Facts of life: living in a bubble may or may not reduce your cancer risk.
In all seriousness, a carcinogen's effect is different for each individual. Some people can smoke a pack a day for 60+ years before dying from something not so directly linked to smoking, and some people die of lung cancer at 43 from minimal second and third hand exposure. I'm not saying there are not ways to generally reduce your cancer risk, but stressing about could be as much of a contributing factor as your actual exposure to cancer causing agents.
I will say that it's a great idea to try and protect children from exposure since it will greatly effect them more, and the harm doesn't go away easily if at all.
You have to remember that everyone has cancer cells. your body destroys them though.
what it means to get cancer is that something triggers those cells to replicate faster than what your body can get rid of.
they are working in trying to find the sequence that triggers cancer cells to activate and why it affects some people and not others.
unhealthy living and other factors can contribute to the development of cancer but there are other factors involved as well. weakened immune system etc...
Children's immune system is not as developed as an adults as they have not been exposed to as many things. actually it should be stronger than most adults depending on the situation.
that is why parents who let their kids get dirty and play outside and other things tend to be less sick than those that don't.
as for cancer who knows why it affects some and not others. i think genetics play a large role.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
To what extent do environmental exposures influence cancer and immune and endocrine dysfunction?
Erm... Isn't this a medical question? Unless anyone here is a cancer researcher, how would we be qualified to answer this, and further, how would we debate this?
Erm... Isn't this a medical question? Unless anyone here is a cancer researcher, how would we be qualified to answer this, and further, how would we debate this?
I probably come closer to being a "cancer researcher" than most people on this forum, so here's my answer:
Quote from WUBRG »
To what extent do environmental exposures influence cancer and immune and endocrine dysfunction?
We don't know. Good night, everyone!
In a more serious vein, it's impossible to quantify that. Every single person living today has been somehow affected by the emissions of our modern technological society, and there is no data on cancer rates from before the industrial revolution. Everything we know about carcinogens comes from either observation of humans or from working with animal models, but those come with some problems.
Observing humans is inherently subject to drawing false conclusions, since there are so many different factors that have been associated with cancer in one way or another. For instance, suppose you were to look at the effect of drinking on cancer rates, and found that heavy drinkers were twice as likely as light drinkers or teetotalers to get cancer. You might then suggest that alcohol is a carcinogen. However, it might be that drinkers are more likely than non-drinkers to smoke cigarettes, and that smoking is the actual carcinogen. Now suppose that instead of there being only two factors, there are all the hundreds of factors that have been shown to be associated with cancer, and you can see why this is so difficult.
The other problem with showing causation is that cancer can take many decades to manifest. How do you run a study that covers someone's entire life? How do you get money to run that kind of study? The simple answer is, you can't.
Animal models are good, but only to a point. Yes, you can show that Nutrasweet gives rats cancer. The question is, how well does that translate to humans? In the case of aspartame, not all that well. Rats that were fed aspartame at doses proportional to the acceptable daily intake level for humans got cancer. In humans, you don't see it happening. Why? Who knows?
In conclusion, you're probably worrying too much about it. If I'm wrong, you can gloat at my funeral.
Right. What could be worse than this? Shouldn't our society be trying to avoid this, more than, say, focusing on amnesty for illegal aliens or giving bailouts to insurance companies and banks? Where are our priorities?
avoid what? i know people that never smoke, never drank, and lead healthy lives just up getting cancer. I know people that have done all those things that haven't.
you are trying to paint a black and white picture here and you can't. cancer is a non-targeting disease. something triggers the cells to replicate faster than what the person's body can handle. others are come on at birth. that is why we have places like St. Jude.
It is in our economic as well as social, political, moral, and personal interests to have healthy citizens who can work and take care of one another.
The only reason the federal government wouldn't support this is if it was being influenced by foreign interests.
conspiracy theorist much?
Yes. Why does Child Protective Services intervene when parents let their children do risky things now? Are they under the control of a foreign entity who wants to injure our society?
Why are so many kids prescribed drugs that they don't need? Who is ruining our society?
we are an over medicated society because have chosen to be. kids hardly get any exercise in school anymore there is a very good link more so in boys between outdoor exercise and learning.
kids that actually are allowed to exercise and play before going into the classroom tend to learn more and stay focused more than kids who don't.
some kids just are hyperactive yes but that can be dealt with. it is up to the parents whether or not we accept or give our kids drugs.
Maybe but isn't the incidence of cancer higher today than it was 1,000 years ago among all ethnicities?
they didn't know what cancer was 1000 years ago so there is no way to back up this statement.
"Don't do anything unless you are sure it's safe. Science can help you do that, but ultimately you must use your own discretion, intellect, and instinct."
if this is the case then how would you function? you couldn't stay in your house that is the least safest place there is. more accidents happen in the home than anywhere else.
you can't stay near your home because that is the 2nd most accident proned zone there is.
so what are you going to do? life has risks you either accept the risks that are there and live your life, or you try to dodge every possible circumstance that comes your way and unlike neo you are not that quick
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
we are an over medicated society because have chosen to be. kids hardly get any exercise in school anymore there is a very good link more so in boys between outdoor exercise and learning.
kids that actually are allowed to exercise and play before going into the classroom tend to learn more and stay focused more than kids who don't.
some kids just are hyperactive yes but that can be dealt with. it is up to the parents whether or not we accept or give our kids drugs.
As a parent, like yourself, I've found it more to be the parents and the children themselves. School only lasts till 2-4 pm depending on where you are, and for the most part that leaves between 4-6 hours worth of time. Summer time also leaves a greater variety of time for children to be outdoors.
However, we buy children electronic products, keep them on a tight leash to "make sure they aren't picked up by a stranger" beyond the normal age range you'd expect this to be an issue, and so on. We over indulge children and are overprotective and micromanage them into activities where there is limited exercise.
Furthermore, there are also some very deep trends in society where children use electronics to communicate with each other rather than simply talk to each other. Texting is a large issue. There's also the issue where unruly children's and imbecile parental politics is involved with children playing together that further lowers child-child activities that encourage exercise. If a child is picked on outside of their home, they'll carve out of a safe fiefdom in front of the television, computer, or whatever object will give them stimulation and attention.
Even for active children that are older, such as teens, there's a growing anathema to "do activities." More common I've seen even with adults our age I have seen "I'm too busy," "I dunno," and so on. I've talked with people that's noticed this same trend as social media products have increased their grasp on society. People just seem less possessed to do social activities in general.
