BlackCapedManX on 6/5/2006 at 07:44
Quote Posted by BR796164
You can't deny that we have more toxic carcinogens around today.
And again, there are many types of cancer, launched by different causes. Yes, an older organism's immunity is weakened and has absorbed more carcinogenic stuff during lifetime, that's logical. But kids can have cancer too.
Okay, here's the point ya'll are missing. Basically: everything is a carcinogen.
This is because cancer isn't a thing you
GET it's something your body
DOES (or more precisely, is doing incorrectly). Cancer occurs because "oops" a cell that has screwed up DNA reproduced, and has the right set of mutations that all it does is consume and divide to the end of its (or your) days. Now, the more divisions a cell has undergone, the more likely it is to accumulate these mutations, so obvious old is teh numbar 1ne carcinogen. Anything that can effect cellular makeup being altered can cause cells to become cancerous (from ultraviolet radiation to toxins to too much fucking carrots... maybe), and since there's no perfect world where cells happily and perfectly divide with no errors, everything has the potential to be carcinogens. However, some things do it more than others and many of those have been isolated and labled "BAD."
You immune system has nothing to do with it, and viral cancers are about 0% of the potential kind of cancer you can have (roughly, that's not a real statistic but I'd assume based on the fact that your body can do a damn good job of getting cancer on its own.) However as you get older your body is supposed to die. Every time a cell divides caps of extra DNA (called telomers) get shorter, so eventually a cell will divide and it will eat up useful genetic information. You body has ways of noticing this and will cause those cells to under go apoptosis, which is programed cell death. Cancer cells presumably have a way of getting around this (there are a fuck load of genes that regulate that sort of thing and mutations on those genes are the most likely to cause cancer), since they undergo rampant division. Also there are enzymes that rebuild these caps (telomerase), but they aren't active in somatic cells, I'd imagine because if they were, we'd be much more likely to get cancer (and hence in organisms that displayed this, be eliminated before reproduction age, and leave us with people that didn't.)
So. If we could eliminate all disease and strife and difficulties in life, and expand our lifespans infinitely via telomerase utilization, we'd still die of cancer. Fun times to be had by all.
Convict on 6/5/2006 at 13:49
Quote Posted by BlackCapedManX
viral cancers are about 0% of the potential kind of cancer you can have (roughly, that's not a real statistic but I'd assume based on the fact that your body can do a damn good job of getting cancer on its own.)
Cervical cancer is fairly common and while I am not sure what percentage are from strains of HPV, I think it is fair to say that HPV is at least very significant in it.
TheGreatGodPan on 6/5/2006 at 21:19
Genes have to be expressed in order to take effect. The best (
http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2006/04/in-search-of-good-metaphors.php) metaphor I've heard is that they are like "if statements". They have requirements, which if fulfilled leads to such and such an effect. Cervical cancer likely causes the conditional statement to flip to "true" in some cells, although the process through which it happens is beyond what I know.
BlackCapedManX on 6/5/2006 at 21:37
Quote Posted by Convict
Cervical cancer is fairly common and while I am not sure what percentage are from strains of HPV, I think it is fair to say that HPV is at least very significant in it.
Fine, you win.
Mingan on 7/5/2006 at 03:01
I read some paper a few months ago that cancer-like cells happen all the time in your body, but your immune system spots them and destroy them. Unfortunately, sometimes it fails and the cancer grows. Obviously(to me, anyway), as you get older, your immune system gets weaker, part of why most cancers are age related.
And, just to try to drive the nail further, there is no panacea that can cure every cancer. Though there are new ways to destroy tumors now. There's even tests of a treatment using antimatter to annihilate unoperable tumors (think brain cancer). And no, your head doesn't go ASPLODE.
Convict on 7/5/2006 at 03:02
You don't come here often do you? ;) Noone admits being wrong here! :p
frozenman on 7/5/2006 at 07:23
Personally I'm hoping for apocalypse in the form of aliens. Triumverate Virus' seems like a punk-ass way to get wiped out. (
http://www.phys.ufl.edu/~tschoy/photos/Lonely.jpg) Ice age virus might be some cool shit. This is really happening!
Anyone want to take bets???
Rogue Keeper on 9/5/2006 at 08:04
Quote Posted by Convict
That's not actually a study though. In fact that is rather poor quality journalism if it may even be called that.
Therefore I still have to ask what evidence is there that this (e.g. pollution) causes anything more than a neglible amount of cancers? I ask like this because you seem to be convinced of industrial pollutants causing cancers and yet you didn't find out the facts before you made up your mind. IMO it seems like rabid fundamentalism and blind faith.
But of course, you're not religious.
Er, no it's not. It's the best thing I found at that moment. But medical pamphlets for commons usually don't have very sophisticated vocabulary. I'd like to spend some more time searching for something better, but frankly I'm to tired to do so right now.
EDIT: ok, upon deeper inspection of your position, I wonder what are you trying to push me into. Just to make my postition more clear : originally I suggested that increased appearance of cancer is a consequence of living in industrial society. "Industrial society" as in the most general aspect, not just "living near air polluting factory".
