23 ms·

Why not go to the root cause instead of using hacks to fix the symptoms? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer#Causes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer#Causes

by givan 12y ago

Why not go to the root cause instead of using hacks to fix the symptoms? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer#Causes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer#Causes We need to fix our environment instead of hacking ourselves to deal with a broken one.

NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago
"Fixing our environment" won't fix cancer. Cancer exists because you don't need to live to 150 years old to successfully reproduce. It costs too much from a biological perspective to prevent cancer, calories and nutrients better spent on raising children and to some extent grandchildren. People got cancer back when the environment was pristine, they were just more likely to get eaten by the crocohippo first.
- beached_whale 12y ago
  Chrocohippo is the coolest cross bread I have heard in a while. Thank you
- givan 12y ago
  There is a max 10% genetic risk and also getting older makes the body more fragile for every illness not just cancer but the causes as outlined in wikipedia are 90% environmental.
  - thomasmeeks 12y ago
    Environmental doesn't necessarily mean it is something we've done to the environment. Even if the world's environment were reverted to "untouched by humans" status, you can still get melanoma from too much sun exposure, and that would still be an "environmental" factor. Unhealthy eating (especially very salty/spicy/fermented foods), alcohol use, and so on also classify as environmental factors. But they are not caused by pollution or chemical-laden foods, merely bad life choices. Copious quantities of red meat isn't good, organic or no. I don't meant to imply our bad handling of the planet causes no cancer, it certainly does. But it does not cause anywhere close to 90% of cancer cases. Not by a long shot.
    - thedrifting 12y ago
      Just curious: Any evidence to support the claim that very spicy foods are "bad life choices"?
      - pmalynin 12y ago
        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21487045 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21487045
        djokkataja 12y ago
        It was a study done on mice, and it had nothing to do with ingestion of capsaicin: "These results might imply that caution should be exercised when using capsaicin-containing topical applications in the presence of a tumor promoter, such as, for example, sunlight." The wikipedia article on capsaicin links to this study as well as several others and indicates that capsaicin may have carcinogenic or anticarcinogenic properties based on several studies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capsaicin#Effects_of_dietary_consumption http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capsaicin#Effects_of_dietary_co... You probably shouldn't be all that concerned about eating spicy food... on the other hand, if you don't smoke, you eat well, and you aren't obese, you're roughly 55-65% less likely to die of cancer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer#Causes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer#Causes
    - vostrocity 12y ago
      I believe that's what OP was referring to, considering his link. No one was presuming environment meant the conditions of the natural world. The point stands. How many people consciously make an effort to prevent cancer in every aspect possible? On a personal level as much as a societal level, we're doing little to address the preventable causes of cancer. Why are so many people making so many "bad life choices"?
- tiglionabbit 12y ago
  I have heard this argument a lot, and I've also heard there is data to refute it. I haven't looked up the references, but this is covered in several nutrition books I have read, including: The Diet Delusion by Gary Taubes, In Defense of Food by Michael Pollan, and The Perfect Health Diet by Paul Jaminet. The observation is always the same: Cancer is one of the "western diseases" that starts appearing in native populations when they are exposed to colonists. And it's not just because of longer lives: people start getting cancer at higher rates at earlier ages. Taubes blames the problem on insulin-like growth hormone that is secreted in response to high-carbohydrate foods, and creates an environment perfect for rapid cell growth. Pollan doesn't speculate on the cause, other than to say that there is something wrong with the western diet. Jaminet speculates that we will find more types of cancer are cause by infectious agents, since cell immortality and rapid reproduction is a perfect strategy for a virus and since we have found several so far: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infectious_causes_of_cancer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infectious_causes_of_cancer