He seems to regurgitate what other intellectuals write or place it into an overly technical language without much nuance or attempts at nuance. I'll applaud his intellectual capacity to recall information, though. It's no so much conspiracy theory, this sort of stuff you see with literature from men such as Zinn or Chomsky and a handful of other intellectuals. Of course, it could be just being in college, reading this stuff for the first time, and engaging with the information as "new, bold, and fresh" like Logicx falls into.
As a parent, like yourself, I've found it more to be the parents and the children themselves. School only lasts till 2-4 pm depending on where you are, and for the most part that leaves between 4-6 hours worth of time.
Huh school in most cases starts at 8-3 or 4 depending.
that is like 6 hours a day in a class room. were younger kids need more excerise to get their energy out. hence why all these studies show that kids that exercise or play before classes tend to concentrate and not be as figidy more so in boys.
they are also showing that putting boys in one class and girls in another has also increased learning capability in both classes.
It's no so much conspiracy theory, this sort of stuff you see with literature from men such as Zinn or Chomsky and a handful of other intellectuals.
maybe when they were younger and were actually an influence in their fields. unfortuantly for both of them later on in life they went nuts. they became extremists i feel they lose their power of influence at this point.
not worth reading or paying attention to. just my opinion.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Shouldn't the fact that such data, on cancer rates prior to the industrial revolution, not existing... suggest that cancer was not prevalent enough to warrant recording back then?
Cancer tends to affect older people. Prior to the industrial revolution, most people are dieing between the ages of 25 and 35. So most people are dieing before they can develop cancer.
Its like if we got rid of cancer today, hearts diseases etc. would immediatly become much more prevalent. People will (for the forseable future) always die, it is just a question of what they will die from.
One thing that needs to be weighed is how difficult it is to get rid of the carcinogens. In order to make an impact, how much would it cost? When studies about carcinogens are reported, usually they only tell you that there is a correlation, but not how much of a correlation there is, so I don't really know the impact. Some things are simply worth taking the risk, like crossing the street - are most carcinogens one of these things?
Even for active children that are older, such as teens, there's a growing anathema to "do activities." More common I've seen even with adults our age I have seen "I'm too busy," "I dunno," and so on. I've talked with people that's noticed this same trend as social media products have increased their grasp on society. People just seem less possessed to do social activities in general.
Maybe but isn't the incidence of cancer higher today than it was 1,000 years ago among all ethnicities?
So are the incidences of shooting deaths, drug overdoses, electrocutions, traffic fatalities...
You also have to remember that "incidence" is not an absolute term here. We can only deal with reported cases, and so what's on record may or may not be indicative of the true rate of cancer among historical populations.
Science has become too detail-oriented and rigid. We do not need to eat aspartame to survive. While we may not be able to declare with certainty that it is definitely harmful, we can say it is safe not to eat it.
Hahaha. While I agree with you that artificial sweeteners are stupid, I don't understand how science should be generality-oriented and fluid. That... just doesn't sound like science.
Cancer tends to affect older people. Prior to the industrial revolution, most people are dieing between the ages of 25 and 35. So most people are dieing before they can develop cancer.
This. Not to mention that, especially during the Industrial Revolution, I bet more people got cancer (but probably went untreated) because of the absolutely crap safety regulations, working conditions, etc.
@mystery, for the record, people knew basically what cancer was (I guess when it's skin cancer, for example, it's really hard not to wonder) all the way back to Hippocrates, they just didn't know what caused it. It took until 1000 A.D. to determine that surgery would work, and not until the 1700s to determine that it could have external causes.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Do I Contradict Myself? Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
The social influences were always there, it's just become more pronounced I've noticed in the last few years. It's just you see more people behaving how you'd expect a hardcore gamer to act as to pass up social activities to get more "game time in." Which is okay I guess for the youth, but after a while it takes a toll on families and friendships on actually meeting face to face obligations.
What would be so impractical about minimization of risk in the face of uncertainty?
This whole question ignores reality. Not only are cancer risks all around us with or without our involvement, people can choose to minimize their risk already.
There's also a delicate balance to consider. Take charred foods for example. Raw or undercooked food has its own problems. Or how about limiting exposure to the sun which is needed for vitamin D.
Are we so afraid to compromise the sanctity of science that we force ourselves to act in absolutes even when none are available?
This fake balance attitude is inhumane.
[quote]So, having no concern, and hiking on Yucca Mountain, would be better?
This is not what I said. What I said is that being a "canceraphobe" in the same manner of a "germaphobe" can increase your cancer risk to a magnitude greater than your cancer-risk-lowering measures lowered your cancer risk.
Obviously, there are flat out stupid things you could do as well. I wouldn't roll around in Asbestos either. If I lived in a home with Asbestos I would also obviously fix that.
How has science made our society so fatalistic?
I would love for you to show that society is more fatalistic than before. Especially since it'd be pretty easy to say it's not - such as pointing to hell and brimstone religious fervor that held society in the belief pattern that doing anything outside of what they "should" would result in eternal damnation.
If you could overcome that, then you would have to point out how science has made people fatalistic. To show that science has influenced people into believing they cannot do anything to change their lot in life would be impossible. Hell, you couldn't be saying that there are cancer risk factors to be avoided.
-----
In the end, you are saying we should ban chemicals, and you have cited some industries and some agriculture as the users and distributors of these evil chemicals that causes cancer in our friends and neighbors with no value to society.
This premise is terrible to begin with. The word "chemicals" is bandied around too freely just like "organic" or "green" is. To further exaggerate the fear-mongering involved in your premise, you mitigate the prevalence of these chemicals in modern society and claim they have no value.
If chemicals, prevalent in some industries and some agriculture, are contributing to cancer to an extent that is not known, should society tolerate them at all? Why? Because they create "value?" What is "value" if it gives our family members and friends and neighbors, tumors?
A follow-up question: Should society tolerate industries contributing to cancer to an extent that is known, or at least verified? The majority answer is yes! Let's brainstorm what we can do as individuals.
PS. I like you, at least as far as cancer is concerned, but people are going to shut you out as long as you talk like you do. My envy is yours if you're above caring about that, but I know how much it frustrates me to be shut out by people on radical topics, and I use layman's terms.
A follow-up question: Should society tolerate industries contributing to cancer to an extent that is known, or at least verified? The majority answer is yes! Let's brainstorm what we can do as individuals.
Wait, where's the majority? Here or society in general?
Anyway, if it's obvious that X product or process involves carcinogens, then we have to ask ourselves a few questions:
a) Can we achieve the same end result without using X?
b) Regardless of (a), does the cost of forgoing X outweigh the cost of its continued use?
c) If we must use X, is there a way to contain or otherwise mitigate its carcinogenic effects?
Basic economics. I think in most cases, products that may cause cancer should cease to be produced, but processes that may cause cancer are a little more flexible, depending on how vital they are.
