Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
you can go to the Egyptian forum if you want to talk about Egypt. I'm talking about the US here. I could care less about what happened in ancient Egypt it doesn't effect me in any way so lets not change the subject.
Cause of death for King Tut, whose later-day autopsies found him to have gynomastoma: ""Man boobs can also be caused by medication, such as drugs for heart disease... and are also a recognised side-effect of hormone treatments for prostate cancer, which reduce the amount of testosterone in the body." OMG, could it be true???
Jobs did have pancreatic cancer, though the type he had is relatively uncommon. His cancer arose from the insulin producing cells and the prognosis, when treated early, is much more favorable than with the more common type.Moderator cut: too long a quote, 1-2 sentences and link
I would agree. but new studies coming out in recent years show pancreatic cancer can be caused by soft drink consumption. as little as two sodas a week can produce pancreatic cancer in humans according to a Georgetown study. namely, the artificial sweetener high fructose corn syrup found in many popular soft drink brands appears to be the culprit.
you can avoid this risk with soft drinks that are made with natural ingredients.
Drinking as little as two soft drinks a week appears to nearly double the risk of getting pancreatic cancer, according to a new study.
''People who drank two or more soft drinks a week had an 87% increased risk -- or nearly twice the risk -- of pancreatic cancer compared to individuals consuming no soft drinks," says study lead author Noel T. Mueller, MPH, a research associate at the Cancer Control Program at Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, D.C. The study is published in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, a journal of the American Association for Cancer Research.
I would agree. but new studies coming out in recent years show pancreatic cancer can be caused by soft drink consumption. as little as two sodas a week can produce pancreatic cancer in humans according to a Georgetown study. namely, the artificial sweetener high fructose corn syrup found in many popular soft drink brands appears to be the culprit.
you can avoid this risk with soft drinks that are made with natural ingredients.
Drinking as little as two soft drinks a week appears to nearly double the risk of getting pancreatic cancer, according to a new study.
''People who drank two or more soft drinks a week had an 87% increased risk -- or nearly twice the risk -- of pancreatic cancer compared to individuals consuming no soft drinks," says study lead author Noel T. Mueller, MPH, a research associate at the Cancer Control Program at Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, D.C. The study is published in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, a journal of the American Association for Cancer Research.
Every one of the articles liked in the other thread that was stared said further research is needed. Remember that causation and correlation are not always related.
Quote:
Susan Mayne, PhD, associate director of the Yale Cancer Center and professor of epidemiology at the Yale School of Public Health, called the study results ''intriguing" in a statement but cautioned that the study finding was based on a relatively small number of cases and does not prove cause and effect. She is an editorial board member of the journal. The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute.
Every one of the articles liked in the other thread that was stared said further research is needed. Remember that causation and correlation are not always related.
further research? but there have been at least half a dozen independent studies conducted in recent years all showing a link between soft drinks and cancer, and I have linked to three of them. how much more proof do you need??
further research? but there have been at least half a dozen independent studies conducted in recent years all showing a link between soft drinks and cancer, and I have linked to three of them. how much more proof do you need??
You need to go back and reread the articles and the quote I used. You have anecdotal evidence but no solid proof.
correction: cancer was not widely known in the industrial countries until the advent of the industrial revolution.
which makes sense to me because many of the chemicals and toxins used in industry did not exist or were not widely available to the public until the 20th century. throughout much of the modern industrial period people did not know how to handle or use these substances safely so they had a lot of direct and unsafe exposure to them. so the rates of cancer and other health problems, in the US and other industrial countries, shot up accordingly.
" What caused such a dramatic increase in an obscure disease? The handbook discusses at some length possible etiologic factors: increased air pollution by gases and dusts, caused by industry; the asphalting of roads; the increase in automobile traffic; exposure to gas in World War I; the influenza pandemic of 1918; and working with benzene or gasoline. However, lung cancer rose at the same rate in countries with fewer automobiles, less industry, fewer paved roads, and in workers not exposed to benzene or gasoline—and had not risen in the 19th century after earlier flu pandemics."
We know now the culprit was smoking.
