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

From: Charles Hixson (charleshixsn@earthlink.net)
Date: Fri Sep 12 2003 - 11:00:19 MDT

  • Next message: Charles Hixson: "Re: cancer rates"

    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.

    We do know that certain pollutants cause cancer. That cancer can occur
    without them implies that there *are* other causes, but doesn't affect
    that certain pollutants cause cancer (or at least encourage the maturing
    of precancerous conditions into cancerous conditions).

    >>We don't KNOW that age does.

    Well, yes, we do. It takes time, sometimes a long time, for a single
    cancerous cell to even become a detectable group, much less a full
    tumor. Many cancers that strike adults have been growing since they
    were quite young, perhaps teens. If these same mutations had occurred
    when they were in their 60's, the cancer would never have
    happened...unless they lived to be around 200 (cell division slows as
    aging occurs). Or unless they were given some encouragement to grow
    more quickly. Say, perhaps, HGH.

    > Strawman. No one said age *causes* cancer. It is not precise to say that
    > pollution causes cancer either.
    I'll say it, in the limited sense of my prior paragraph. And I'll also
    assert that certain kinds of pollution cause it. Perhaps by encouraging
    cells to divide that otherwise wouldn't have.

    > - s
    >

    -- 
    -- Charles Hixson
    Gnu software that is free,
    The best is yet to be.
    


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Sep 12 2003 - 11:09:33 MDT