That said, this is only in general terms; I don't know of any processes that are so vital that we can disregard possible carcinogens.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Do I Contradict Myself? Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
Wait, where's the majority? Here or society in general?
I was speaking of society, but very few people here seem to agree with WUBRG and me.
Quote from Valros »
Anyway, if it's obvious that X product or process involves carcinogens, then we have to ask ourselves a few questions:
a) Can we achieve the same end result without using X?
b) Regardless of (a), does the cost of forgoing X outweigh the cost of its continued use?
c) If we must use X, is there a way to contain or otherwise mitigate its carcinogenic effects?
What you've done here is rigged up a quick mathematical formula to potentially curb cancer, and the reason this fails is that everyone is viewing the mathematical formula from a different angle of perception. Beyond that, I don't condone thinking in absolutes.
Quote from Valros »
Basic economics. I think in most cases, products that may cause cancer should cease to be produced, butprocesses that may cause cancer are a little more flexible, depending on how vitalconvenient they are.
Take into consideration my edits and you're left with a pretty solid foundation for American industry's stance on carcinogens.
I was speaking of society, but very few people here seem to agree with WUBRG and me.
The only thing I really took issue with was the implication in WUBRG's post (though it could've just been a language thing) that "corporations" make carcinogenic products a) knowingly from the start; and b) just because they can. I reject that in almost all cases; however, if a product is found to be carcinogenic, then unless there is a very damn good reason it should be used (like, for example, "Nobody's ever going to have an unshielded nuclear reactor in their house") then it shouldn't be produced.
What you've done here is rigged up a quick mathematical formula to potentially curb cancer, and the reason this fails is that everyone is viewing the mathematical formula from a different angle of perception. Beyond that, I don't condone thinking in absolutes.
I dunno, "cancer is bad" seems to be pretty absolute. I also didn't imply (or at least didn't mean to) that my little flowchart would stick most carcinogens
Take into consideration my edits and you're left with a pretty solid foundation for American industry's stance on carcinogens.
Possibly true, obviously unethical. Just because I called my method "basic economics" doesn't mean that people actually apply it. Same with common sense.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Do I Contradict Myself? Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
I reject that in almost all cases; however, if a product is found to be carcinogenic, then unless there is a very damn good reason it should be used (like, for example, "Nobody's ever going to have an unshielded nuclear reactor in their house") then it shouldn't be produced.
Cigarettes, disposable plastic, charcoal grills, and pesticides off the top of my head. Literally in ten seconds or less.
Quote from Valros »
I dunno, "cancer is bad" seems to be pretty absolute. I also didn't imply (or at least didn't mean to) that my little flowchart would stick most carcinogens
And I didn't mean to imply that your series of questions was worthless; just that it wouldn't work on a large scale and even on an individual scale, absolute thinking tends to throw monkey wrenches around.
Also, "cancer is bad" is an absolute statement, which is why I wouldn't make it outside of a context pertaining to my own perspective. Hell, even within my own perspective are a plethora of imagined scenarios in which cancer is not entirely malicious, but that's a tangent besides.
Take into consideration my edits and you're left with a pretty solid foundation for American industry's stance on carcinogens.
I would love for you to show a method of making many of the catalysts (industrial or otherwise) without using any carcinogens. Hell, I would love your justification of not using Nickel in anything. Hell, you might as well just ban chemistry.
I would also love you to show how American industry is forcibly exposing people to carcinogens even though safer methods are known because of convenience.
Cigarettes, disposable plastic, charcoal grills, and pesticides off the top of my head. Literally in ten seconds or less.
-The cancerous effect of cigarettes is known and printed on the box because society won't let the government ban smoking. There have been a lot of underhanded and unethical practices in the manufacturing of cigarettes, and it's a black mark on industry. That said, if you have started smoking in the past 25 years you are purposely ignoring the immense risk and if you started smoking in the past 50 years you are less to blame but still had the knowledge needed to make a correct decision available.
- "Disposable plastic" doesn't cause cancer, specific types have recently been correlated to causing cancer and the evil industry complex have switched their products over. Also, the most quoted of the chemicals from disposable plastics is BPA, whose carcinogenic effect was only really found in the past 5 years and is debated by major organizations such as WHO.
- Charcoal grills are not carcinogenic, the char on the food is. If you see dark bits on your food, regardless of what you cooked it on, it's a carcinogen. It's also an effect of improper grill and food preparation.
- Pesticides (I'm going to lump the additives for farm animals here too) are indeed the gorilla in the room. That is, a bad pesticide will kill anything exposed to it. Pesticides manufacturers have gotten away with a lot simply because all pesticides cause health problems, but they are required to maintain a food supply and for the agriculture industry to turn a profit even after subsidies. Recent biological and agricultural advancements globally have started to change the way people grow food and especially how they harvest it, and its beginning to proliferate the industry as people are demanding safer produce and meats. A big part of the problem is the consumerist nature of people and food (particularly in this country), where people eat too much and eat things that are not sustainable where they are. Globally there are many governments who allow the use of pesticides that can't even be owned legally in the US anymore.
The problem with the stance you and WUBRG have taken is twofold:
It ignores how vital and prevalent these evil chemicals and industries have been to modern life.
It shows a lack of understanding in the field of chemistry.
There's a reason my wife will have up to three years maternity and paternity leave if/when she gets pregnant, and it's because the risks of exposure to chemicals from her work. The child will also be bottle fed, and we will be making our own baby food (probably even from our own garden). It doesn't change the fact that what she does day in and day out that exposes her to risks isn't vital, we will just be approaching the matter intelligently.
I also think, and have mentioned, that preventing cancer risks will have to be the responsibility of the individual at some point and time. Industry will never be able to release 100% safe no-long-term effect anything ever, and it's impossible to regulate industry to the point that they would privately pay for their own long-term testing to guarantee its safety. It's even less reasonable to expect them to be able to turn a profit at the same time. The government and science as a whole is responsible for making sure there isn't another DDT.
Knowing your personal genetic history and limiting your own personal cancer risk based off that knowledge is your responsibility.
I would love for you to show a method of making many of the catalysts (industrial or otherwise) without using any carcinogens. Hell, I would love your justification of not using Nickel in anything. Hell, you might as well just ban chemistry.
I recognize that carcinogens cannot ultimately be escaped. This in no way depreciates the fact that modern society is responsible for a great amount of them, and given my inability to practically "escape" modern society because of its inherent chokehold nature, I feel it's well within my rights to be upset that I cannot avoid exposure to carcinogens and other harmful byproducts (or direct products) of society (for example: I can refuse to drive a car, and yet I cannot escape their pollution simply for the fact that everyone around will still drive cars and have for some time to the point that the atmosphere has become saturated with it).
