Right now im reading a book called "Living Downstream". It basically gives evidence that most cancers can be linked to environmetal conditions around us, specifically chemicals that we are exposed to everyday. It also makes the case that cancer is a slow moving epidemic that is just beginning to pick up steam.For me it has been pretty convincing, just consider a few of these snippets:The WHO estimates that 80% of cancers are attributal to environmetal factorsNearly every living organism has detectable levels of dioxin (usually a chemical formed after other industrial chemicals break down) in its cells (its also suspected of being a carcinogen)Many case studies of communities that were highly exposed to chemicals or pesticides and display outrageous cancer rates"Living downstream" was a good read, and probably most importantly was always quick to point out what hasnt been proven. Another book I hope to read soon is "poisoned for profits" I think its probably a similar book except a little more provacative on placing blame. Just for fun and to add a different perspective here is the FOX news rebuttal (Note: its on the Opinion page)http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,399582,00.htmlI just wanted to hear some others thoughts on some of the following:-Science may never be able to prove a 100% connection with cancer and some chemicals in humans. There are just so many variables to account for when trying to account for environmental factors. So how much evidence is needed before we act to outlaw those chemicals suspected of being carcinogens? THe actual agent that causes cancer in cigarettes wasnt identified until sometime in the 90s, but precautions were taken (smoking, non-smoking sections in restaraunts, dont smoke around babies, etc) many years before. -Who should be held responsible if it is found that our risk of cancer has been greatly increased by industry releasing chemicals into the environment?In a Capitalist or libertarian society I would think you hold the companies responsible. After all they were the ones that marketed and released the chemicals, they should have made sure they were safe. At the same time you may never be able to prove in court (beyond a shadow of a doubt) that the link between the chemical and cancer exists. How would you achieve justice in this type system?In our current economic/social system its an obvious failure by regulators. How could they allow a company to release these chemicals into the environment or sale them where they may be misused. Ive read a little on the EPA recently and they have obviously been underfunded for the job at hand (not to mention the Clean Water Act has been neutered over the years). Regulatory capture by industry and lobbying that often takes place to push chemicals to be deemed safe may have played an important role as well.-Should we start applying what we have learned (that industrial chemicals may cause cancer) and apply it to other new technologies that are coming out. For instance GMOs, new vaccines, and new chemicals. Should we prove that the new technology is safe and sustainable to use before allowing it to be sold?Disclaimer: No, I dont think all chemicals are harmful or cause cancer. I dont think we should just outlaw all chemicals b/c "what if . . .. ". But the ones suspected of being a carcinogen should be much more controlled than they are.Disclaimer II: Im also not so naive that I think we will ever be able to reduce our exposure to some of these chemicals to zero.just to bring it a little closer to home environment america ranked NC as 9th in the country for toxic releases to its rivers and 1st for cancer causing chemicals released http://www.environmentamerica.org/uploads/e6/53/e6534339a34197ea1c06a80f2b2db277/Wasting-Our-Waterways-vAM.pdf[Edited on November 6, 2009 at 11:20 AM. Reason : disclaimers]
11/6/2009 11:13:10 AM
This is why I call myself an environmentalist while opposing carbon taxation.
11/6/2009 11:18:31 AM
11/6/2009 11:25:17 AM
^can you talk a little more about what you mean by "proved deterministically"^^same hereI personally think this aspect of the "environmental movement" is severly overlooked. Its sad to me that when you mention saving the environment most people immediately go ZOMG CLIMATE CHANGE. Which depending on how they feel about climate change polarizes their entire attitude toward environmentalism.[Edited on November 6, 2009 at 11:26 AM. Reason : arrows]I think another question Id pose is why most cancer research is targeted to curing cancer rather than its causes and how to prevent it.[Edited on November 6, 2009 at 11:29 AM. Reason : .][Edited on November 6, 2009 at 11:39 AM. Reason : ..]
11/6/2009 11:25:57 AM
I'm getting ready to board a plane so this will be quick for now:Many hazards have stochastic effects, i.e. exposure to the hazard doesn't guarantee you will suffer an ill effect, it only increases your chances of suffering an ill effect. With cigarettes--some people smoke 2 packs a day for their entire life and live to 90-something, whereas others smoke occasionally for 2 or 3 years and get throat cancer. Outliers, but they exist.When most people speak of being safe, they're looking for an absolute, deterministic answer: safe means no ill effects regardless of the length and type of exposure.
11/6/2009 11:49:33 AM
Cancer has always been with us. The vast majority of exposures to carcinogens are the natural kind, since no one feels like outlawing natural killers, and the artificial chemicals which have been proven to cause cancer are usually abandoned.
