From: "Damien Broderick" <d.broderick@english.unimelb.edu.au>
> If so, one might expect muscle builders to get more cancers in their
> micro-torn tissues (but then there's also oxidative damage, of course),
sex
> maniacs to get testicular cancer, curry eaters to get stomach cancer
> (assuming this ferocious stuff insults the lining and causes increased
rate
> of repair *without itself being mutagenic*), etc.
Thank you, Damien, for the chuckle. Yes, wouldn't it be poetically
befitting if sex maniacs were to get testicular cancer (unless there're
female sex maniacs). How very appropriate. And, gluttons deserve to get
stomach cancer. Hey, we already know about smokers and their just reward,
right? Does this mean geniuses are more susceptible to brain cancer?
> In short: many cancer-conducing hazards might not be primarily mutagenic
> (as suntanning is, exposing tissues to ionizing radiation), but, by
> increasing the turnover of cells, significantly multiply the chances of
> accumulated oncogene and telomerase activation, suppression of repair
> mechanisms, etc. If so, this might have implications for prevention and
> treatment.
I guess it's human nature to wonder about these things, and to try to find
a recognizable pattern in discovered correlations. Colon cancer might be
the bane of those who rely too heavily on gut feelings (and the related
enteric nervous system) to guide them through the world. Or maybe not.
τΏτ
Stay hungry,
--J. R.
Useless hypotheses: consciousness, phlogiston, philosophy, vitalism, mind,
free will
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:39 MDT