Quote from shibui »
I would also love you to show how American industry is forcibly exposing people to carcinogens even though safer methods are known because of convenience.
And yet you go on to agree with me about pesticides and food additives. Let's not even delve into the can of worms that is food being an unjust commodity.
Quote from Shibui »
-The cancerous effect of cigarettes is known and printed on the box because society won't let the government ban smoking. There have been a lot of underhanded and unethical practices in the manufacturing of cigarettes, and it's a black mark on industry. That said, if you have started smoking in the past 25 years you are purposely ignoring the immense risk and if you started smoking in the past 50 years you are less to blame but still had the knowledge needed to make a correct decision available.
Valros proposed that harmful products without necessity shouldn't be produced. How does the public information of the harmful nature of cigarettes negate the value of the idea that they are clearly an unnecessary product produced despite the dangers?
Quote from Shibui »
- "Disposable plastic" doesn't cause cancer, specific types have recently been correlated to causing cancer and the evil industry complex have switched their products over.
- Charcoal grills are not carcinogenic, the char on the food is.
Spare me semantics. Also, spare me the "evil industry" lines; it doesn't in anyway benefit your argument to make me out to be an uneducated hippy stereotype, on the contrary, it makes me respect you less.
Additionally, if you're trying to convince me that all industries in fact have our health in their best interests and have not only willingly, but eagerly complied with stricter health regulations in order to better preserve us, then you should know that that proposal is simply a lost cause where I am concerned.
Quote from Shibui »
The problem with the stance you and WUBRG have taken is twofold:[LIST=1]
It ignores how vital and prevalent these evil chemicals and industries have been to modern life.
The problem with your stance is that you assume everyone desires the perpetuation of modern life in its current manifestation.
Quote from Shibui »
It shows a lack of understanding in the field of chemistry.
I certainly can't speak with very much educated authority about chemistry, but how exactly is this relevant in light of experience? I don't need a degree to recognize that I am being poisoned on a daily basis at a significantly faster rate than I would do myself in, from outside influences entirely beyond my control. Is industry entirely to blame? Of course not, but it makes for an easy target because there are clearly industries who don't care about my plight because
A) I am not a consumer.
or
B) I am a consumer, and my money is a higher priority than my health.
Quote from Shibui »
Knowing your personal genetic history and limiting your own personal cancer risk based off that knowledge is your responsibility.
What gives you the impression that I don't subscribe to this train of thought? My outrage issues from the fact that many industries along with numerous other facets of modern society don't share an interest in taking responsibility for the health of their consumers (and the non-consumers inadvertently and unavoidably exposed to their products).
Cigarettes, disposable plastic, charcoal grills, and pesticides off the top of my head. Literally in ten seconds or less.
Cigarettes -- Definitely not vital, for more reasons than just carcinogenic. Their highly addictive nature for one, and tobacco has... very little use. At least marijuana (e.g.) can be used for hemp, or opium for morphine.
Disposable plastic -- Also not vital, and we can make plastic out of any kind of hydrocarbon, so there's that (corn plastic ftw!). Though the "disposable" part is of course a problem; why do we need all sorts of packaged things? (As an aside: I ☺☺☺☺in' hate blister packaging
Charcoal -- Well, as shibui pointed out, burning anything (wood, coal, etc.) is going to produce some carcinogens, so... moreover, unlike cigarettes, I don't think anyone wants to inhale charcoal smoke in large quantities.
- "Disposable plastic" doesn't cause cancer, specific types have recently been correlated to causing cancer and the evil industry complex have switched their products over. Also, the most quoted of the chemicals from disposable plastics is BPA, whose carcinogenic effect was only really found in the past 5 years and is debated by major organizations such as WHO.
I think the weirder thing about BPA is that it's potentially like estrogen, only way more potent. Chemicals mimicking hormones, IMO, is way worse than if they just caused cancer.
- Pesticides (I'm going to lump the additives for farm animals here too) are indeed the gorilla in the room.
Right; and pesticides aren't really "necessary." There are other methods, but pesticides have been the most feasible in the past. Not to mention the fertilizer/pesticide companies really like selling their product.
And yet you go on to agree with me about pesticides and food additives. Let's not even delve into the can of worms that is food being an unjust commodity.
Yea verily. Corn alone probably deserves its own thread.
How does the public information of the harmful nature of cigarettes negate the value of the idea that they are clearly an unnecessary product produced despite the dangers?
It doesn't; it just makes it all the more ridiculous.
Additionally, if you're trying to convince me that all industries in fact have our health in their best interests and have not only willingly, but eagerly complied with stricter health regulations in order to better preserve us, then you should know that that proposal is simply a lost cause where I am concerned.
Yep, it's not true. There has to be either a carrot or a stick. Fines and regulations should come first, then possible tax breaks for investment in healthier/safer methods.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Do I Contradict Myself? Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
I recognize that carcinogens cannot ultimately be escaped. This in no way depreciates the fact that modern society is responsible for a great amount of them, and given my inability to practically "escape" modern society because of its inherent chokehold nature, I feel it's well within my rights to be upset that I cannot avoid exposure to carcinogens and other harmful byproducts (or direct products) of society (for example: I can refuse to drive a car, and yet I cannot escape their pollution simply for the fact that everyone around will still drive cars and have for some time to the point that the atmosphere has become saturated with it).
Actually (more a point of interest) I have personally met three people that live on sustainable farms or ranchettes and raise their own meat, crops, dairy, etc. They actually barter with local small farms to make up the rest of the goods they need (food wise, obviously they buy modern medicine and such). They did it with the specific intent to remove themselves from the negative health impact of modern society. They just have to deal with a 3 hour commute and a lot of work to do at home.
And yet you go on to agree with me about pesticides and food additives. Let's not even delve into the can of worms that is food being an unjust commodity.
Actually, I agree with you but find that it's a modern phenomena proving there are other methods to change the current institutions. Even the magnitude of the negative impact is still being determined. My point is just that it's a far cry from knowingly exposing the public to carcinogens.
Valros proposed that harmful products without necessity shouldn't be produced. How does the public information of the harmful nature of cigarettes negate the value of the idea that they are clearly an unnecessary product produced despite the dangers?
I disagree that everything bad for us should be banned - quite staunchly too. I also feel cigarettes have a purpose, even if it's not a good purpose.
Spare me semantics. Also, spare me the "evil industry" lines; it doesn't in anyway benefit your argument to make me out to be an uneducated hippy stereotype, on the contrary, it makes me respect you less.
