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 factors

Nearly 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.html

I 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

Quote :

"Should we prove that the new technology is safe and sustainable to use before allowing it to be sold?"

People can and do argue for years over exactly what 'prove [...] safe' means.

Proving something safe is often posed as proving a negative.

Things with stochastic effects (i.e. carcinogens) are often treated deterministically.

11/6/2009 11:25:17 AM

^can you talk a little more about what you mean by "proved deterministically"


^^same here

I 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.

Quote :

"Bruce N. Ames of the University of California, Berkeley, has studied natural pesticides produced by all plants to ward off insects, fungi, and other predators. In a recent letter to Science (244:755- 7, May 19, 1989), Ames points out that we ingest about 10,000 times more natural pesticides, by weight, than synthetic pesticides. Of the 42 plant toxins so far tested on laboratory animals, 20 have been shown to be carcinogens, Ames notes. Among the foods containing natural pesticides that cause cancer in rats or mice, he says, are: anise, apples, bananas, basil, broccoli, brussels sprouts, cabbage, cantaloupe, carrots, cauliflower, celery, cinnamon, cloves, cocoa, grapefruit juice, honey-dew melon, horseradish, kale, mushrooms, mustard, nutmeg, orange juice, parsley, parsnips, peaches, pineapples, radishes, tarragon, and turnips"

Keep some perspective. The reason we invest more in curing cancer than preventing it is because the vast majority of cancer cases are a result of living on planet Earth. Some cancer cases have no cause whatsoever, being the result of genetic abnormalities the individuals were born with.

As such, no, while it is true mankind has probably added to the carcinogen density of the planet, this addition pales in comparison to what was already here. Which is why I am thankful that modern science has rendered cancer a survivable disease.

11/6/2009 12:06:36 PM

^I disagree

I've never heard of those natural pesticides being linked to cancer. Are you telling me that if I eat:

Quote :

"anise, apples, bananas, basil, broccoli, brussels sprouts, cabbage, cantaloupe, carrots, cauliflower, celery, cinnamon, cloves, cocoa, grapefruit juice, honey-dew melon, horseradish, kale, mushrooms, mustard, nutmeg, orange juice, parsley, parsnips, peaches, pineapples, radishes, tarragon, and turnips""

everyday for the rest of my life I am significantly increasing the probability I will get cancer? I know you posted evidence (link?) but I just dont believe that for a second. In fact, Id probably believe the opposite. Some of those, Im pretty sure, contain antioxidants.

"natural pesticides" also don't explain the increase in cancer rates since WW2. If they were a signifcant factor in cancer wouldn't you expect the cancer rate to stay roughly constant (assuming people still consume the same amounts of those products)

Quote :

"and the artificial chemicals which have been proven to cause cancer are usually abandoned. "

Some have (PCBs, etc) Others are still on the market but are tightly controlled with specific directions for exposure and using (I dont necessarily have a problem with this). Still others have never even been examined as to their link to cancer, or a strong enough link hasnt been established so they are still in use. They may even be legally disposed of in rivers as a waste stream as long as their concentration in the water doesn't surpass a threshold. A subsidy to chemical companies in my opinion.


Your graphs show Cancer DEATH rates. Trully, thank god they are falling. I think improved cancer care, better technology for removing tumors, and earlier detection probably all play a role in that decline. While death rates are falling the rate of people actually contracting cancer is increasing. some quotes from the book:

Quote :

"In 1950, 25 percent of adults in the U.S. could expect to get cancer during their lifetimes; today about 40 percent of us (38.3 percent of women, 48.2 percent of men) can expect to get cancer. Omitting lung cancer from the statistics, the incidence (occurrence) of cancer increased 35% in the U.S. between 1950 and 1991. If we include lung cancers, then cancer incidence increased 49.3% between 1950 and 1991."

Quote :

"Viewing the same phenomenon from another vantage point: white women born in the U.S. in the 1940s have experienced 30 percent more non-smoking-related cancers than did women of their grandmothers' generation (women born between 1888 and 1897). Among men, the differences are even sharper. White men born in the 1940s have more than twice as much non-tobacco-related cancer as their grandfathers did at the same age."

Quote :

"In the U.S. today, in the age group 35 to 64, cancer is the number one killer"

11/6/2009 1:58:15 PM

Quote :

""natural pesticides" also don't explain the increase in cancer rates since WW2."

