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

From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@aeiveos.com)
Date: Thu Sep 11 2003 - 21:21:58 MDT

  • Next message: Robbie Lindauer: "Re: cancer rates (was: e: How do you calm down the hot-heads?)"

    On Thu, 11 Sep 2003, Robbie Lindauer wrote:

    > We KNOW that the pollutants cause cancer.

    To a limited extent -- we know that certain pollutants can cause
    mutations (this has been worked out extensively by Bruce Ames).
    But this can include both pollutants *and* natural substances.
    What we don't know is the effect of dose-response relationships.
    There is reasonable evidence that exposure to low levels of stresses
    or toxic substances might actually up-regulate cell defenses and
    decrease the chances of getting cancer. This process is known as
    hormesis.

    > We don't KNOW that age does.

    Ca-ca. Cancer rates go up with age whether one lived in Roman
    times or the 20th century.

    > 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.

    No argument -- except for the hormesis effect I point out above.
    This is very variable in the human population -- consider humans
    living in a cave (for generations) with high radon levels vs. humans in
    a cave with low radon levels. It would have been very difficult for evolution
    to do a complete population optimization for exposure to variable levels
    of ionizing radiation (radon is radioactive and decays producing radiation
    that is potentially a major source of lung cancer).

    > 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.

    Stress causes cancer because it down-regulates the response of the
    immune system (see Sapolsky's work). This is a general misprogramming
    of the genome and the shift we have had from a hunter-gatherer societies
    to modern societies (which do provide certain benefits like antibiotics).

    Pollutants is kind of a genaral term -- certainly some alter gene regulation
    pathways in very subtle ways -- such as pollutants that resemble natural
    hormones (which seem to be involved in serious consequences to the development
    of certain fish and amphibians). Other pollutants may be completely harmless.

    Tobacco and smog are complex problems because they are not specific substances.
    Again types of molecules may be harmful but others may be non-harmful or
    even beneficial.

    Heavy metals can disrupt normal genetic regulatory pathways or the function
    of normal protein functions (as was recently determined for cadmium).
    They may or may not cause cancer. Iron and copper can hardly be considered
    "heavy" metals but both are ions that if not properly managed can generate
    free radicals that *will* damage DNA and lead to cancer. They are also
    essential nutrients -- if not consumed in sufficient quantities one is
    highly likely to suffer a premature death. Ha -- you can beat cancer
    by reducing your iron and copper intake -- that way you die before you
    get a chance to develop cancer.

    Certain "food-poisons", such as Sulforaphane in Broccoli actually have
    anti-cancer properties by up-regulating the better pathways of detoxification
    in ones liver.

    Bottom line (IMO): a big chunk of aging is due to the misrepair of DNA
    double strand breaks corrupting the genetic code. The longer you are around
    the more corrupted the code becomes. Result: increased rates of cancer
    and the more general phenomena known as "aging".

    This fits in well with oxidative stress, management of cellular glucose
    levels (the whole glycemic index thingy), caloric restriction, increases
    in mutagenic substances in the environment damaging DNA, exposure to higher
    radiation levels (homes with higher radon levels), etc.

    Bottom line -- one isn't going to correct the problem until one has robust
    bionanotechnology or nanotechnology to correct the repair pathways that
    cause the corruption of the genetic code. The best you may be able to do
    in the meantime is retard those processes that contribute to the mutations
    and/or double strand breaks.

    Robert



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Sep 11 2003 - 21:31:06 MDT