From: Emlyn O'regan (oregan.emlyn@healthsolve.com.au)
Date: Thu Sep 11 2003 - 23:17:35 MDT
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robbie Lindauer [mailto:robblin@thetip.org]
> Sent: Friday, 12 September 2003 2:01 PM
> To: extropians@extropy.org
> Subject: Re: cancer rates (was: e: How do you calm down the
> hot-heads?)
>
>
> On Thursday, September 11, 2003, at 06:53 PM, Samantha Atkins wrote:
>
> >> We KNOW that the
> >> pollutants cause cancer.
> >
> > Actually, we don't KNOW any such thing in enough detail to
> imply that
> > is the
> > only or primary reason for a higher observed cancer rate.
> Cancer can
> > and
> > does occur even without any pollutants.
>
> Well, the CDC and most doctors know this.
>
> Quick quiz:
> Which is more likely to cause cancer:
> _extended exposure to tar
> _being over 95
No idea
>
>
> Which is more likely to cause cancer:
> _ Being over 35
> _ Being a long-term Smoker over 35
>
Duh, so don't smoke.
> Which is more likely to cause cancer:
> _ Exposure to radioactive materials
> _ genetic disposition to cancer
>
No idea. Possibly the latter, it depends on the dose of the former, probably
on patterns of exposure, etc.
>
> >> We don't KNOW that age does.
> >
> > Strawman. No one said age *causes* cancer. It is not
> precise to say
> > that
> > pollution causes cancer either.
>
> Strawman - I said it was tautological that if length of exposure to
> toxic materials is likely to cause cancer than getting older in an
> environment in which there are such materials is ipso facto
> more likely
> to cause cancer. This means that age should only be considered a
> factor if there is a control group (lots of old people
> without cancer).
> In fact, there is a control group - lots of old people
> without cancer.
>
> Best,
>
> Robbie
>
There are lots of people exposed to pollutants who don't have cancer, too.
Emlyn
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Sep 11 2003 - 23:27:35 MDT