  - scott_s 12y ago
    I will second endersshadow's recommendation, and suggest that you read "The Emperor of all Maladies: A Biography of Cancer". The author talks about this subject, and the evidence he presents is that cancer has always been with us.
    - evanmoran 12y ago
      For those interested. This book won a Pulitzer in 2011 (http://www.pulitzer.org/works/2011-General-Nonfiction http://www.pulitzer.org/works/2011-General-Nonfiction). That's pretty strong evidence that it's well researched and worth checking out.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - Florin_Andrei 12y ago
    That's pseudo-science. Galen in 2nd century AD observed cancer, and used the term "oncos" to describe it. Celsus in 1st century AD did the same, and used the term "cancer" for the first time. Hippocrates in 4th century BC described several different types of cancer and called them, generically, "carcinos" ("crab" in Greek). Egyptian texts from at least 1600 BC, with some going back to 3000 BC, describe different cases of cancer, noting with regret: "there is no treatment". Dinosaurs, 65 million years ago and more, suffered from various types of cancer such as hemangioma, desmoplastic fibroma, and osteoblastoma. Cancer is, has been, and always will be the evil shadow of all multicellular life. Please, don't take your medical and scientific information from a "liberal foodie intellectual" with a B.A. in English (not that there's anything wrong with any of these attributes in particular, they're just not qualifications to talk competently about cancer). http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancerbasics/thehistoryofcancer/the-history-of-cancer-what-is-cancer http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancerbasics/thehistoryofcancer... http://web.archive.org/web/20110716111312/http://www.cancerdecisions.com/speeches/galen1989.html http://web.archive.org/web/20110716111312/http://www.cancerd... http://www.bordet.be/en/presentation/history/cancer_e/cancer1.htm http://www.bordet.be/en/presentation/history/cancer_e/cancer... http://www.academia.edu/227680/Epidemiologic_study_of_tumors_in_dinosaurs http://www.academia.edu/227680/Epidemiologic_study_of_tumors... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3003131/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3003131/
hkmurakami 12y ago
The root cause is our biology. Thus the longer we live, the more likely it is that we will run into this horrible disease.
- christkv 12y ago
  Interestingly enough the longer you live the less likely the cancer is to kill you as the cancer cells originate from "old" cells and have degraded ability to divide. If you are 90 years old and get cancer it's unlikely it will kill you before you die of natural causes.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
gfodor 12y ago
False dilemma, big time.
endersshadow 12y ago
You need to read The Emperor of All Maladies[1]. If you think cancer is just an effect of our environment, you are wildly, disasterously, and disappointingly misinformed. [1]: http://www.amazon.com/Emperor-All-Maladies-Biography-Cancer/dp/1439170916 http://www.amazon.com/Emperor-All-Maladies-Biography-Cancer/...
- vostrocity 12y ago
  I have not read that book, but I will throw this in for the sake of counterargument. That said, I don't believe anyone is saying cancer is "just" an effect of environment. "Cancer is caused by both internal factors (such as inherited mutations, hormones, and immune conditions) and environmental/acquired factors (such as tobacco, diet, radiation, and infectious organisms). The link between diet and cancer is revealed by the large variation in rates of specific cancers in various countries and by the observed changes in the incidence of cancer in migrating. For example, Asians have been shown to have a 25 times lower incidence of prostate cancer and a ten times lower incidence of breast cancer than do residents of Western countries, and the rates for these cancers increase substantially after Asians migrate to the West." [1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2515569/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2515569/

