Slashdot Mirror

Lead does not cause cancer.

Well, the American Cancer Society says the evidence disagrees with your point of view. http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_1_3X_Lead.asp?sitearea=PED

Perhaps you should stop talking out of your ass - especially when you are responding to a guy who is expressing a reasonable response to an unreasonable suggestion: that people deserve the cancer's they get because they haven't been forgiving enough.

Moreover even if lead doesn't cause cancer, its still an extremely toxic agent. Saying 'well it doesn't cause cancer' is the equivalent of saying Mussolini made the trains run on time.

"Giving up" on doing a study showing a particular result means hiding results that don't agree with your hypothesis. You can't give up on something unless you've tried.

Here's one from 2003.

A report from 1998.

Some more from the 1990's.

And a Stanford professor on industry FUD in the 50s to 70s. (unfortunately light on details, it's a press release).

It's hard to find the papers from that long ago. I will amend my post though: the tobacco industry is STILL doing their best to pervert science to show results favourable to themselves.

• Between 1975 and 1990, the death rate for all races combined increased by 0.4% annually;
• Between 1990 and 2002, the death rate decreased by 2.3% annually.

• Birth to age 39: 1 in 228
• Age 40 to 59: 1 in 24
• Age 60 to 79: 1 in 14

• Birth to age 39: 1 in 19,299
• Age 40 to 59: 1 in 45
• Age 60 to 79: 1 in 7

Yes, privacy is very important -- unless you are dead, that is.

Well, when I'm dead I'll stop worrying about my privacy. Note I didn't say "IF" I die. The fact of the matter is that you will die. And the odds aren't that bad you'll die tomorrow; my friend's mother just passed away the other night, from cancer. She was only a year older than me.

In this entire century, there were fewer than 3,000 deaths by terrorists on American soil. In 2005 (the most recent year with data) there were 16,692 Murders and nonnegligent manslaughters. Meanwhile, in 2005 (again the last year the gov has published data for, there were 39,189 motor vehicle crash fatalities - twice the number of homicides.

You are twice as likely to die from some nitwit in an SUV yakking on her cell phone while adjusting the volume on the stereo than to die from a murderer. And if you are indeed murdered, the most likely suspect is your spouse. Meanwhile, in Illinois alone, 62,010 people have died from cancer so far this year! (PDF). Stroke killed 275,000 people in 2002 and accounted for about 1 of 16 deaths in the United States. And fully half a million people die each year from heart attacks.

Your fear of terrorists and criminals is sadly misguided. The terrorists and criminals you should be afraid of are the ones who manufacture cigarettes and trans-fat based oils, and the criminal terrorists who sell you food cooked in this garbage. Unfortunately no amount of government power is going to stop THEM; they OWN the government.

You are a chump. You have been brainwashed. I feel very sorry for you and the millions of cowardly brainwashed fucktards like you who would willingly give up their privacy and freedom for an illusion of safety.

-mcgrew (the K5 articles are mine BTW)

This vaccination to treat brain tumors sounds similar to earlier research for treating skin cancer with vaccination.

I am a colon cancer patient myself, having been through surgery, radiation, immunotherapy, and three kinds of chemotherapy over the past three years. Last fall I was contacted by NIH about participating in a new trial to test customized vaccinations for metastatic colon cancer. The protocol is pretty scary. First they extract white cells from your blood stream. Second, they knock out your immune system with some nasty chemotherapy. Meanwhile in the lab they genetically modify the white cells to recognize your tumors. Finally, they reinject you with the modified cells to establish an immune system that will attack the cancer.

Ultimately I was rejected as a participant due to characteristics of my tumors. I was disappointed not to be able to receive a possibly miraculous treatment, but it was also a relief to avoid a nasty ordeal.

I am also watching with interest a different type of vaccination treatment. Researchers are vaccinating subjects against CEA, a common protein involved in colon cancer and other cancers. It's potentially much simpler, since the vaccination is against CEA in general rather than having to be customized for each patient.

