity is a major risk factor for cancer. Exercise itself didn't fight cancer cells, it's just what we encourage to combat obesity.

vharuck 5y ago

>I can't help thinking that NPR's silence on this rather fundamental feature of cancer, i.e. the role of environmental carcinogens, is in some way related to the money they take from their advertisers in the fossil fuel / pharmaceutical sector. I think their "silence" is related to the small proportion of cases linked to environmental contaminants or carcinogens besides alcohol and tobacco. I work with my state's cancer prevention program, and cancer incidence and mortality rates are heavily and undeniably correlated to behaviors and social determinants: alcohol consumption, smoking rates, exercise, access to healthcare, poverty. The only environmental causes worth any money or time are radon gas and sun exposure. In a morbid way, we'd love a localized environmental cause. That'd be easy to fix compared to convincing people to exercise and get colonoscopies. It's just that "hot spots" are almost always statistical anomalies that occur about as often as expected. Usually in communities near industrial zones, because they're high poverty (so already prone to high incidence), low population (better chance of deviating far from the mean rate), and have been convinced that all unknown chemicals are highly carcinogenic. There are so many of these communities, it would be surprising to not see one or two a year with a very high number of similar cancer diagnoses. And, please believe me, I have never seen a dime from anyone besides the state government. I've never been told to avoid any topics when combing through data for any patterns. And I have never gotten the sense anyone I work with, especially the epidemiologists who interview communities when a cancer cluster is feared, are on the take. It is incredibly unlikely that major news media, cancer researchers, practicing oncologists, and all public health experts working on cancer are corrupt.

voldacar 5y ago
What's a good breakdown of the relationship between exercise and the likelihood of cancer? On the extreme end, I'd imagine that if you're very muscular your chance of getting a tumor would increase, simply because your body has more cells, but I'm not sure what effect exercise would have for the average human.
- vharuck 5y ago
  Obesity is a major risk factor for cancer. Exercise itself didn't fight cancer cells, it's just what we encourage to combat obesity.