Additionally, if you're trying to convince me that all industries in fact have our health in their best interests and have not only willingly, but eagerly complied with stricter health regulations in order to better preserve us, then you should know that that proposal is simply a lost cause where I am concerned.
Semantics are a large part of the issue at hand. Both examples are drastically overstated because of semantics.
I feel safe in saying that you have portrayed industry as an evil thing - that is you are saying they are knowingly exposing the public to carcinogens out of convenience. An embellishment, but I'm not calling you a hippie.
I'm not trying to convince you industry has our health in mind, I'm saying that industry has standards. I'm also saying that those standards are driven by the consumer.
The problem with your stance is that you assume everyone desires the perpetuation of modern life in its current manifestation.
Then enjoy that computer while you can - you know, the one loaded with carcinogens both in process and in product.
People have more options than they are willing to admit to.
I certainly can't speak with very much educated authority about chemistry, but how exactly is this relevant in light of experience? I don't need a degree to recognize that I am being poisoned on a daily basis at a significantly faster rate than I would do myself in, from outside influences entirely beyond my control. Is industry entirely to blame? Of course not, but it makes for an easy target because there are clearly industries who don't care about my plight because
A) I am not a consumer.
or
B) I am a consumer, and my money is a higher priority than my health.
It matters because you seem to not be able do distinguish the difference between carcinogens or our understanding of how they work. As it stands you are choosing to be paranoid about poisons entering your body killing you before you would have died had you been raised in isolation of them - speaking of which, there absolutely zero possibility of you knowing that whatsoever. Not even a little. This is a wild assumption you have made about life, and not something that makes sense.
The problem with throwing around "carcinogen" this and "mutagen" that is that they are incredibly common to the point of absurdity. The concept of shutting off exposure is simply impossible, the concept of limiting your individual cancer risk based on family history is not only possible but encouraged. The thing is that it is up to an individual to determine those factors and act on them with the help of a doctor - not society, government, or anything else.
What gives you the impression that I don't subscribe to this train of thought? My outrage issues from the fact that many industries along with numerous other facets of modern society don't share an interest in taking responsibility for the health of their consumers (and the non-consumers inadvertently and unavoidably exposed to their products).
While I don't view those two sentences as opposing, they are not in step with each other. An individual proactively taking their health into their hands and working with a doctor to lower cancer risk is a far cry from being angry at modern life for giving you a poor lot in life in terms of cancer risk. You could substitute cancer for "prevolent disease of the time" and you can have any generation express outrage at the mismanagement leading to the problem, instead of being concerned about helping people lower their risk realistically you are expressing outrage over something that cannot be controlled completely (obviously it's not completely out of society's control, just mostly).
It seems like the biggest issue you're having is that we see two different shades of gray.
I think the weirder thing about BPA is that it's potentially like estrogen, only way more potent. Chemicals mimicking hormones, IMO, is way worse than if they just caused cancer.
Yeah, it's a defense mechanism in the human body to process anything it can't process as estrogen. It leads to early development in girls and less potent swimmers in guys. I found it awesome that our body does with with chemical warfare agents as well (obviously when there's not enough to kill you).
I do wonder to what extent chemical carcinogens are responsible for total cancer cases as opposed to, say, poor nutrition, viruses, and heredity...
... stress, water intake, eating habits, sleeping patterns, etc. The list of causes of cancer is growing because it's so individual. Even taking actions into your own hands cannot guarantee anything.
Sadly, the regulations come from government, which assesses where to set the bar based on population studies. Exposure limits are based on the principle of acceptable risk, which is based on population studies. For individuals, the risk assessment is different. Some people are unwilling to accept any additional risk, others are perfectly content to accept a 100-fold increase in risk of a certain type of cancer just to get their nicotine fix. But at the population level, the government knows that carcinogens in industry and commercial goods do not distinguish between the fastidious risk-averse and the smoker. So it is up to their scientists and policy makers to determine what increased risk is acceptable, and balance that with what industry needs to continue to function.
It's never as simple as finding and eliminating causes of cancer. Standing outside in the sun will increase your melanoma risk, but it also decreases your risk for some other types of cancer through the activity of vitamin D and calcium homeostasis. Go figure.
So what? It is possible to demonstrate that there is more cancer today than there has been in the past. This correlates to something. To what specifically it correlates, may not be definitive, but why does science fear to say anything not absolutely certain?
Yes! Getting old causes cancer. When you age, your cells' DNA repair mechanisms become more faulty, and your body succumbs to tumors. Life expectancy has been growing linearly for the past few centuries, and you find it SURPRISING that cancer rates are also growing?
We are obviously not a healthier society than we were 100 years ago, by any measurement.
YES WE ☺☺☺☺ING ARE. By almost EVERY objective measurement, we are healthier today than we were a hundred years ago. One hundred years ago, there was no FDA, there was no such thing as antibiotics, and we had barely even discovered what a "virus" was. How can you possibly make the case that we are less healthy today than we were a century ago without being absolutely blind as to the facts of early 20th century existence?
Shouldn't the fact that such data, on cancer rates prior to the industrial revolution, not existing... suggest that cancer was not prevalent enough to warrant recording back then?
Because they were dying in childbirth, or of infectious diseases, which medical science didn't know how to treat, long before they were getting old enough to get cancer. Why do you not understand this?
A white male born in 1850 could expect to live for 38 years. Does that sound "healthy" to you?
Now look at 2004. That number jumps to 75.7 years. I know which time period I'd rather be living in!
Again, I know it cannot be made certain, but let's have the intellectual competence to make inferences as well as observations; if the inferences turn out to be incorrect, we can get rid of them.
You ask ME to be intellectually competent? What's your background in? What do YOU know about the biology of cancer?
You're making inferences off of bogus assumptions, and display a lack of knowledge that is frankly startling.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
In all seriousness, a carcinogen's effect is different for each individual. Some people can smoke a pack a day for 60+ years before dying from something not so directly linked to smoking, and some people die of lung cancer at 43 from minimal second and third hand exposure. I'm not saying there are not ways to generally reduce your cancer risk, but stressing about could be as much of a contributing factor as your actual exposure to cancer causing agents.
I will say that it's a great idea to try and protect children from exposure since it will greatly effect them more, and the harm doesn't go away easily if at all.
what it means to get cancer is that something triggers those cells to replicate faster than what your body can get rid of.
they are working in trying to find the sequence that triggers cancer cells to activate and why it affects some people and not others.
unhealthy living and other factors can contribute to the development of cancer but there are other factors involved as well. weakened immune system etc...
Children's immune system is not as developed as an adults as they have not been exposed to as many things. actually it should be stronger than most adults depending on the situation.
that is why parents who let their kids get dirty and play outside and other things tend to be less sick than those that don't.
as for cancer who knows why it affects some and not others. i think genetics play a large role.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Erm... Isn't this a medical question? Unless anyone here is a cancer researcher, how would we be qualified to answer this, and further, how would we debate this?