AlpineR

A few more interesting tidbits:

-- At least 80% of women will have been infected by at least one strain of genital HPV by the time they reach 50 years of age.

-- Condoms are only about 70% effective at preventing HPV transmission

-- In 2007, approximately 11,150 cases of invasive cervical cancer will be diagnosed in the United States, and about 3,670 women will die from the disease. For comparison, seatbelts saved 13,274 lives in 2001 in the US.

-- Somewhere near 10% of people have had visible genital warts. These people may still be able to transmit the virus after the warts are gone.

-- HPV can be transmitted from a mother to her baby during birth, so it is even possible to get HPV from a virgin.

-- The HPV vaccine does not contain thimerosal/mercury.

A few more interesting tidbits:

-- At least 80% of women will have been infected by at least one strain of genital HPV by the time they reach 50 years of age.

-- Condoms are only about 70% effective at preventing HPV transmission

-- In 2007, approximately 11,150 cases of invasive cervical cancer will be diagnosed in the United States, and about 3,670 women will die from the disease. For comparison, seatbelts saved 13,274 lives in 2001 in the US.

-- Somewhere near 10% of people have had visible genital warts. These people may still be able to transmit the virus after the warts are gone.

-- HPV can be transmitted from a mother to baby during birth, so it is even possible to get HPV from a virgin.

-- The HPV vaccine does not contain thimerosal/mercury.

Reduces aids (this story is from the BBC, but the reference is from "Lancet."

Reduces chlamidia (Oxford Journal.)

So as a circumcised male are you comfortable fucking chicks that you know are HIV positive or whom have chlamydia? Hell no I suspect. Safe sex practices would seem to me to be more appealing then slicing off a functional part of your body.

From the AMA on Penile cancer (summary... only uncircumcised men get penile cancer):

It's interesting that you decided to quote the AMA twice to back up your case to failed to quote some other lines from this.

The AMA supports the general principles of the 1999 Circumcision Policy Statement of the American Academy of Pediatrics, which reads as follows: Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision.

I could also point out a quote from the ACS on the subject:

However, it is important that the issue of circumcision not distract men from avoiding known penile cancer risk factors -- poor hygiene, phimosis, having unprotected sex with multiple partners (increasing the likelihood of human papillomavirus infection), and cigarette smoking.

In weighing the risks and benefits of circumcision, doctors consider the fact that penile cancer is one of the least common forms of cancer in the United States. Neither the American Academy of Pediatrics nor the Canadian Academy of Pediatrics recommends routine circumcision of newborns. Ultimately, decisions about circumcision are highly personal and depend more on social and religious factors than on medical evidence.

And of course, circumcision prevents one from ever suffering from phimosis.

And the appendectomy prevents one from ever having appendicitis, yet I don't see newborns undergoing this procedure as a preventive measure.

As to function, as a circumcised male, I can assure you that full functionality is present, as is lots and lots of enjoyment. Anecdotal reports speak to an additional ability to control ejaculation, and to that I can only say I've never had a problem holding off until my partner's orgasm and then going with them; so for my part, if indeed this has anything at all to do with being circumcised, I consider it a huge positive. Functionally speaking, I'm one happy camper, as have been my partners. One thing I can definitively say is that the condition itself does not bring lack of function, or reduced function. No question about it.

As an uncircumcised male I can assure you that I have my fair share of enjoyment. I also couldn't help but notice how you said "anecdotal reports" and " if indeed this has...." I would make the claim that I've never had a problem lasting long enough to satisfy my partner. I also like how you can make the claim that it doesn't bring about reduced function. Were you cut as an adult? Did you have sex prior to being circumcised? If not then I highly doubt you are in a position to make that claim.