11/6/2009 12:06:36 PM
^I disagreeI've never heard of those natural pesticides being linked to cancer. Are you telling me that if I eat:
11/6/2009 1:58:15 PM
11/6/2009 2:14:49 PM
That quote was the first result in google of "natural carcinogen"The point is that carcinogens are pervasive on planet Earth. The perfectly natural dust you inhale has been shown to cause lung cancer. Yes, the fruits listed do cause cancer in rats, but the effect is not huge. You are far more likely to get skin cancer from a day at the beach than drinking orange juice with your breakfast. But you are also far more likely to get cancer from your orange juice than from the minute quantities of artificial pesticide you may be consuming. Or so I assume, since the effect is large enough with orange juice to prove but not large enough to prove for many artificial chemicals. And we should expect cancer occurrences to be increasing. People are living longer so far more of them make it to the end of that 35 to 64 range, therefore giving them the chance of having cancer. Also, far more fresh fruit with its natural carcinogens is consumed today (bread, it seems, is not-cancer inducing). And remember, some of your statistics are reporting the incidence of cancer, which is irrelevant, as there are far more people living in America in 1991 (252 million) than 1950 (152 million). About 66% more. As such, a 49.3% increase in incidence is actually a fall in per-capita incidence. http://www.npg.org/facts/us_historical_pops.htm[Edited on November 6, 2009 at 2:27 PM. Reason : .,.]
11/6/2009 2:17:58 PM
^^^ You don't happen to have the link to the article those graphs came from do you?
11/6/2009 2:19:48 PM
11/6/2009 2:29:53 PM
moron, google image search. http://vaperforms.virginia.gov/indicators/healthFamily/cancer.php
11/6/2009 2:33:22 PM
11/6/2009 2:46:01 PM
So, now that we are all on the same factual page, I shall give my opinion. We are doing plenty and in some cases too much and in some cases too little to curtail carcinogens. Natural sources get a completely free pass while unnatural sources are handled in a manner closer to persecution than rational risk aversion. However, even if everyone always acted as I would want them to, cancer will still be a common occurrence. Therefore, the only behavior that is guaranteed to pay off is making cancer 100% survivable, which is possible, it is just a matter of time and effort.
11/6/2009 3:20:43 PM
It doesn't follow that we can add more synthetic carcinogens because natural ones exist. Natural carcinogens are unavoidable; a non-issue.
11/6/2009 3:45:34 PM
11/6/2009 8:26:37 PM
umm ok life expectancies are increasing (until obamacare kicks in), so who the F cares. If we get a few chemicals in our food now - just think of the hunger and other serious issues they are mitigating? throwing the baby out with the bathwater is always the knee-jerk liberal bleeding heart response, but never works.
11/6/2009 8:32:27 PM
I'd be all for letting the hypercapitalists have their way and pollute as much as they wish at the detriment to humans in the name of profit as long as it didn't entail dragging down all other lifeforms with it.
11/6/2009 8:48:24 PM
It's no secret the rise in cancer is related to human perversion of the environment.We should limit the amount of bullshit we expose ourselves too. Big Business will suffer a bit.But, like LoneSnark said, we should also seek to "cure" cancer and other illnesses (autism?)...and what do you know, we've identified yet another place where business folks can make dat paper!Everybody wins! I mean, everybody wins in the long run...short run, some folks are gonna die...it could be you or me...In the meantime, stay abreast of the studies, folks. Protect yourself and don't rely on the government to keep you safe. I've got a nerd friend who does this for me so I'm straightish![Edited on November 6, 2009 at 9:23 PM. Reason : straightish, cause come on, shit's all over the place.]
11/6/2009 9:21:27 PM
11/7/2009 11:11:36 AM
11/7/2009 11:58:59 AM
^That's the overall theme of all do nothing anti-environmentalists. Hell, listen to any one of them talk about global warming.
11/7/2009 12:15:38 PM
yes, because a made-up bogeyman is entirely comparable to this situation
11/7/2009 4:57:25 PM
11/7/2009 5:18:50 PM
^^Of course I didn't read the thread.^Nope, not stupid.And I never said anything about Big Business and medicine not looking out for our best interests. I mean, we can discuss that if you'd like though.Why don't y'all be more specific in your criticisms? Cause I didn't think I said anything that would be a problem.