I probably come closer to being a "cancer researcher" than most people on this forum, so here's my answer:
We don't know. Good night, everyone!
In a more serious vein, it's impossible to quantify that. Every single person living today has been somehow affected by the emissions of our modern technological society, and there is no data on cancer rates from before the industrial revolution. Everything we know about carcinogens comes from either observation of humans or from working with animal models, but those come with some problems.
Observing humans is inherently subject to drawing false conclusions, since there are so many different factors that have been associated with cancer in one way or another. For instance, suppose you were to look at the effect of drinking on cancer rates, and found that heavy drinkers were twice as likely as light drinkers or teetotalers to get cancer. You might then suggest that alcohol is a carcinogen. However, it might be that drinkers are more likely than non-drinkers to smoke cigarettes, and that smoking is the actual carcinogen. Now suppose that instead of there being only two factors, there are all the hundreds of factors that have been shown to be associated with cancer, and you can see why this is so difficult.
The other problem with showing causation is that cancer can take many decades to manifest. How do you run a study that covers someone's entire life? How do you get money to run that kind of study? The simple answer is, you can't.
Animal models are good, but only to a point. Yes, you can show that Nutrasweet gives rats cancer. The question is, how well does that translate to humans? In the case of aspartame, not all that well. Rats that were fed aspartame at doses proportional to the acceptable daily intake level for humans got cancer. In humans, you don't see it happening. Why? Who knows?
In conclusion, you're probably worrying too much about it. If I'm wrong, you can gloat at my funeral.
avoid what? i know people that never smoke, never drank, and lead healthy lives just up getting cancer. I know people that have done all those things that haven't.
you are trying to paint a black and white picture here and you can't. cancer is a non-targeting disease. something triggers the cells to replicate faster than what the person's body can handle. others are come on at birth. that is why we have places like St. Jude.
conspiracy theorist much?
we are an over medicated society because have chosen to be. kids hardly get any exercise in school anymore there is a very good link more so in boys between outdoor exercise and learning.
kids that actually are allowed to exercise and play before going into the classroom tend to learn more and stay focused more than kids who don't.
some kids just are hyperactive yes but that can be dealt with. it is up to the parents whether or not we accept or give our kids drugs.
they didn't know what cancer was 1000 years ago so there is no way to back up this statement.
if this is the case then how would you function? you couldn't stay in your house that is the least safest place there is. more accidents happen in the home than anywhere else.
you can't stay near your home because that is the 2nd most accident proned zone there is.
so what are you going to do? life has risks you either accept the risks that are there and live your life, or you try to dodge every possible circumstance that comes your way and unlike neo you are not that quick
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
As a parent, like yourself, I've found it more to be the parents and the children themselves. School only lasts till 2-4 pm depending on where you are, and for the most part that leaves between 4-6 hours worth of time. Summer time also leaves a greater variety of time for children to be outdoors.
However, we buy children electronic products, keep them on a tight leash to "make sure they aren't picked up by a stranger" beyond the normal age range you'd expect this to be an issue, and so on. We over indulge children and are overprotective and micromanage them into activities where there is limited exercise.
Furthermore, there are also some very deep trends in society where children use electronics to communicate with each other rather than simply talk to each other. Texting is a large issue. There's also the issue where unruly children's and imbecile parental politics is involved with children playing together that further lowers child-child activities that encourage exercise. If a child is picked on outside of their home, they'll carve out of a safe fiefdom in front of the television, computer, or whatever object will give them stimulation and attention.
Even for active children that are older, such as teens, there's a growing anathema to "do activities." More common I've seen even with adults our age I have seen "I'm too busy," "I dunno," and so on. I've talked with people that's noticed this same trend as social media products have increased their grasp on society. People just seem less possessed to do social activities in general.
He seems to regurgitate what other intellectuals write or place it into an overly technical language without much nuance or attempts at nuance. I'll applaud his intellectual capacity to recall information, though. It's no so much conspiracy theory, this sort of stuff you see with literature from men such as Zinn or Chomsky and a handful of other intellectuals. Of course, it could be just being in college, reading this stuff for the first time, and engaging with the information as "new, bold, and fresh" like Logicx falls into.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Huh school in most cases starts at 8-3 or 4 depending.
that is like 6 hours a day in a class room. were younger kids need more excerise to get their energy out. hence why all these studies show that kids that exercise or play before classes tend to concentrate and not be as figidy more so in boys.
they are also showing that putting boys in one class and girls in another has also increased learning capability in both classes.
maybe when they were younger and were actually an influence in their fields. unfortuantly for both of them later on in life they went nuts. they became extremists i feel they lose their power of influence at this point.
not worth reading or paying attention to. just my opinion.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Cancer tends to affect older people. Prior to the industrial revolution, most people are dieing between the ages of 25 and 35. So most people are dieing before they can develop cancer.
Its like if we got rid of cancer today, hearts diseases etc. would immediatly become much more prevalent. People will (for the forseable future) always die, it is just a question of what they will die from.
One thing that needs to be weighed is how difficult it is to get rid of the carcinogens. In order to make an impact, how much would it cost? When studies about carcinogens are reported, usually they only tell you that there is a correlation, but not how much of a correlation there is, so I don't really know the impact. Some things are simply worth taking the risk, like crossing the street - are most carcinogens one of these things?
The 21st century anomie?
So are the incidences of shooting deaths, drug overdoses, electrocutions, traffic fatalities...
You also have to remember that "incidence" is not an absolute term here. We can only deal with reported cases, and so what's on record may or may not be indicative of the true rate of cancer among historical populations.
Oh, c'mon... source or it didn't happen.
Hahaha. While I agree with you that artificial sweeteners are stupid, I don't understand how science should be generality-oriented and fluid. That... just doesn't sound like science.
This. Not to mention that, especially during the Industrial Revolution, I bet more people got cancer (but probably went untreated) because of the absolutely crap safety regulations, working conditions, etc.
@mystery, for the record, people knew basically what cancer was (I guess when it's skin cancer, for example, it's really hard not to wonder) all the way back to Hippocrates, they just didn't know what caused it. It took until 1000 A.D. to determine that surgery would work, and not until the 1700s to determine that it could have external causes.
Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
High schools in some areas end at like 2:30 or so, if you include busing and after school it can take it to 5-7 pm. Just some improper rounding.