Next, what kind of proof would be convincing enough for you? Like conclusion of the US National Cancer Institute that
(
http://www.cancer.gov/newscenter/benchmarks-vol4-issue3/page1) majority of cancers are linked to the environment? I believe WHO would tell you something very similar. Now it's time for you to find some proof against that conclusion.
You know something about fundamentalism? Well, I'd rather say I'm not religious according to ... Conservative standards? Or - American standards? I think I found a good balance between empiric science and spiritualism for myself.
Quote Posted by BlackCapedManX
Okay, here's the point ya'll are missing. Basically: everything is a carcinogen.
Discovering of new carcinogens is a (
http://physchem.ox.ac.uk/MSDS/carcinogens.html) continuous process. Just like everything is, theoretically, a potential alergen.
Massive appearance of allergies is another "byproduct" of last industrial century.
The nature itself produces only very little carcinogens in comparison with industries. That's why carcinogens are mostly human-made chemicals. Radioactivity? Sure, natural, but it wouldn't be around if we haven't had to mess with atom splitting.
We want to live convenient lives in progressive industrial world, and increased amount of cancer cases is just a price for it. Everything has a price.
TheGreatGodPan on 9/5/2006 at 21:28
Quote Posted by BR796164
Just like everything is, theoretically, a potential alergen.
Massive appearance of allergies is another "byproduct" of last industrial century.
The nature itself produces only very little carcinogens in comparison with industries. That's why carcinogens are mostly human-made chemicals.
I remember reading once that eastern europe, which was one of the most polluted places around for a while, had a much lower rate of allergies than more polluted places. The theory was that by being exposed to stuff at an earlier age acted immunization or something. It was quite a while ago, before I ever heard of TTLG, so I don't remember what the source was.
Quote Posted by BR796164
Radioactivity? Sure, natural, but it wouldn't be around if we haven't had to mess with atom splitting.
ATOM SPLITTING != RADIOACTIVE DECAY
Things like smoke detectors utilize radioactivity, but it's completely seperate from atomic power. And that's not even getting into stuff like Carbon 14, which has been around longer than humanity.
BlackCapedManX on 10/5/2006 at 05:27
Quote Posted by BR796164
Theoretically. Discovering of new carcinogens is a (
http://physchem.ox.ac.uk/MSDS/carcinogens.html) continuous process. Just like everything is, theoretically, a potential alergen.
Massive appearance of allergies is another "byproduct" of last industrial century.
The nature itself produces only very little carcinogens in comparison with industries. That's why carcinogens are mostly human-made chemicals. Radioactivity? Sure, natural, but it wouldn't be around if we haven't had to mess with atom splitting.
We want to live convenient lives in progressive industrial world, and increased amount of cancer cases is just a price for it. Everything has a price.
We're sort of arguing a similar point, but to different ends. I realize that industrial society has a huge price to pay on the overall health of humanity (believe me, I've been looking into this on more levels than just the damage industry does to our environment.) My point is simply that if we managed to eradicate our contact with the listed carcinogens, there's still the potential to get cancer, that it isn't caused by carcinogens, they simply radically accelerate the chance you could get it. And also that pretty much anything can potentially alter our chemical processes slightly enough that in sufficient quantities they can increase the likelihood of cancer, but our "carcinogens" simply do so in small enough quantities (or are encountered enough) to warrent attention and merit avoidance.
Quote Posted by Convict
You don't come here often do you? Noone admits being wrong here!
Is that directed at me? Because I grew up here man, it was my first forum, I've been around longer than you. But I try to be honest. If I adhere to any belief system it's the ideas laid down by the goal of scientific progression. Make assumptions, research them, and when you're wrong, admit it, and when you aren't defend yourself. Unfortunately most people are like "I teh winzorz!", which makes life at times infuriatingly difficult. But yeah, I used to not admit such things, but I blame it on bad forum parenting (i.e. coming here.)
Quote Posted by TheGreatGodPan
I remember reading once that eastern europe, which was one of the most polluted places around for a while, had a much lower rate of allergies than more polluted places. The theory was that by being exposed to stuff at an earlier age acted immunization or something.
I've heard also that typically 2nd 3rd and up siblings tend to be less likely to get allergies, on the assumption that the mother had gone through the birthing procedure before and takes less precautions toward "sterilizing" the processes, which, helpfully, introduces them to allergens sooner and allows their body to adapt. I find this ironic because both of my younger brothers have allergies and I'm not allergic to anything.
Quote:
ATOM SPLITTING != RADIOACTIVE DECAY
Things like smoke detectors utilize radioactivity, but it's completely seperate from atomic power. And that's not even getting into stuff like Carbon 14, which has been around longer than humanity.
I think he's refering to dangerous levels of radiation. Radioactive decay occurs all over the place, but in the levels required to send enough alpha and beta particles to cause a problem, has only really been an issue since we've stumbled on nuclear power.