Keep in mind that the ability to determine a specific diagnosis and a cause of death is a fairly recent phenomenon. Breast cancer was easier, since it was visible in its advanced stages. In 1761, around the time the industrial revolution started, Giovanni Morgagni of Padua was the first to do autopsies to relate the physical findings to the cause of death. The microscope was invented long before its usefulness in medicine was appreciated (1800: Bichat, first book with histopathologic correlations.)
Advances in medicine, including anesthesia and surgery, made it possible to remove tumors, increasing diagnostic accuracy (even if treatment was poorly successful.)
In addition, life expectancy increased, and with it a greater opportunity for an individual to live long enough to develop a cancer.
Also, the mania for medical statistics is largely a product of the computer age. It is now easier to count diagnoses and track them over time.
Teasing out the effects of environmental exposures is difficult, because so often there is more than one exposure (such as lung cancer in smokers exposed to asbestos. Cancer is not just a product of the industrial revolution. That is a much too simplistic point of view.
I think lack of adequate nutrition or a poor diet can be a cause of cancer. for example people who drink a lot are at risk for liver cancer and cirrhosis. of course, alcohol abuse and other forms of substance abuse have been taking place long before modern industry came into existence.
but at the same time one might argue that modern mass production techniques has greatly expanded the availability of alcoholic products to the masses and hence the rate of abuse has risen accordingly.
I think lack of adequate nutrition or a poor diet can be a cause of cancer. for example people who drink a lot are at risk for liver cancer and cirrhosis. of course, alcohol abuse and other forms of substance abuse have been taking place long before modern industry came into existence.
but at the same time one might argue that modern mass production techniques has greatly expanded the availability of alcoholic products to the masses and hence the rate of abuse has risen accordingly.
Since when has alcohol not been available to the masses?
It might help for you to realize that "cancer" is not one disease. That is why it is difficult to determine a single cause for many cancers. The causes involve multiple factors, including genetic susceptibility.
Good nutrition is an admirable goal for manyreasons, but even ideal nutrition (if that could even be defined) will not guarantee that an individual will not get cancer of any kind.
well, we know one of the causes of lung cancer is cigarette smoking. we know alcohol can cause liver cancer. I don't think cancer just happens for no reason. there are usually environmental factors.
for example asbestos is a known (cancer-causing) carcinogen which is why it was eventually banned. lead paint was banned in the late 70s when it was discovered to be a carcinogen. leaded gasoline was banned for the same reason. we know these toxins have been responsible for countless cancer-related deaths.
More than likely it's a genetic predisposition, plus environment. While in the US the substances you have mentioned have been banned, in some other areas around the world they have not and these people by average don't get the same cancers.
That said, cigarette smoke contains carcinogens, and so the smoke from any substance you can burn, not just cigarettes. In relation to asbestos, it is still being use today. It was banned for home construction and such long ago, but it's still being used for industrial automobile brake shoes and pads, and mined in Canada as well as several countries around the word. And since asbestos is present in the ground in a lot of places throughout the US, there is a good possibility that the wind (for example) can carry asbestos fibers to areas nearby. A lot of substances can cause liver cancer, not just alcohol. But you can have a drunk living on the streets for years and years, drinking all kinds of alcoholic substances, mouth wash, cold medicine, and so on...but dying from wether exposure instead of cancer.
It might help for you to realize that "cancer" is not one disease. That is why it is difficult to determine a single cause for many cancers. The causes involve multiple factors, including genetic susceptibility.
Good nutrition is an admirable goal for manyreasons, but even ideal nutrition (if that could even be defined) will not guarantee that an individual will not get cancer of any kind.
Agree with you. Alcohol has always been readily available to us, from the moment someone figured that fermented fruit gave a pretty good high. Can you imagine a cave man without vodka in Russia?
And in relation to cigarettes: my ancestors rolled their own from tobacco they farmed. And let me tell you, these cigarettes didn't have filters, and one of them alone had enough nicotine to make an elephant dizzy.
The people conducting some of the studies posted in here can blame it all the want on cigarettes and alcohol, but in my view these two substances are juts two of hundreds if not thousands of substance combinations that can cause cancer.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You have anecdotal evidence but no solid proof.