The social influences were always there, it's just become more pronounced I've noticed in the last few years. It's just you see more people behaving how you'd expect a hardcore gamer to act as to pass up social activities to get more "game time in." Which is okay I guess for the youth, but after a while it takes a toll on families and friendships on actually meeting face to face obligations.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
There's also a delicate balance to consider. Take charred foods for example. Raw or undercooked food has its own problems. Or how about limiting exposure to the sun which is needed for vitamin D.
This is not what I said. What I said is that being a "canceraphobe" in the same manner of a "germaphobe" can increase your cancer risk to a magnitude greater than your cancer-risk-lowering measures lowered your cancer risk.
Obviously, there are flat out stupid things you could do as well. I wouldn't roll around in Asbestos either. If I lived in a home with Asbestos I would also obviously fix that.
I would love for you to show that society is more fatalistic than before. Especially since it'd be pretty easy to say it's not - such as pointing to hell and brimstone religious fervor that held society in the belief pattern that doing anything outside of what they "should" would result in eternal damnation.
If you could overcome that, then you would have to point out how science has made people fatalistic. To show that science has influenced people into believing they cannot do anything to change their lot in life would be impossible. Hell, you couldn't be saying that there are cancer risk factors to be avoided.
-----
In the end, you are saying we should ban chemicals, and you have cited some industries and some agriculture as the users and distributors of these evil chemicals that causes cancer in our friends and neighbors with no value to society.
This premise is terrible to begin with. The word "chemicals" is bandied around too freely just like "organic" or "green" is. To further exaggerate the fear-mongering involved in your premise, you mitigate the prevalence of these chemicals in modern society and claim they have no value.
A follow-up question: Should society tolerate industries contributing to cancer to an extent that is known, or at least verified? The majority answer is yes! Let's brainstorm what we can do as individuals.
PS. I like you, at least as far as cancer is concerned, but people are going to shut you out as long as you talk like you do. My envy is yours if you're above caring about that, but I know how much it frustrates me to be shut out by people on radical topics, and I use layman's terms.
Wait, where's the majority? Here or society in general?
Anyway, if it's obvious that X product or process involves carcinogens, then we have to ask ourselves a few questions:
a) Can we achieve the same end result without using X?
b) Regardless of (a), does the cost of forgoing X outweigh the cost of its continued use?
c) If we must use X, is there a way to contain or otherwise mitigate its carcinogenic effects?
Basic economics. I think in most cases, products that may cause cancer should cease to be produced, but processes that may cause cancer are a little more flexible, depending on how vital they are.
That said, this is only in general terms; I don't know of any processes that are so vital that we can disregard possible carcinogens.
Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
I was speaking of society, but very few people here seem to agree with WUBRG and me.
What you've done here is rigged up a quick mathematical formula to potentially curb cancer, and the reason this fails is that everyone is viewing the mathematical formula from a different angle of perception. Beyond that, I don't condone thinking in absolutes.
Take into consideration my edits and you're left with a pretty solid foundation for American industry's stance on carcinogens.
The only thing I really took issue with was the implication in WUBRG's post (though it could've just been a language thing) that "corporations" make carcinogenic products a) knowingly from the start; and b) just because they can. I reject that in almost all cases; however, if a product is found to be carcinogenic, then unless there is a very damn good reason it should be used (like, for example, "Nobody's ever going to have an unshielded nuclear reactor in their house") then it shouldn't be produced.
I dunno, "cancer is bad" seems to be pretty absolute. I also didn't imply (or at least didn't mean to) that my little flowchart would stick most carcinogens
Possibly true, obviously unethical. Just because I called my method "basic economics" doesn't mean that people actually apply it. Same with common sense.
Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
Cigarettes, disposable plastic, charcoal grills, and pesticides off the top of my head. Literally in ten seconds or less.
And I didn't mean to imply that your series of questions was worthless; just that it wouldn't work on a large scale and even on an individual scale, absolute thinking tends to throw monkey wrenches around.
Also, "cancer is bad" is an absolute statement, which is why I wouldn't make it outside of a context pertaining to my own perspective. Hell, even within my own perspective are a plethora of imagined scenarios in which cancer is not entirely malicious, but that's a tangent besides.
I would also love you to show how American industry is forcibly exposing people to carcinogens even though safer methods are known because of convenience.
-The cancerous effect of cigarettes is known and printed on the box because society won't let the government ban smoking. There have been a lot of underhanded and unethical practices in the manufacturing of cigarettes, and it's a black mark on industry. That said, if you have started smoking in the past 25 years you are purposely ignoring the immense risk and if you started smoking in the past 50 years you are less to blame but still had the knowledge needed to make a correct decision available.
- "Disposable plastic" doesn't cause cancer, specific types have recently been correlated to causing cancer and the evil industry complex have switched their products over. Also, the most quoted of the chemicals from disposable plastics is BPA, whose carcinogenic effect was only really found in the past 5 years and is debated by major organizations such as WHO.
- Charcoal grills are not carcinogenic, the char on the food is. If you see dark bits on your food, regardless of what you cooked it on, it's a carcinogen. It's also an effect of improper grill and food preparation.
- Pesticides (I'm going to lump the additives for farm animals here too) are indeed the gorilla in the room. That is, a bad pesticide will kill anything exposed to it. Pesticides manufacturers have gotten away with a lot simply because all pesticides cause health problems, but they are required to maintain a food supply and for the agriculture industry to turn a profit even after subsidies. Recent biological and agricultural advancements globally have started to change the way people grow food and especially how they harvest it, and its beginning to proliferate the industry as people are demanding safer produce and meats. A big part of the problem is the consumerist nature of people and food (particularly in this country), where people eat too much and eat things that are not sustainable where they are. Globally there are many governments who allow the use of pesticides that can't even be owned legally in the US anymore.
The problem with the stance you and WUBRG have taken is twofold:
I also think, and have mentioned, that preventing cancer risks will have to be the responsibility of the individual at some point and time. Industry will never be able to release 100% safe no-long-term effect anything ever, and it's impossible to regulate industry to the point that they would privately pay for their own long-term testing to guarantee its safety. It's even less reasonable to expect them to be able to turn a profit at the same time. The government and science as a whole is responsible for making sure there isn't another DDT.
Knowing your personal genetic history and limiting your own personal cancer risk based off that knowledge is your responsibility.
I recognize that carcinogens cannot ultimately be escaped. This in no way depreciates the fact that modern society is responsible for a great amount of them, and given my inability to practically "escape" modern society because of its inherent chokehold nature, I feel it's well within my rights to be upset that I cannot avoid exposure to carcinogens and other harmful byproducts (or direct products) of society (for example: I can refuse to drive a car, and yet I cannot escape their pollution simply for the fact that everyone around will still drive cars and have for some time to the point that the atmosphere has become saturated with it).