Well, in many ways I agree with that statement. However, if there is 100% certainty that a procedure results in lack of functionality, while providing no known benefits for the subject (benefits for others notwithstanding), then I think we have a human rights issue that transcends culture

The very first thing you learn in anthropology is not to judge other cultures by our standards. I don't see how you can reconcile your position on this issue while simultaneously saying that it's ok to slice up the penis of a newborn male for perceived health benefits. Isn't it for him t

Almost 4,000 Americans will die of cervical cancer this year, while 12,000 will be diagnosed. That's one cervical cancer death per every five automobile fatalities among women at present rates. I don't see you providing any opposing reason why parents should prevent such an easily avoidable possibility. The vaccine is administered at a young age to prevent a minority occurence of the disease, but again, who's enough of a bad person to gamble with this possibility for their daughter, as opposed to just having this vaccine as part of the normal immunization cycle? Who's deluded enough to think that denying this vaccine "sends a message" in any way that has a meaningful impact on their child's sexuality? "Well, Mikey, I'd love to have sex, but I never got the HPV vaccine?" Like you said, teen pregnancy is the biggest pitfall of teen sexuality, but if a teenager has decided to run that risk, I'll bet HPV doesn't even enter into the equation. And I'd hate to see the numbers of how many teenagers are even aware of its existence after a post-Health-class brain dump.

As for charges of "scare-mongering," you're way off. This isn't something to be scared about. The rate of cervical cancer has been steadily declining for some time now, at least among those with access to routine medical care, as a result of wider Pap smear testing. With the majority of parents unwilling to buy into baseless anti-vaccine hysteria, I'm sure we'll be seeing more mandatory vaccination laws across the country, and cervical cancer will decline much further. Frankly, I don't think a few crazies from the fundamentalist and/or anti-vaccine crowd are something to be "scared" about.

Insufficient profit margin? So the problem is that the pharmaceutical companies can't make enough money off of this unpatented drug, and the answer is to just hand them a patent?

This drug is already being produced and can be purchased at drug stores. The problem is not known to be effective for treating cancer in vivo or safe at the required doses . They haven't performed any clinical trials yet and someone needs to do this before doctors will prescribe this (except, perhaps, off-label in desperate cases). If the university or school is willing or able to scrape together the funds to pay for the testing (and possible refinement: dosing, delivery, etc) without ever having any real potential to recover their costs, then more power to them. This is quite unlikely to happen though.

If they can't do this in a reasonable amount of time though, then I'd suggest that it's appropriate that they patent and offer the drug company that does this work an exclusive license which they would need to economically justify the kinds of investment necessary to make this a viable treatment option (and, btw, there is a very good chance that this drug won't prove to be a good treatment option for actual patients: please read what an expert has to say.).

Aspirin isn't patented, but we still see companies making that.

You miss the point. While generic drug companies are very willing to produce a drug once it is known to safe and effective (and, especially, after someone else has created a large market demand for it), it takes lots of money to identify the targets, find/discover the compounds, and prove to be good viable treatment options (pay for multiple clinical trials and studies). BTW, Aspirin was patented in 1899, but its patent expired long ago.

If we're going to effectively take the free market out of the equation by handing out a patent for doing nothing, why NOT have the government do it?

The company would not be doing nothing, they'd be spending a tremendous amount of money (clinical trials, further refinement, etc) on something that has a very real chance of failure. You speak from an ivory tower point of view: as someone that has never had to deal with the realities of developing an actual medical product. Developing novel high-tech products is not a simple thing and it is precisely the sort of thing that government has proven to be woefully bad at (not to mention that it inevitable shifts all the costs on the most productive members of society which creates problems of its own).

Call me an idiot, but free information is preferable. Information is non-exclusive, it does not behave like normal property and the market is not able to handle exchange of non-exclusive goods efficiently.

Free lunch is preferable too, everything else being equal, but most people (even idiots) understand that it's not practical. Likewise, open access to intellectual property is not practical in most cases. What you fail to recognize is that most inventions do not come from random and unsolicited discovery, but from substantial concerted and targeted efforts whereby the inventors/innovators spend substantial resources months to years in advance with the hope of creating something desirable that will allow them to eventually cover their R&D costs and profit. If the actual implementation of the resulting product is made available at its marginal production cost by free-riding competitors, then the inventor will never be able to cover their R&D costs (not to mention that they'd have no incentive to take those risks in the first place).