11/7/2009 6:35:04 PM
no. it's just that what you said has already been refuted in this thread. that's why we are saying you are an idiot. You didn't read the thread, even though it's not very long, and then you came in and basically posted the same thing as the original post, which has already been trashed
11/7/2009 6:57:58 PM
What has already been refuted?My assertion that the rise in cancer is related to pollution and whatnot?I just reskimmed the thread, and I don't see anything refuting that assertion.
11/7/2009 7:22:33 PM
yes. that assertion has, at the very least, been questioned. do more than skim. READ. it's fundamental, you know.people have said that the apparent increase in cancer rates is more likely due to the decrease in deaths from other causes. In other words, if you live long enough, you will probably get cancer. Period. Whether there is asbestos or radiation around or not.]
11/7/2009 7:29:12 PM
^I'm familiar with the idea that people eventually get cancer as they age.But it's already been pointed out in this thread that cancer rates are rising in children and young people.Apparently, my skimming is better than your reading.
11/7/2009 7:31:31 PM
only because people aren't dying of OTHER STUFF. again, read the thread.
11/7/2009 7:37:09 PM
So because children use car seats and have a decreased risk of death in a car accident, they're getting cancer now instead? AHAHAHANobody has refuted the thread's general point that cancer is related to the environment. In fact, most people seem to agree. They disagree on how severe the problem is and how to solve it.You are retarded.
11/7/2009 7:48:27 PM
If you live long enough, you will get cancer. (even if you live in a bubble)
11/7/2009 7:59:37 PM
no, you are retarded for not reading and just posting the same thing that has already been obliterated
11/7/2009 8:05:57 PM
An increase in childhood cancer rates would, indeed, show that in at least some categories we're being exposed to more cancer causing stuff now than before. While I remember people making that point, I don't ever remember it being substantiated. Are cancer rates in children rising?
11/7/2009 9:02:36 PM
Childhood cancer rates (in this graph ages <20) increasingCancer rates for next age group also increasingI think finding reliable data that goes all the way back to WW2 will be difficult. I used childhood cancer and the next age group to reduce any effects that increased life expectancy might have.Both graphs taken from http://seer.cancer.gov/faststats/Concerning Dr. Bruce Ames:After reading this weekend he is a legitimate scientist and has been doing groundbreaking research on cancer for many years. He invented the Ames test, a test for chemicals that determines the chemicals ability to damage DNA. The test came about when he had concerns that high dose rat studies were not very accurate. I can get on board with that, he cites differences in physiology, life span, etc that make extrapolating rat tests to humans inaccurate.He uses the Ames test to test different chemicals and finds that many natural chemicals are just as likely to cause cancer as synthetic ones. He says that humans intake several times more natural chemicals on a daily basis than synthetic ones. However, the Ames test does not take into account several properties of synthetic chemicals and I have yet to see him address them. First, Bioaccumulation and persistance. Many synthetic chemicals are designed specifically to not degrade over long periods of time. They remain in the tissues of animals, sometimes for the entire lifespan. Second, endocrine disruption. Many synthetic chemicals released into the environment are endocrine disruptors which can wreak havoc on hormones and immune response in humans, both of which can contribute to cancer.I appreciate Dr. Ames work but totally dismissing the millions of pounds of synthetic chemicals released into our environment everyday is a mistake.[Edited on November 9, 2009 at 12:14 PM. Reason : picture fail]
11/9/2009 12:12:52 PM
11/9/2009 2:19:52 PM
effects of nuclear testing....http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/11/kazakhstans_radioactive_legacy.html
11/10/2009 1:52:09 AM
And by that you mean birth defects that have an unverified connection to Soviet nuclear weapons testing.
11/10/2009 8:08:55 AM
That said, I'm sure mrfrog is similarly against above-ground nuclear testing. That is why God made underground caverns, for nuclear testing. Just that if he were sitting on a jury he would vote for the defense because birth defects happen and there is no way to get causation in such a case.
11/10/2009 10:03:52 AM
Are you saying that somehow the deformities would be less meaningful to you if they were caused by chemical pollution from the Soviet Union or one of the baggilion other things that government screwed up their country with?
11/10/2009 10:37:28 AM
Comparing negative aspects of nuclear testing, development, etc in the former Soviet Union to any other nation is pretty laughable. Their disregard for safety protocols and human life are a slight against humanity.
11/10/2009 12:52:29 PM
12/8/2009 10:45:52 AM
^Good news!I'm not sure it matters to this thread. I wonder if they included the rate of incidence not including tobacco related cancers, tobacco use has declined since the 70s - Its crazy to think we may just now be seeing the declines in incidence.http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/tables/economics/consumption/index.htm
12/8/2009 3:21:50 PM