Life expectancy may have something to do with that one. Eliminate other causes of death and cancer begins to prevail. Or rather, as people live longer, the probability of eventually developing some form of cancer increases.

That being said, there's something important to be said about how we attribute "cancer-causing" to environmental agents. That is, for one, we are already assuming a model - i.e., linear non-threshold, which assumes that the probability of cancers increases linearly from zero dose. This may or may not be true in all circumstances (i.e., "the dose makes the poison.") We assume the stochastic risk grows directly in proportion to the concentration of a chemical in the environment, but this may or may not be true. There are several other possibilities: a logarithmic rise and "saturation" (i.e., risk eventually plateaus out with exposure), exponential dependence, or even others (such as a hormesis effect, etc.)

It's not easy to directly qualify risks like this because they're inherently stochastic in nature (rather than deterministic). It's not as simply as knowing whether Chemical X "causes" cancer, because it's not a deterministic outcome. Not everyone will manifest cancer given the same exposure. The best we can do right now is to quantify risk - which we try to do currently, and balance risk against other factors, like economic need. Sometimes, we just can't get around using chemicals associated with cancer risk - it's not feasible. At the very least, though, we can quantify that risk and set a maximum allowable exposure.

Who bears that risk and how they are informed/compensated is a whole other debate, and one certainly worth having. Because right now, the answer is they simply aren't; we assume if the risk is under a provided threshold, that everything is hunky dory and no further action is required.

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

Quote :

""natural pesticides" also don't explain the increase in cancer rates since WW2. If they were a signifcant factor in cancer wouldn't you expect the cancer rate to stay roughly constant (assuming people still consume the same amounts of those products)"

Quote :

"Life expectancy may have something to do with that one. Eliminate other causes of death and cancer begins to prevail. Or rather, as people live longer, the probability of eventually developing some form of cancer increases."

Smoking is the reason cancer rates increased. See the graphs above, consider smoking rates through history, then factor in a 30 year latency period. All of a sudden, all of the increase can be fully accounted for.

Adjusted for smoking, cancer rates have fallen since WWII. This is in spite of increasing life spans and obesity rates. Why? Because we are being exposed to less not more cancer causing stuff. Rethink the comparison to pre-WWII. They didn't have the knowledge we do. And this is the culture that had women licking Radium paint b/c it glowed.

Metals and chemicals production in the early 20th century was no laughing matter either. There's nothing today that compares to the cocktail of substances that low wage workers were exposed to at that time (China tries though).

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

Quote :

"Life expectancy may have something to do with that one. Eliminate other causes of death and cancer begins to prevail. Or rather, as people live longer, the probability of eventually developing some form of cancer increases."

Agreed and that is also one of the variables that makes Cancer trends hard to detect. This shouldnt play a role when looking at age blocks though. For instance, The rate of cancer has increased for children, those age 18-25, those age 35-45 etc. When reducing the scope down to a specific age group, you reduce or eliminate the effect of life expectancy.

Quote :

"There are several other possibilities: a logarithmic rise and "saturation" (i.e., risk eventually plateaus out with exposure), exponential dependence, or even others (such as a hormesis effect, etc.) "

Good point, there is certainly still a lot we have to learn.

Quote :

"Who bears that risk and how they are informed/compensated is a whole other debate, and one certainly worth having. Because right now, the answer is they simply aren't; we assume if the risk is under a provided threshold, that everything is hunky dory and no further action is required."

Totally agree. Ive only read a small amount on how the safe thresholds of chemicals are established, they can def. be suspect. Hazard pay for working with known carcinogens should definitely be a consideration for any worker.

Quote :

"The point is that carcinogens are pervasive on planet Earth."

So I googled Dr. Ames and the guy is pretty legit. As far as I can tell he is a pretty well thought of cancer/aging scientist, he attributes cancers due to industrial chemicals to a much lower % than what I had previously seen. And I agree with you that their are many things naturally occurring on earth that cause cancer. Im still not fully convinced that exposure to everyday and industrial chemicals isn't a major factor in cancer and is currently increasing the rates of cancer; Im going to need to spend some more time reading and considering what he has to say.

Quote :

"And we should expect cancer occurrences to be increasing."