Resources should be controlled and administered by small, local democratic organizations.

Err yeah, because this has worked so well in the past. You must be smoking the good stuff.

I have lost four family members to cancer, so I was curious. I went the the American Cancer society and found this post: http://www.cancer.org/aspx/blog/Comments.aspx?id=1 30 So what we have is a chemical that may be effective, or may actually give you liver cancer. Probably there will be clinical trial at some point even if there is not a lot of profit to be made. I suspect that this is part of a funding drive, but I am a cynical bastard.

I guess this page would quickly be the first to be subverted with that particular java applet.

Another poster in this thread already linked to information that breast cancer, in many cases, is caused by constrictive bras. I heard about the results a couple years ago, so it must be rather well-known by now.

Really? It seems to not be well known because it's unfounded. I know, I know, you'll find one or maybe two studies to the contrary... after the (doubtlessly) thousands of research projects into breast cancer a couple of studies does not note a trend.

Heart Disease is more common in the 3rd world, where they don't have big macs, french fries, bowls of ice cream, time to sit around on a coutch... or even couches in many cases.

That's odd, I was just over at the WHO and they seem to think differently than you. Check it out for yourself

While the US is in a decrease for heart disease deaths it probably has more to do with advancements in medicine more than lifestyle changes. If you want to further dispute this please, quote sources. It's becoming hard to take you seriously. And when I say sources I don't mean blogs or cranks, if you think your argument is so substantial than serious reputable organizations should back your point of view.

> What is wrong with forcing you to eat stuff you don't want to eat, *if you can't prove it is harmful?* [emphasis added]

As Carl Sagan pointed out, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Just because you have failed to find a health risk in a new, laboratory-produced substance does *not* mean you have conclusively proven the substance to be completely safe! Instead, it could mean:

- your testing procedure failed to include the proper conditions that would detect a health risk
- your testing "pool" of subjects lacks the size and/or variety to ensure a representative set of results for the general population, or
- your testing program has not been conducted long enough to detect health risks that do not manifest in the short term.

Then again, positive test results for health risks get downplayed or buried many times. Remember the introduction of Olestra, the fat-substitute food additive that was supposed to be the new diet-aiding wonder substance? Turns out it had an annoying little side effect: it caused vitamin depletion!--

http://www.annecollins.com/dietary-fat/olestra-fat -effects.htm

Later on, people discovered another unpleasant consequence of Olestra: it suppressed the body's absorbtion of anti-carcinogens!--

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/NWS/content/NWS_1_1x _Olestra_under_fire_again.asp

To top it all off, the FDA had prior knowledge that Olestra brought on unhealthy side effects, *yet granted approval for its sale on the food market*. Plus, of course, reports on these "unintended effects" failed to make the news until AFTER Olestra was already in products on the shelves. Don't you just love our ever-vigilant news media and industry watchdog agencies?

16432953 blood in stools 2006-05-11 20:53:34 http://www.cancer.org/

So the laptop project is the only way to "improve education and ultimately the quality of life"? Give me a break. There are plenty of other projects BMGF could fund to improve education other than the laptop one.

I'd also argue with saying that AIDS affects only a "statistically insignificant portion of humanity". Roughly one million sub-Saharan Africans died of AIDS last year (cite -- this site claims two million but we'll stick with one), out of a total population of around 650 million. That's 0.154% of the population. Compare that to the United States death rate due to cancer: 0.188% (565,000 deaths out of a population of 300 million). I'm sure you wouldn't say cancer affects a statistically insignificant portion of humanity.

Even when looking at the world population as a whole, it's not all that insignificant. The industrialized nations bring down the death rate. But since the laptop-for-everyone project specifically targets third-world nations, and most AIDS deaths occur in third-world nations, it's not entirely fair to take into account industrialized nations. This makes the disease that much more significant.

