Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Colds May Trigger Childhood Cancers

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the staying-in-a-bubble-until-you're-twenty dept.

Tiger4 writes "BBC News is reporting that the incidence of childhood cancers may be affected by the colds that child has had. From the Article: 'Scientists have found further compelling evidence infections such as colds may trigger childhood cancers. The University of Newcastle-led team looked at 3,000 childhood cancers in 0 to 14-year-olds from 1954 to 1998, the European Journal of Cancer reported. Researchers found unusual clusters of brain tumors and leukemia which were typical of infection-related disease.' As much as an 8 percent increase was observed. However, the article goes on to say that some risks go down with very early exposure to other children, 'In April, a Leukemia Research Fund study found that children introduced to nursery before the age of one were found to be at lower risk of leukemia.'"

3 of 216 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Cause or correlation? by ChrisKnight · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Given that the vast majority of cervical cancer turned out to be a result of HPV infection, it easily falls into the realm of possibility that other cancers have their roots in viral infections, such as colds, as well.

    -Chris

    --
    -- This sig is only a test. If this were a real sig it would say something witty. --
  2. EVERYONE suffers from colds. by CyricZ · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Are you serious? Everyone gets colds, including the rich and the poor. Colds are a part of life, just as much as shitting and pissing are.

    --
    Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
  3. Re:Intelligent Design on cancer. by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Does anyone know the explanation for cancer offered by the Intelligent Design proponents? Why would an intelligent designer create something that was so susceptible? Also, why would an intelligent designer create materials that proved to be carcinogenic? After all, an intelligent designer could just as well design such substances to not have such harmful properties.

    Not to support ID, but probably as a form of negative feedback. You don't want your creations populating your planet out of control. If you've ever written predator/prey population simulations, you know what I mean.

    I'm a staunch evolutionist, but "Why would God do X?" questions are not the way to fight Creationism. You are trying to claim you know what some immense superbeing would optimally do when creating a self-sustaining planetary ecosphere, and that's actually worse than the ID-ers arguments.

    Haven't you ever triggered and earthquake or flood in SimCity just to see what happens? ;-)