From: Technotranscendence (neptune@superlink.net)
Date: Sun Sep 14 2003 - 08:30:13 MDT
On Friday, September 12, 2003 12:36 PM Robbie Lindauer
robblin@thetip.org wrote:
>> There are lots of people exposed to pollutants
>> who don't have cancer, too.
>
> My point is simply this:
>
> Modern concepts of causation are not deterministic.
Well, my understanding is that cancer is a class of multi-causal
diseases. In general, it seems that two gene mutations are necessary to
cause any given cancer: one in an oncogene, the other in a tumor
suppressor gene. There are a variety of factors that can cause either,
including inheritence, behavior, environmental factors (presence of
carcinogens), and infectious agents (e.g., H. pylori seems to be
implicated in stomach cancer).
> In our current understanding of the causes of cancer,
> both age and toxins are factors. On this I think we all
> agree. Take away the toxins - who knows. Take
> away the age - who knows. After that it's ALL
> conjecture.
To some extent, yes, but as others have pointed out it's nearly
impossible to remove all toxins AND I think Robert pointed out that a
certain amount of toxic stress might actually be good for the body
because it ramps up defense mechanisms.
Also, I would point out that two other things I didn't see mentioned in
this discussion -- or I missed them, so forgive me for echoing someone
else's words unwittingly. One is that carcinogens are both human-made
and non-human made. So merely saying reductions in human-made
pollutants ("pollutants" already being kind of a subjective term; to me,
burning incense in my domicile would be considered polluting it, while
many of my friends love doing that in theirs) would reduce cancer, this
leaves alone increases in natural ones.
The other is that diagnostic capabilities have increased over time. So,
it's possible that cancer rates might have been under-reported in the
past. If, say, someone who was poor died in India in 1800 CE or even
BCE at the age of 70, would anyone have know what caused her death?
Yeah, if there was a big cancerous lesion on her tongue, maybe.
Also, people have perhaps become too paranoid about these things. I
have a close friend who won't take dental X-rays because he fears
getting cancer. Now I don't know the statistical correlation between
dental X-rays and cancers, but the funny thing is neither does he!:@
So, he's basically just making an emotional choice here -- which might
cost him. (How? Well, a dental X-ray might identify certain mouth
problems that can be easily corrected. Some of these actually might be
cofactors in causing heart disease and even cancers.)
Cheers!
Dan
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/MyWorksBySubject.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Sep 14 2003 - 08:27:01 MDT