You mean this study? It seems to say tobacco smoke is a Class A carcinogen. Apparently, only 160,440 people in the USA died of lung cancer last year though. That means that 1.8% of all deaths from lung cancer are directly caused by second hand smoke. Then there are the 35,000 to 40,000 deaths per year from heart disease due to second-hand smoke. Of course, if you're willing to murder 3000 people per year for a habit, what's another few thousand?

What about survival rates?

A quick google turned up a study on cancer survival rates in America and Europe: http://www.cancer.org/docroot/NWS/content/NWS_1_1x _Study_Compares_U_S__and_European_Survival_Rates.a sp

Here's an article on cancer survival in the UK: (google cache): http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:VZmy8v8wLdMJ:w ww.ntrac.org.uk/About/QA.aspx&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk& cd=11 (claiming that UK survival is on the average less than America or European)

BBC article on survival rates http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/546846.stm

For those that don't want to read--much higher survival rates in the US for most cancers (gastric cancer being a difference). No, it's not US and UK, so not directly comparable, but an interesting study nonetheless, especially for the countless posters coming out of the woodworks declaring the infinite superiority of socialized healthcare (though I still fail to see how socialized healthcare systems in and of themselves prevent cancer and diabetes..)

My point in posting this ISN'T to cast doubt on the article's study, or to deny that Americans are pretty damn unhealthy (we too often are). It's merely to respond to the people who seem to to place a great deal of their mental energy on the existence of government institutions, and when these institutions are absent blame all ills on their absence.

On the other hand, maybe you're an idiot. Let's listen to the American Cancer Society instead of the professional crazies of the month club.

Good post. This needs reiterated in light of how little most people (judging by the posts here, at least) know about cancer. Cancer is not a disease in the classic form, in the sense that medication, your immune system, and many other factors associated with traditional disease have no bearing whatsoever upon the likelihood of developing cancer. There has been many instances where cancer has been directly linked to viral infection, most prominently cervical cancer. Basically, being exposed to anything that alters DNA on a mass scale whether it be viruses, exposure to UV radiation, is going to raise a person's risk for cancer. Research is just recently being applied to explore the viral sources of cancer as well as the environmental.

Uh dude, I think you might want to retract your absurd blanket statement. I assure large bands of the electromagnetic spectrum are extremely dangerous to your health, in particular ionizing radio frequency. Try standing next to a high powered radar for a while and then I'd be impressed with your hubris, or maybe stick your head in a satellite transmitter dish. They slap warning stickers on them for a reason. The jury is still out on whether prolonged exposure to cell phones causes cancer. The only issue is where the danger line is in terms of frequencies and intensity. There are FCC standards for cell phone radiation for a reason too, because higher energy levels are still considered dangerous especially with prolonged exposure.

Its just hard to definitely prove that cell phones are a risk, check back in 20 years when we see how many people are dying from brain tumors after spending 20 years with a cell phone stuck to their ear.

I assume from your post you are male.
Male humans get breast cancer.
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/cri/content/cri_2_4_ 1x_what_is_male_breast_cancer_28.asp?sitearea=cri

Not true.

http://skepdic.com/shark.html
http://www.canoe.ca/Health0004/06_cancer.html

"It's true that some sharks get cancer. I said this in my book," said William Lane, author of the 1992 book Sharks Don't Get Cancer. "My publisher thought it would be bad to call it, Almost No Sharks Get Cancer."

"This is good science that shows us that sharks can get cancer," said biologist John Coffey of Johns Hopkins University. "I don't think there is any benefit to buying shark cartilage and eating it, any more than I think that eating a rabbit will make me run faster."

This is a claim made by people trying to peddle products to desperately sick people. It has no basis in fact, and the FTC took action in 2000 to prevent companies from making this claim.

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2000/06/lanelabs.htm
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/nws/content/nws_1_1x _ftc_stops_claims_made_by_makers_of_shark_cartilag e_products.asp

But most of that increase has been in men 65 and older, with their rates rising over 150%, the study authors said.

