RE: cancer rates (was: e: How do you calm down the hot-heads?)

From: Emlyn O'regan (oregan.emlyn@healthsolve.com.au)
Date: Thu Sep 11 2003 - 23:17:35 MDT

  • Next message: Jeff Davis: "Re: barbie promoted to threat"

    > -----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