From: matus (matus@matus1976.com)
Date: Fri Sep 12 2003 - 00:43:35 MDT
-----Original Message-----
>From: Robbie Lindauer
>Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 12:36 PM
>It MAY be that cancer is more likely to happen because we're getting
>older, we KNOW that there are more polutants around. We KNOW that the
>pollutants cause cancer. We don't KNOW that age does. Although it
>seems tautological - if increased exposure to pollutants
>causes cancer,
>then the longer you are exposed to them, the more likely you
>are to get
>cancer, hence the older you are, the more likely you are, etc.
Incorrect, merely existing longer makes you more likely to get cancer,
regardless of pollutants or carcinogens or ionizing radiation. The
cellular DNA copying systems are not perfect, and the more times they
copy the more likely they are to make a mistake. Additionally, there is
a limit to the number of times a cell can copy itself, this was likely
evolved as a mechanism to delay the onset of cancer past reproductive
ages.
>
>While the conjecture is an important one, it doesn't make it more than
>a contributing factor - GIVEN that we KNOW that increased stress,
>pollutants, alcohol, tobacco, smog, heavy-metals, food-poisons, etc.
>are cancer-causing.
>
On the contrary, small amounts of stress and pollutants actually
decrease the likelyhood of getting cancer, as it puts into action stress
repair mechanisms that are inactive at lower levels. Refer to this
months special issue of Scientific American, which has an article about
the effect. Some CR practitioners accomplish CR by eating every other
day, but eating normally on those days, as (they say) it enacts the
stress mechanisms associated with slowing the rate of aging and delaying
the onset of cancers. That scientific American article infacts suggests
that the very stringent pollutants requirements in post industrialized
nations actually cause more cancers then if they were slightly less
stringent. Although there is a point where the cancer incidinces
increase with stress levels / exposure rates.
>Quick quiz:
>Which is more likely to cause cancer:
>_extended exposure to tar
>_being over 95
Being over 95
>Which is more likely to cause cancer:
>_ Being over 35
>_ Being a long-term Smoker over 35
Being a long term smoker over 35
>Which is more likely to cause cancer:
>_ Exposure to radioactive materials
>_ genetic disposition to cancer
Depends on the dose, but probably a genetic predisposition, as 50% of
all people who have cancer have, for starters, a mutation in the p53
gene.
The general public's understanding of carcinogenic threats is pretty
much opposite of the real threats. An average young adult who drinks
and smokes socially will probably get cancer from his drinking, not his
smoking. The vast majority of cancer causing agents are *natural* as
plants prefer not to be eaten, and have evolved millions of natural
pesticides, most of which have never seen the inside of an EPA lab. A
single veggie may contain more natural and carcinogenic pesticides then
you will consume as an average american of synthetic carcinogenic
pesticides over your entire life, yet so far the EPA only tests
synthetic ones. Refer to the HERP index sometime, a single glass of
beer has 300 times the cancer causing agents that a typical
industrialized agriculture apple does. Coffee is even worse. And
people who are thin and health have far lower incidences of cancer, even
though they are subjected to the same environmental barrage. Diet is
the single most influential controllable factor, far more so than
radiation or pollutants, by orders of magnitude.
Michael Dickey
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Sep 12 2003 - 00:51:54 MDT