by givan 12y ago

NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago

"Fixing our environment" won't fix cancer. Cancer exists because you don't need to live to 150 years old to successfully reproduce. It costs too much from a biological perspective to prevent cancer, calories and nutrients better spent on raising children and to some extent grandchildren. People got cancer back when the environment was pristine, they were just more likely to get eaten by the crocohippo first.

beached_whale 12y ago
Chrocohippo is the coolest cross bread I have heard in a while. Thank you
givan 12y ago
There is a max 10% genetic risk and also getting older makes the body more fragile for every illness not just cancer but the causes as outlined in wikipedia are 90% environmental.
- thomasmeeks 12y ago
  Environmental doesn't necessarily mean it is something we've done to the environment. Even if the world's environment were reverted to "untouched by humans" status, you can still get melanoma from too much sun exposure, and that would still be an "environmental" factor. Unhealthy eating (especially very salty/spicy/fermented foods), alcohol use, and so on also classify as environmental factors. But they are not caused by pollution or chemical-laden foods, merely bad life choices. Copious quantities of red meat isn't good, organic or no. I don't meant to imply our bad handling of the planet causes no cancer, it certainly does. But it does not cause anywhere close to 90% of cancer cases. Not by a long shot.
  - thedrifting 12y ago
    Just curious: Any evidence to support the claim that very spicy foods are "bad life choices"?
    - pmalynin 12y ago
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21487045 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21487045
      - djokkataja 12y ago
        It was a study done on mice, and it had nothing to do with ingestion of capsaicin: "These results might imply that caution should be exercised when using capsaicin-containing topical applications in the presence of a tumor promoter, such as, for example, sunlight." The wikipedia article on capsaicin links to this study as well as several others and indicates that capsaicin may have carcinogenic or anticarcinogenic properties based on several studies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capsaicin#Effects_of_dietary_consumption http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capsaicin#Effects_of_dietary_co... You probably shouldn't be all that concerned about eating spicy food... on the other hand, if you don't smoke, you eat well, and you aren't obese, you're roughly 55-65% less likely to die of cancer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer#Causes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer#Causes
  - vostrocity 12y ago
    I believe that's what OP was referring to, considering his link. No one was presuming environment meant the conditions of the natural world. The point stands. How many people consciously make an effort to prevent cancer in every aspect possible? On a personal level as much as a societal level, we're doing little to address the preventable causes of cancer. Why are so many people making so many "bad life choices"?
tiglionabbit 12y ago
I have heard this argument a lot, and I've also heard there is data to refute it. I haven't looked up the references, but this is covered in several nutrition books I have read, including: The Diet Delusion by Gary Taubes, In Defense of Food by Michael Pollan, and The Perfect Health Diet by Paul Jaminet. The observation is always the same: Cancer is one of the "western diseases" that starts appearing in native populations when they are exposed to colonists. And it's not just because of longer lives: people start getting cancer at higher rates at earlier ages. Taubes blames the problem on insulin-like growth hormone that is secreted in response to high-carbohydrate foods, and creates an environment perfect for rapid cell growth. Pollan doesn't speculate on the cause, other than to say that there is something wrong with the western diet. Jaminet speculates that we will find more types of cancer are cause by infectious agents, since cell immortality and rapid reproduction is a perfect strategy for a virus and since we have found several so far: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infectious_causes_of_cancer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infectious_causes_of_cancer
- scott_s 12y ago
  I will second endersshadow's recommendation, and suggest that you read "The Emperor of all Maladies: A Biography of Cancer". The author talks about this subject, and the evidence he presents is that cancer has always been with us.
  - evanmoran 12y ago
    For those interested. This book won a Pulitzer in 2011 (http://www.pulitzer.org/works/2011-General-Nonfiction http://www.pulitzer.org/works/2011-General-Nonfiction). That's pretty strong evidence that it's well researched and worth checking out.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- Florin_Andrei 12y ago
  That's pseudo-science. Galen in 2nd century AD observed cancer, and used the term "oncos" to describe it. Celsus in 1st century AD did the same, and used the term "cancer" for the first time. Hippocrates in 4th century BC described several different types of cancer and called them, generically, "carcinos" ("crab" in Greek). Egyptian texts from at least 1600 BC, with some going back to 3000 BC, describe different cases of cancer, noting with regret: "there is no treatment". Dinosaurs, 65 million years ago and more, suffered from various types of cancer such as hemangioma, desmoplastic fibroma, and osteoblastoma. Cancer is, has been, and always will be the evil shadow of all multicellular life. Please, don't take your medical and scientific information from a "liberal foodie intellectual" with a B.A. in English (not that there's anything wrong with any of these attributes in particular, they're just not qualifications to talk competently about cancer). http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancerbasics/thehistoryofcancer/the-history-of-cancer-what-is-cancer http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancerbasics/thehistoryofcancer... http://web.archive.org/web/20110716111312/http://www.cancerdecisions.com/speeches/galen1989.html http://web.archive.org/web/20110716111312/http://www.cancerd... http://www.bordet.be/en/presentation/history/cancer_e/cancer1.htm http://www.bordet.be/en/presentation/history/cancer_e/cancer... http://www.academia.edu/227680/Epidemiologic_study_of_tumors_in_dinosaurs http://www.academia.edu/227680/Epidemiologic_study_of_tumors... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3003131/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3003131/

hkmurakami 12y ago

The root cause is our biology. Thus the longer we live, the more likely it is that we will run into this horrible disease.

christkv 12y ago
Interestingly enough the longer you live the less likely the cancer is to kill you as the cancer cells originate from "old" cells and have degraded ability to divide. If you are 90 years old and get cancer it's unlikely it will kill you before you die of natural causes.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

gfodor 12y ago

False dilemma, big time.

endersshadow 12y ago

You need to read The Emperor of All Maladies[1]. If you think cancer is just an effect of our environment, you are wildly, disasterously, and disappointingly misinformed. [1]: http://www.amazon.com/Emperor-All-Maladies-Biography-Cancer/dp/1439170916 http://www.amazon.com/Emperor-All-Maladies-Biography-Cancer/...

vostrocity 12y ago
I have not read that book, but I will throw this in for the sake of counterargument. That said, I don't believe anyone is saying cancer is "just" an effect of environment. "Cancer is caused by both internal factors (such as inherited mutations, hormones, and immune conditions) and environmental/acquired factors (such as tobacco, diet, radiation, and infectious organisms). The link between diet and cancer is revealed by the large variation in rates of specific cancers in various countries and by the observed changes in the incidence of cancer in migrating. For example, Asians have been shown to have a 25 times lower incidence of prostate cancer and a ten times lower incidence of breast cancer than do residents of Western countries, and the rates for these cancers increase substantially after Asians migrate to the West." [1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2515569/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2515569/