Those percentages were adjusted for population growth. I thought "Living Downstream" was pretty painstaking about trying to adjust its statistics to represent "the truth" of what they thought was happening. It dedicated several pages to how the statistics were developed and even how the data was originally obtained.

^Moron, They were also adjusted for smoking. Lung, throat, and mouth cancers (and other cancers linked to smoking) were removed from the data set. Thus the quote I posted earlier from the book that gave the increase of 30% in cancers not related to tobacco use. According to the book, cancer since WW-II has not declined, I can post more on this when I get home and can take actual excerpts from the book.
I also agree with you that a large population of workers in the early part of this century were exposed to some really nasty stuff. During the same time period there was a huge population of rural families that were exposed to very few chemicals. Making the cancer rate lower for that time period. Today, we are all exposed to these chemicals. There are remnants on and in so many different things we consume, but at much lower concentrations than what they experienced. Since many of these chemicals bioaccumulate in your system the result is a very slow buildup in concentration (I doubt a normal person ever reaches the industrial worker's levels though)



[Edited on November 6, 2009 at 2:49 PM. Reason : smoking adjustment]

[Edited on November 6, 2009 at 3:00 PM. Reason : .]

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

Quote :

"It doesn't follow that we can add more synthetic carcinogens because natural ones exist. Natural carcinogens are unavoidable; a non-issue."

That's dead wrong. Look up information about Radon. There's a lot that we can do, and there's a lot that we have done to reduce natural carcinogens. One campaign that you know of is reduction to UV rays from the sun to reduce the risk of skin cancer.

Quote :

"Natural sources get a completely free pass while unnatural sources are handled in a manner closer to persecution than rational risk aversion."

Again, natural sources don't always get a free pass. That said, many sources do get a free pass, I generally agree, much more is being done for artificial sources per effectiveness versus natural. The most efficient system, I imagine, would be a system like carbon credits where a factory could spend less money, reduce a natural source, and save more lives than making a change to their business.

Quote :

"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."

I'm not holding my breath for cancer being cured. We'll sooner create artificial life (but we will).

I leave you with this comic.



[Edited on November 6, 2009 at 8:27 PM. Reason : ]

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

Quote :

"As such, no, while it is true mankind has probably added to the carcinogen density of the planet, this addition pales in comparison to what was already here."

You think our bodies treat natural pesticides and artificial pesticides the same? Really? When one has been around for decades and the other millions of years? Really?

Quote :

"Among the foods containing natural pesticides that cause cancer in rats or mice, he says, are: anise, apples, bananas, basil, broccoli, brussels sprouts, cabbage, cantaloupe, carrots, cauliflower, celery, cinnamon, cloves, cocoa, grapefruit juice, honey-dew melon, horseradish, kale, mushrooms, mustard, nutmeg, orange juice, parsley, parsnips, peaches, pineapples, radishes, tarragon, and turnips"

This study sounds like bullshit.

Either rats and mice naturally eat those foods, in which case... how the fuck did they find out that they are cancer causing? What did they compare it to in a control group? Did they starve the other rats indefinitely?

OR rats and mice don't eat those foods in the wild (either because they are unable or unwilling), in which case it's fucking irrelevant.

[Edited on November 7, 2009 at 11:12 AM. Reason : asdf]

11/7/2009 11:11:36 AM

Quote :

"That's dead wrong. Look up information about Radon. There's a lot that we can do, and there's a lot that we have done to reduce natural carcinogens. One campaign that you know of is reduction to UV rays from the sun to reduce the risk of skin cancer."

In any case, the point I was making was this: the existence of unavoidable risks does not justify taking avoidable risks. There seemed to be an attitude in this thread along the lines of "There are so many horrible carcinogens occurring naturally, thus why bother strictly policing synthetic carcinogens?".

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

Quote :

"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!"

it;'s like you didn't even read the thread

11/7/2009 4:57:25 PM

Quote :

"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! "

it's amazing how much stupidity can be packed into one post.

instead of being killed off by smallpox, polio, diabetus, and all the other things that did us in a hundred years ago, we now live about twice as long and die because medicine and big business aren't look out for our best interests?

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? AHAHAHA

Nobody 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?

Quote :

"In any case, the point I was making was this: the existence of unavoidable risks does not justify taking avoidable risks. There seemed to be an attitude in this thread along the lines of "There are so many horrible carcinogens occurring naturally, thus why bother strictly policing synthetic carcinogens?"."

