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.
One of my doctors, who is a surgical oncologist, believes that more than 5 to 10% of cancers are linked to inherited genes. There has just not been enough research yet to identify many of them.
It could also be a characteristic of some immune systems that most types of cancer don't get much chance to get started. And that characteristic might be inherited. And some immune systems that are good at fighting cancer by being more aggressive or whatever, might cause other diseases by that aggression or whatever. So some people might inherit a tendency to not get cancer but to get more of certain other types of diseases.
I don't need to rehash what has already been said, but this isn't a black and white answer. There are many intertwined causes for every cancer. It is a combination of several factors. I trust science more than I trust "feelings".
We are often told about how X or A causes cancer, and yet we don't even know what even causes cancer to happen in the first place. Whenever someone blames something for cancer they use flawed arguments like "person X use to do A and thus A is to blame!" that aren't even hard science. The fact of the matter is nobody has ever been able to actually PROVE that individual items or behaviors cause cancer. There are smokers who smoke 12 packs a day who don't have cancer and then there are others who live super healthy lives and the die at 50 from some kind of cancer anyway. Couple this with the fact that members from the same dynasties tend to die from cancer and that the risk of cancer goes up as you age, and I fail to see how cancer isn't just genetic/luck.
Here is my view on what causes cancer: I think it's just a byproduct of aging. Normally your body reproduces it's lost cells but as times goes by this becomes harder for your body to do and this increases the odds of accidents happening. And one of those accidents happen to be cancer. Depending on genetics, this will happen sooner for some but later (or not even at all) for others before they die. The lucky live to old age and die before cancer can develop, and the unlucky have crap genetics and develop cancer while they are younger.
And that's it. I don't think lifestyle has ANYTHING to do with cancer at all. That isn't to say that people with bad lifestyle can't harm their health in other ways, but I don't think a bad lifestyle causes cancer. It's all just genetics. You either get it or you don't.
Re the bolded (and I realize the OP is no longer among us), how can Cancer be a byproduct of aging when there are children dying of various cancers by the time they are 3?
Re the bolded (and I realize the OP is no longer among us), how can Cancer be a byproduct of aging when there are children dying of various cancers by the time they are 3?
Because the cancers children get are different in important ways from the ones adults get.
Adult cancers generally ARE byproducts of aging. A cell has to develop the right combination of gene mutations to become a cancer; the longer someone lives, the more time the cell has to develop the right mutations. That's why the incidence of cancers in the adult population increases with age,
Childhood cancers, on the other hand, generally represent normal development gone awry. Because children are growing, their cells are dividing frequently; all it takes is a failure to regulate that cell division properly to turn this normal process into cancer. In addition, during development in the womb, the tissues in the fetus are made up of relatively "primitive" cells that in the course of normal growth differentiate over time into the more specialized mature cell types that are found in adult tissues. Again, if that process fails, the result can be a cancer.
Children get very different cancers than adults do, and they often resemble fetal tissues. (Basically that's what they are: fetal tissues running amok.). About the only thing childhood cancers share with adult cancers is the name "cancer"!
This European site points out some interesting 2012 incidence figures. For example, I never would have guessed that Canada has had higher brain cancer incidence stats than the USA.
Saibot is probably the closest to right: let's face it, most people who develop cancer have had other family member with it especially certain kinds of cancer. On the other hand, yes, life style plays a role. I had cervical cancer at 24 years old: no one in our family then or since has had it. In fact cancer isn't really in our family. My husband was diagnosed with both lipo sarcoma and prostate cancer 6 years ago. Only one person in his family ever had cancer as far as we know. Of course not all of his family went to the doctors for preventive measures often either so who knows? Most of our friends who have developed cancer have had it in their families, especially lung cancer and breast cancer. I don't think any of us really know how or why some of us develop it and others don't.
If eating right and making good life style choices makes you feel like you are protecting yourself from the big C, go ahead and continue to do what is working. On the other hand, for those who feel live and let live works, that is ok as well.
The thing about whether or not cancer "runs in the family" still depends on lifestyle to some degree--maybe a large degree. Lifestyle choices run in families, too.
Here's another, A U.S. site that shows incidence by state/county.
I'm amazed how rural areas show more brain cancer incidence than urban counties.
For example, in N.J.: smelly, dirty ol` industrialized Essex and Hudson counties, [and Union and Middlesex counties] show lower incidence [healthier] than lovely, green Warren and Sussex horse-farm country??
New York state is also surprising, with Manhattan/Bronx/Brooklyn showing healthier rates than Woodstock.
Science or not, I don't think that anybody has the answers of what causes cancer. If we knew the answers, we wouldn't be asking questions about what causes it. But all questions are good, because without such, science can't take place. Would cancer be treated at the genetic level in the near future? I have watched some cancer research and treatment at PBS that point in that direction.
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.