In younger Americans, aged 20 to 44, death rates actually dropped almost 40% in women, and about 30% in men.

But most of that increase has been in men 65 and older, with their rates rising over 150%, the study authors said.

In younger Americans, aged 20 to 44, death rates actually dropped almost 40% in women, and about 30% in men.

"The National Toxicology Program Board of Scientific Counselors voted in 1998 not to include MTBE on the list of compounds known to be human carcinogens. (NTP, 1998)"

Get a more informed opinion here

In order to understand what causes nerdism, we must first look to the nerds themselves. The most obvious observation one could make is that nerds are statistically nearly always male. While nerds routinely come in a splendid variety of shapes and sizes and hues, it is rare to see a nerd of the fairer sex. Since we know that nerdism is the fascination with tools and systems, and we know that nerds are predominantly male, we would likely gain insight in asking ourselves why females are not so driven to tinker.

There is no basic mental difference between men and women, and so there is no reason to believe that women would be mentally any less tinker-inclined than men. Therefore, in order to determine the reason why there are so few female nerds, we must turn our attentions to the ways in which men and women are known to differ: the physical ways. Immediately, the answer becomes plain. Women do not need to glut their tendencies by tinkering with computers or cars or guns because of their reproductive systems, which require a great deal more attention and maintenance than those of their male counterparts. Simply put, women tinker with their parts, and so have no interest in tinkering with electronic substitutes.

Penises and testicles, despite their initial lustre, grow boring early on. They do not exhibit quirky, moody, fixable behavior. Rather, they hang loosely and idly in a man's crotch and rarely get more attention than any other body part, and at those times that they do, tinkering is not foremost on the subject's mind. Particularly in the case of an circumsized penis, very little extra maintenance is ever needed. Contrast this, then, to the vagina, which must be carefully wiped after every use, and regularly cleaned to preserve womanly freshness. Females learn early in life that the vagina must be treated with respect, and in return they have the incomparable, primal joy of upkeep.

Women may contentedly seek non-nerdy sources of entertainment, safe in their knowledge that every month will bring them more new and exciting vaginal adventures. While some men profess to be unnerved or even disgusted by menstruation, their true feelings are probably closer to envy. Women, lucky women, may peruse those exotic aisles at the supermarket in search of feminine hygiene products, products that they need, they absolutely need, in order to keep their systems fully operational. Men never know the intimate thrill of personally dealing with menstruation by applying a tampon just in the nick of time, or the sense of deep personal satisfaction that comes with regularly eating yogurt and so having a

Kind of like the reason anti-persiprant deodorants are bing phased out in some places - they've been lined to breast cancer.

And Bill Gates is going to send me $25 if I forward this email, too. Uh huh.

Read what the American Cancer Society has to say on that subject.

Yeah...I know. Just being picky (and offtopic).

Unless AIDS has dramatically increased in the past few years, it doesn't even make the top tell killers list in the US.

Here are some links:
AIDS deaths by country
Power Point presentation for cancer(page 2 has the top killers in the US).

Call me an optimist, but I think the Save Farscape [savefarscape.com] campaign has the ability to bring this thing back.

No, they don't. It doesn't have a prayer. Practical matters prevent it- Producers, directors, crew, actors/actresses all go their separate ways.

Second, let's not forget that the ONLY reason TV shows exist is to SELL ADVERTISING. When the advertisers go "hey, this show is only watched by a bunch of nerds, everyone else thinks it's stupid, sorry, we'll advertise with someone else", guess what? It gets dropped. Why do you think the VAST majority of TV shows are NEVER -continued- on another network?

Are you seriously blinded to the point that you think a science fiction show that FAILED on a -network dEDICATED to science fiction- will have even a prayer?

The concept of donating money to 'save' a TV show, which is at best entertainment, at worst a device invented PURELY to make money. It disgusts me that people are so loaded with money that they prioritize a MONEY MAKING DEVICE over helping the homeless, feeding starving children, curing various diseases, etc. Try getting off your fucking couch and building a house with all your new-found spare time, instead of popping pimples waiting for the browser to load the "people who can't let go" webboard.