I agree with you, but if you're not careful about specificity then you may end up continuously addressing a straw man and look like a rabid deaf environmentalist.

While we can always make first level claims about risk reduction (we must be vigilant regarding natural sources, we must continue to improve industrial business practices), the matter of the trade offs remains as the real difficult question that draws upon social justice concepts in addition to simple responsibility.

Ok, so let's say that we've done everything responsible to limit cancer deaths in both categories, but a trend remains that we would like to improve. So tell me - where do you cut the fat when the largest gains are politically the most difficult?



Nobody would ever argue to reduce policing of synthetic carcinogens. But what if I oppose the increase in policing of synthetic carcinogens? Why should a nuclear plant spend several million $ to reduce effluents to a new (and ever arbitrary) lower level set by the regulatory agency when several thousand $ in better (more hi-tech) X-ray equipment can save 100 times the number of people. Again, I'm introducing a discussion about the marginal dollar invested and the marginal life saved.

For a very telling example, consider this: The modern Radon scare was set off by a worker at none other than Limerick Nuclear Power Plant. Why? Because that was the only place with detectors that could find his increase in radioactivity due to natural sources in his home. Now tell me this - in light of such an event, don't you think we've done all that should be necessary to reduce the risk of cancer due to man made radiation for this particular source?

11/7/2009 9:02:36 PM

Childhood cancer rates (in this graph ages <20) increasing




Cancer rates for next age group also increasing




I 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

Quote :

"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."

This is a very good critique of that report. I will add - the obvious fact is that humans live longer that most animals. We are really rather unique large animals, all things considered, and like sea turtles we are likely more fragile than most critters. Our merit is in our big brain, not our physical resilience.

I must inject, however, that I find the increase in recorded cancer rates to be dubiously connected to actually increasing cancer rates. I consider the fact that health care spending per capita has about tripped since 1975, and then think "what should be the adjustment for a greater rate of detection"? I imagine it should be significant.

Plus, chemicals are only one part of the story, you have
- Greater rate of detection
- Lifestyle/risk factors
- Chemical and radiological changes affecting risk factor

It seems to me that the 3rd point should be the least significant in accounting for that increasing rate of cancers in non-old people.

Quote :

"About one third of the cancer deaths expected every year are related to nutrition, overweight or obesity, and physical inactivity, and thus could also be prevented. We know that our diet, (what we eat) is linked to some types of cancer, but the exact reasons are not yet clear. The best advice is to eat a lot of fresh fruits and vegetables, whole grains like pasta and bread, and limit foods high in saturated fat, like high-fat dairy products, processed meats (like bacon, hot dogs, and luncheon meats), and red meats. It is also important to get to and stay at a healthy weight and get at least 30 to 45 minutes of physical activity on at least 5 days per week. You can get more information on this in our document, American Cancer Society Guidelines on Nutrition and Physical Activity for Cancer Prevention. "

You probably guessed this argument, but I need to say it - obesity rates skyrocketed since 1975. Alcohol consumption rates... possibly the same. Fraction of diet as meat consumption has almost undoubtedly been increasing. Use of livestock antibiotics and chemicals has certainly been increasing, and I find that trend concerning. However, I think that cattle antibiotics mostly causes health problem problems other than cancer. All of these do tip the needle.

Are synthetic chemicals more hazardous than natural chemicals?

I would expect yes.

Are we being exposed to more synthetic chemicals today than before - and enough to cause a notably higher incidence of cancer?

It would not appear so.

The final thing I'll critique is the delivery of said chemicals. While there are a lot of chemicals being dumped one way or the other, those don't necessarily reach people to cause damage. Epically considering our large urban population. I suspect that consumer products are more significant. The ever-increasing use of plastics stands to possibly show a cancer connection at some time in the future (possibly not of course). By that measure, I believe that consumer product safety is likely a greater determiner of future cancer rates than environmental management. But lifestyle probably dwarfs both of those.

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

Quote :

"The rate of new cancer diagnoses fell by slightly less than 1% a year from 1999 to 2006, and the death rate fell by 1.6% a year, says the report from the American Cancer Society, the National Cancer Institute, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-12-08-cancer08_st_N.htm

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