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.
I have questioned many of my generation, and even older, and asked about women dying from breast cancer, and perhaps 1 or 2% say they may have known someone who had breast cancer. Lung cancer and colon cancer were more prevalent.
Before all of the preservatives and chemicals were placed in our food products, there truly were less cases of cancer.
As said, better diagnoses plus I don't have a clue where you live, but I know of many women who developed breast cancer, most died 50 or more years ago. I am sure enviounment plays some part, but it is a small part. Heck my mother in law said her younger brother, who died at about 20 died of TB of the kidneys. What the heck was that? When I had cervical cancer my grandmother wanted to know where i got something like that, as if it was a dirty thing. Well she never talked much about her sister who had female problems back in the late 1800s or maybe about the turn of the century who died, waiting for a hysterectomy. I am guessing she had cancer, but no one talked about it or maybe it jsut wasn't diagnosed.
If all the chemicals are causing cancer, it wouldn't be just one kind or cancer, certainly it would have little to do with breast cancer.
Tobacco was responsible for more than 100 million deaths worldwide in the 20th Century. The World Health Organisation has estimated that, if current trends continue, tobacco could cause a billion deaths in the 21st Century. Smoking causes more than four in five cases of lung cancer. Lung cancer has one of the lowest survival rates of all cancers, and is the most common cause of cancer death in the UK.The good news is that most of these deaths are preventable, by giving up smoking in time. Smoking also increases the risk of at least 13 other cancers including cancers of the larynx (voice box), oesophagus (gullet), mouth and pharynx (throat), bladder,pancreas, kidney, liver, stomach, bowel, cervix, ovary, nose and sinus, and some types of leukaemia. There is also some evidence that smoking could increase the risk of breast cancer. The fact is that half of all long term smokers eventually die from cancer, or other smoking-related illnesses. Half of those will die in middle age, between 35 and 69. Tobacco smoke contains more than 70 different substances that are thought to cause cancer. When you inhale smoke, these chemicals enter your lungs and spread around the rest of your body.
There is no doubt that alcohol can cause seven types of cancer. The less alcohol you drink, the lower the risk of cancer. Overall, the risk of developing cancer is smaller if you stay within the government guidelines, about one standard drink a day for women or two for men. Drinking and smoking together are even worse for you. Not everyone who drinks will develop cancer. But on the whole, scientists have found that some cancers are more common in people who drink more alcohol than others. Every year, alcohol causes 4% of cancers in the UK, around 12,500 cases. Drinking alcohol regularly can increase the risk of: Mouth cancer, Pharyngeal cancer (upper throat), Oesophageal cancer (food pipe), Laryngeal cancer (voice box), Breast cancer, Bowel cancer and Liver cancer.
There are other risk factors too. Like chronic stress, radiation and chemical exposure and other factors as well
Johndoe, I have a kind of cancer associated with high alcohol consumption--it's called invasive lobular breast cancer which is about 10% of BC. Trouble is I've never been much of a drinker. For years while I was raising my girls my avg was about one drink a year! It hardly seems fair.
"...researchers said on Thursday random DNA mutations accumulating in various parts of the body during ordinary cell division are the prime culprits behind many cancer types.
They looked at 31 cancer types and found that 22 of them, including leukemia and pancreatic, bone, testicular, ovarian and brain cancer, could be explained largely by these random mutations — essentially biological bad luck."
"...researchers said on Thursday random DNA mutations accumulating in various parts of the body during ordinary cell division are the prime culprits behind many cancer types.
They looked at 31 cancer types and found that 22 of them, including leukemia and pancreatic, bone, testicular, ovarian and brain cancer, could be explained largely by these random mutations — essentially biological bad luck."
There is not one study or statistical reference in that entire link. In fact, when you search for results of the evidence from which they claim to have drawn conclusions, there aren't any. However, they do mention their "funded research."
("Overall, scientists estimate that about a third (32%) of 13 of the most common cancers in the UK could be prevented through improved diet, physical activity and body weight. The table below includes preventability estimates by type of cancer.")
There is not one study or statistical reference in that entire link. In fact, when you search for results of the evidence from which they claim to have drawn conclusions, there aren't any. However, they do mention their "funded research."
("Overall, scientists estimate that about a third (32%) of 13 of the most common cancers in the UK could be prevented through improved diet, physical activity and body weight. The table below includes preventability estimates by type of cancer.")
This may help, or not??. I added more info on post 26 from CRUK and the BBC which did a better report than most all media sources. The researchers say they've calculated that two thirds (65%) of "the differences in cancer risk among different tissues" is down to cell division gone wrong - "bad luck". Now many media reports have simply concluded that this means that two thirds of cancer cases are just the result of random haywire cell division. That's not correct. The most likely explanation seems to be that the researchers were referring to the correlation between cell divisions in different types of tissue, and the tendency of those tissues to develop cancer.
Cancer ‘mainly bad luck’? An unfortunate and distracting headline Cancer
One person on twitter posted this ''THANKYOU BBC!! Smoking doesn't cause cancer. It's just bad luck''. Sadly others like him will think the same. Adam over at The Stats Guy blog said it best: ''We often see medical research badly reported in the newspapers. Often it doesn’t matter very much. But here, I think real harm could be done. The message that comes across from the media is that cancer is just a matter of luck, so changing your lifestyle won’t make much difference anyway. We know that lifestyle is hugely important not only for cancer, but for many other diseases as well. For the media to give the impression that lifestyle isn’t important, based on a misunderstanding of what the research shows, is highly irresponsible.''
My daughter was diagnosed with Wilm's tumor at the age of 14 months, and it's a kind of cancer that has cells forming in utero. So she had them in her all along, until they formed the tumor. Some kids have this tumor at a later age, sometimes as teens, so these cells are definitely dormant at first.
My guess is other cancers originate the same way, so they are there all along and either end up forming a tumor or stay dormant.
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.