I guarantee you'll feel better, meet some cool people, and be healthier to boot.

I did hang up one of the posters [watchfarscape.com] on my door.

Sad that people will protest a TV show but not a war and the continuous stripping of their personal freedom and rights.

Baa baa, little sheep.

Tough choice.

...cancer research!

How could you support cancer?

You must be one of those people who mods posts supporting cancer research down.

Are you sure you want to be a monster?

Donate now!

Donate now!

...on what we can do in the fight against cancer!

Donate now!

when you could be helping to fight cancer?

...when you could be helping win the fight against cancer?

Donate now!

...when you could be helping win the fight against cancer?

Donate now!

...when people are dying of cancer?

Donate now!

...when you could be finding a cure for cancer?

In ten years will anyone give a shit about this?

Donate now!

Ok, before we dive into anecdotal evidence and theories like "eating green food will protect you from cancer", let's check the facts.

Cancer and heart disease are the biggest killers in the Western world. People die from them simply because most other common diseases are easily treated with modern medicine. Cancer and heart disease, however, are artifacts of the basic problems with the design of animal life.

Here's how cancer works: Whenever a cell divides, there is a percentage chance that the genes of one of the 'child' cells will be distorted/mutated in such a way that the mechanisms that normally keep a cell from trying to divide as often as possible and take over the food supply are broken. This is understandable because a very large percentage of the history of our genome was spent in single-celled organisms, and it was important for cells to look out for themselves. In mutli-cellular organisms those genetic, cellular instincts from prehistory are not only unnecessary, they're deadly.

Since there are tens of trillions of cells in your body, most of them dividing at a regular pace, the chances for one of them having this mutation is actually quite high. In fact, according to theory every animal experiences these mutations regularly. Every so many hours you are likely to have a newly divided cell start trying its best to create a tumor inside you. Fortunately for us each of our cells have suicide mechanisms that are instructed to switch on whenever cell division gets out of control. So most of these problem cells quietly kill themselves. Every now and then, however, a mutation turns these suicide mechanisms off, or the genome is simply too decayed to deal with the rogue cell effectively (the genome degrades during each cell division, which contirbutes to aging). Then a tumor forms.

Given a long enough life-span, cancer WILL kill you. No amount of green vegetables are going to save you from cancer. The only thing that will prevent you from dying of cancer is dying of something else first. Without a 'cure', cancer is a statistical inevitability. Alcohol, smoking, asbestos, etc do not cause cancer; mutations during the division of cells causes cancer. Most 'cancer-causing' agents do nothing but create wear and tear on cells, causing them to age faster and increasing their chance of mutation.

'Cure for Cancer' is a misnomer, we were all born with the propensity for cancer in our genes. The only true cure for it would be to 'fix' every cell in our bodies and remove the possibility they could go AWOL. What most researchers are looking for today is an effective treatment for cancer, that we can take whenever we grow a tumor.

Finding an effective treatment for cancer would be the greatest benefit to human lifespan since antibiotics. And no, it doesn't just affect alcoholics and chain-smokers, it affects everyone and everything with animal genes in their body. 1.2 Million cases of cancer will be diagnosed in the US this year, 1500 people die of it each day in the US alone. 1 of every 4 deaths is from cancer. The only reason it isn't 4 out of 4 is because the other three die of something else first.