And yet you go on to agree with me about pesticides and food additives. Let's not even delve into the can of worms that is food being an unjust commodity.
Valros proposed that harmful products without necessity shouldn't be produced. How does the public information of the harmful nature of cigarettes negate the value of the idea that they are clearly an unnecessary product produced despite the dangers?
Spare me semantics. Also, spare me the "evil industry" lines; it doesn't in anyway benefit your argument to make me out to be an uneducated hippy stereotype, on the contrary, it makes me respect you less.
Additionally, if you're trying to convince me that all industries in fact have our health in their best interests and have not only willingly, but eagerly complied with stricter health regulations in order to better preserve us, then you should know that that proposal is simply a lost cause where I am concerned.
The problem with your stance is that you assume everyone desires the perpetuation of modern life in its current manifestation.
I certainly can't speak with very much educated authority about chemistry, but how exactly is this relevant in light of experience? I don't need a degree to recognize that I am being poisoned on a daily basis at a significantly faster rate than I would do myself in, from outside influences entirely beyond my control. Is industry entirely to blame? Of course not, but it makes for an easy target because there are clearly industries who don't care about my plight because
A) I am not a consumer.
or
B) I am a consumer, and my money is a higher priority than my health.
What gives you the impression that I don't subscribe to this train of thought? My outrage issues from the fact that many industries along with numerous other facets of modern society don't share an interest in taking responsibility for the health of their consumers (and the non-consumers inadvertently and unavoidably exposed to their products).
Cigarettes -- Definitely not vital, for more reasons than just carcinogenic. Their highly addictive nature for one, and tobacco has... very little use. At least marijuana (e.g.) can be used for hemp, or opium for morphine.
Disposable plastic -- Also not vital, and we can make plastic out of any kind of hydrocarbon, so there's that (corn plastic ftw!). Though the "disposable" part is of course a problem; why do we need all sorts of packaged things? (As an aside: I ☺☺☺☺in' hate blister packaging
Charcoal -- Well, as shibui pointed out, burning anything (wood, coal, etc.) is going to produce some carcinogens, so... moreover, unlike cigarettes, I don't think anyone wants to inhale charcoal smoke in large quantities.
I think the weirder thing about BPA is that it's potentially like estrogen, only way more potent. Chemicals mimicking hormones, IMO, is way worse than if they just caused cancer.
Right; and pesticides aren't really "necessary." There are other methods, but pesticides have been the most feasible in the past. Not to mention the fertilizer/pesticide companies really like selling their product.
I do wonder to what extent chemical carcinogens are responsible for total cancer cases as opposed to, say, poor nutrition, viruses, and heredity...
Yea verily. Corn alone probably deserves its own thread.
It doesn't; it just makes it all the more ridiculous.
Yep, it's not true. There has to be either a carrot or a stick. Fines and regulations should come first, then possible tax breaks for investment in healthier/safer methods.
Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
Actually, I agree with you but find that it's a modern phenomena proving there are other methods to change the current institutions. Even the magnitude of the negative impact is still being determined. My point is just that it's a far cry from knowingly exposing the public to carcinogens.
I disagree that everything bad for us should be banned - quite staunchly too. I also feel cigarettes have a purpose, even if it's not a good purpose.
Semantics are a large part of the issue at hand. Both examples are drastically overstated because of semantics.
I feel safe in saying that you have portrayed industry as an evil thing - that is you are saying they are knowingly exposing the public to carcinogens out of convenience. An embellishment, but I'm not calling you a hippie.
I'm not trying to convince you industry has our health in mind, I'm saying that industry has standards. I'm also saying that those standards are driven by the consumer.
Then enjoy that computer while you can - you know, the one loaded with carcinogens both in process and in product.
People have more options than they are willing to admit to.
It matters because you seem to not be able do distinguish the difference between carcinogens or our understanding of how they work. As it stands you are choosing to be paranoid about poisons entering your body killing you before you would have died had you been raised in isolation of them - speaking of which, there absolutely zero possibility of you knowing that whatsoever. Not even a little. This is a wild assumption you have made about life, and not something that makes sense.
The problem with throwing around "carcinogen" this and "mutagen" that is that they are incredibly common to the point of absurdity. The concept of shutting off exposure is simply impossible, the concept of limiting your individual cancer risk based on family history is not only possible but encouraged. The thing is that it is up to an individual to determine those factors and act on them with the help of a doctor - not society, government, or anything else.
While I don't view those two sentences as opposing, they are not in step with each other. An individual proactively taking their health into their hands and working with a doctor to lower cancer risk is a far cry from being angry at modern life for giving you a poor lot in life in terms of cancer risk. You could substitute cancer for "prevolent disease of the time" and you can have any generation express outrage at the mismanagement leading to the problem, instead of being concerned about helping people lower their risk realistically you are expressing outrage over something that cannot be controlled completely (obviously it's not completely out of society's control, just mostly).
It seems like the biggest issue you're having is that we see two different shades of gray.
Yeah, it's a defense mechanism in the human body to process anything it can't process as estrogen. It leads to early development in girls and less potent swimmers in guys. I found it awesome that our body does with with chemical warfare agents as well (obviously when there's not enough to kill you).
... stress, water intake, eating habits, sleeping patterns, etc. The list of causes of cancer is growing because it's so individual. Even taking actions into your own hands cannot guarantee anything.
It's never as simple as finding and eliminating causes of cancer. Standing outside in the sun will increase your melanoma risk, but it also decreases your risk for some other types of cancer through the activity of vitamin D and calcium homeostasis. Go figure.
Yes! Getting old causes cancer. When you age, your cells' DNA repair mechanisms become more faulty, and your body succumbs to tumors. Life expectancy has been growing linearly for the past few centuries, and you find it SURPRISING that cancer rates are also growing?
YES WE ☺☺☺☺ING ARE. By almost EVERY objective measurement, we are healthier today than we were a hundred years ago. One hundred years ago, there was no FDA, there was no such thing as antibiotics, and we had barely even discovered what a "virus" was. How can you possibly make the case that we are less healthy today than we were a century ago without being absolutely blind as to the facts of early 20th century existence?
Because they were dying in childbirth, or of infectious diseases, which medical science didn't know how to treat, long before they were getting old enough to get cancer. Why do you not understand this?
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html
Look at this table. LOOK AT IT.
A white male born in 1850 could expect to live for 38 years. Does that sound "healthy" to you?
Now look at 2004. That number jumps to 75.7 years. I know which time period I'd rather be living in!
You ask ME to be intellectually competent? What's your background in? What do YOU know about the biology of cancer?
You're making inferences off of bogus assumptions, and display a lack of knowledge that is frankly startling.