The cure for HIV may have been found

Convict on 10/5/2006 at 10:14

Quote Posted by BlackCapedManX

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.)

Yeah it was kind of a joke. TTLG is a kind of political forum though - no successful politician admits they were wrong. Just keep sticking to your guns! ;)

EDIT: Come to think of it I can think of times when successful pollies have renounced? what they have said.
PS I have said I was wrong a couple of times. :)

Dr. Dumb_lunatic on 10/5/2006 at 10:43

Quote:

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.

Not really. The nuclear industry hasn't so much CREATED radioactivity as CONCENTRATED the stuff that was already there.

There's a fair amount of uranium in the earth, but it's all over the place, in small quantities, so causes little harm, over a large area. By mining/refining it, you simply concentrate it enough so it can cause the same total amount of harm, but in a much smaller space, to the apparent 'danger factor' is greatly above background. Obviously there are a few radioactive byproducts generated by the nuclear industry, but it's probably more appropriate to consider the industry an 'accumulator' of radioactive material, rather than a 'generator'.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR796164
Nature itself produces only very little carcinogens in comparison with industries. That's why carcinogens are mostly human-made chemicals.

That's a completely unquantifiable statement, really. For a start, define nature: is it just "stuff made by living things"? If so, yes, living things tend to minimise their generation of things that could cause them direct harm (though even then it's a balance between caution and efficiency: free-radical generation, for example), evolution has rather nicely killed off anything that churns out masses of self-toxic substances. That said, evolution usually places little restraint on production of substances harmful to members of other species, so tons of organisms produce toxins, and quite a few of these toxins are carcinogenic in humans.

If we extend nature to include pretty much anything 'non-industrial', we get to include natural radiation, cosmic rays, forest fires, a whole slew of potential carcinogenic/carcinogen-producing situations.

While I won't argue that industry does NOT contribute to cancer incidence, I would question the magnitude of its contribution. Plus remember you're seeing a combination of factors, as the fact that we live (on average) far longer now than pre-industry times means we are also exposed to potential carcinogens (both 'nature' and 'industry' derived) for a longer period.

Put quite simply: we're not evolved to live to the ages we do. Nothing in our long-term evolutionary history has placed us under pressure to maximise our lifespans much beyond reproductive age. Almost all men above the age of seventy/eighty have prostate cancer: it's just something that happens with time. If you live long enough, you pretty much WILL get cancer of some sort, industry or no.

To be perfectly honest, I doubt it's really possible to determine the contribution of 'industry' to global cancer incidence, so fuck it. Call that one a draw?

So let's just revise this to:

Quote:

We want to live LONGER convenient lives in progressive industrial world, and increased amount of cancer cases is just a price for it. Everything has a price.

Rogue Keeper on 10/5/2006 at 10:58

And I question your competency for making final determinations on how it really goes in the natural multiverse. :)

Convict on 10/5/2006 at 11:10

BR not to be rude but you haven't given us any real evidence that pollution is causing cancer (to any substantial degree).

Rogue Keeper on 10/5/2006 at 11:16

Not to be rude, but again, you have reduced my "industrial society" into "pollution".
You didn't find the US National Cancer Institute's position convincing?

Convict on 10/5/2006 at 11:27

:erg: I didn't see your edit that added the Institute's link. Coming from a reputable source I assume their data to be correct.

I think our definitions might be different here. However the table at the bottom of the page says that only 1-5% of avoidable cancers are caused by air/water/food pollution and about the same again is caused by occupation.

Rogue Keeper on 10/5/2006 at 11:34

Yes. The table also says that about 25 - 40 % of cases are related to smoking (products of tobacco industry, again, cigarette smoke contains carcinogenic chemicals), 10 - 70 % to diet (food which people eat in developed countries is usually being produced by food industry and contains chemicals in the food chain, conservation substances, coloring substances, etc) 0.3-1.5% to medicines (nuff said). And those are just US data from 1981.

Convict on 10/5/2006 at 12:07

I think that you may misunderstand the link between diet in Western countries and cancer caused by it BR. Colo-rectal cancers seem to be caused by a lack of certain foods in the diet (containing fibre and fat) rather than chemicals added to the diet (as far as I am aware).

Rogue Keeper on 10/5/2006 at 12:17

Good suggestion. Now you prove it. :)

Convict on 10/5/2006 at 13:00

Wait - yours was a hypothesis too. We both had the same data and suggested different hypotheses. Therefore you have the same obligation to prove your hypothesis. ;)

(http://www.mrw.interscience.wiley.com/cochrane/clsysrev/articles/CD003430/frame.html) This Cochrane systematic review was only for 2-4 years and the review suggested that increased fibre studies (and of course a longer time line!) would be in order. However the review found "There is currently no evidence from RCTs to suggest that increased dietary fibre intake will reduce the incidence or recurrence of adenomatous polyps within a two to four year period". OK fine. However for what it's worth it does state that "Colorectal (bowel) cancer is common worldwide but is especially prevalent in industrialised countries. Genes, diet and lifestyle all seem to be important in the development of bowel cancer."

PS I find (http://www.tdico.com/medline.html) this site useful for searches because of its user-friendly interface (but no linkage capability for abstracts :( ).