I'm trying to to loose my cool because this being an emotional issue for me, I take offense at what you said.

i am a bit taken aback by this, what i said was by no means to insinuate that children do not develop cancer, nor surely to offend anyone. i think the key words here are "most cancers" this does not mean the same thing as all cancers. point of fact (US 2000 cancer stastics):

incidence:
male: Prostate (30% of all cancers), Lung (14%), Colon/rectum (11%), Bladder, Melanoma (5%), etc, etc, leukemia (3%),

female: Breast, Lung, Colon, Uterine, etc. etc. (leukemia isn't even listed as one of the most common female cancers)

cancer deaths:
male: Lung(31%), Prostate (11%), Colon(10%), all others equal to or less than 5% (leukemia = 4%)

female: Lung (25%), Breast(15%), Colon(11%), pancreaus (6%), all others less than 5% (leukemia = 4%)

these stastics exclude non-melanoma skin cancers

of cancers Leukemias (especially fast-growing leukemias such as ALL, which are amongst the most easily treated of all cancers, if this be any comfort for you) account for 30% of all childhood cancers (and i think neoplasms represent usually w/i the top 5 childhood killers, while the nation's non-age-adjusted 2nd largest killer only behind heart disease), leukemia is 10 times more common in adults than it is in children...

all and all survival rates are higher in children than they are in adults, many times because of cancers specific to children, but also lending to a better chemotherapeutic/radiation tolerance in children allowing health-care providers to "push the dose..."

while cancer does certainly present in children, the fact remains that children constitute a much smaller cancer population, (even when statistically adjusted for population-size).

as i said before, it was not my intent to offend anyone, but the fact remains that general population trends show that cancer incidence increases with age (possible curtailing of the curve could be accounted for by genetic predispositions of cancer). Also, reember that personal experience is not necessarily indicitive of population trends. And likewise population trends does not necessarily reflect cancer incidence in your particular state, country, neighborhood, family, circle of friends, etc. So my original comment was not direct toward people you know, but toward the greater human condition. i am also painfully aware of the differences between statistics and the effect illnesses have had on my life and my family.

my source (american cancer society).

-tid242

So you're saying that this is all a lie?

Sure, saying "asbestos causes cancer" is FUD, if by FUD you mean "Fear," "Uncertainty," and "Doubt".

In this case, however, FUD does not mean "unverifiable myth."

If you're curious about the level of toxicity of asbestos, try going here.

The upshot of that site reads as follows:

Asbestos is well recognized as a carcinogen. It causes lung cancer, mesothelioma, and other cancers. The people at highest risk are those with very heavy exposure, usually over many years on the job. Smoking acts together with asbestos to greatly increase the risk of lung cancer. While asbestos use is much less common now than it was years ago, there is still a potential for exposure in older buildings and products.

Furthermore, many kinds of toner are listed as possible human carcinogens. One of the reasons for this may be that conclusive evidence has not yet been gathered (read: powerful lobby to defund government studies).

The first 5 pages of this Google search yields results you might find handy.

The average rate of cancer in males is 44.66% (I'm assuming that, at least historically, a significant majority of the workers were male). This would be about 12,000 of the 25,000 worker deaths IBM has on file. Compare this with the actual rate of cancer deaths (The file now shows that 8,000 of the 25,000 deaths were due to some form of cancer, Hawes said.) and it appears that working at IBM reduces the risk of cancer by 33%.

Typically, when someone famous contracts or dies from cancer, public awareness of these diseases is raised (if only briefly). Considering that more than 8.2 million Americans alive today have a history of cancer, ./ers almost certainly know, or will know, someone who has had cancer. Prehaps more importantly, statistically 25% of /.ers are likely to eventually die from cancer. Any who are interested in learning more about cancer may want to check out some of these American Cancer Society links.
Basic cancer facts.
Leading New Cancer Cases
Ovarian Cancer Information
Graph of Cancer Deaths in Women"
Graph of Cancer Deaths in Men"

Typically, when someone famous contracts or dies from cancer, public awareness of these diseases is raised (if only briefly). Considering that more than 8.2 million Americans alive today have a history of cancer, ./ers almost certainly know, or will know, someone who has had cancer. Prehaps more importantly, statistically 25% of /.ers are likely to eventually die from cancer. Any who are interested in learning more about cancer may want to check out some of these American Cancer Society links.
Basic cancer facts.
Leading New Cancer Cases
Ovarian Cancer Information
Graph of Cancer Deaths in Women"
Graph of Cancer Deaths in Men"