Latest Breaking News

blkmusclmachine

(16,149 posts)

55. Oh, neat.

Reply to jeff47 (Reply #2)

Fri Jan 2, 2015, 08:48 PM

Jan 2015

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

64 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Most cancer types 'just bad luck' [View all] bemildred Jan 2015 OP

Each cell in the body is a ticket in the cancer lottery. JEFF9K Jan 2015 #1

Is there a known correlation between body size and cancer rates? Helen Borg Jan 2015 #9

Recent studies have shown a somewhat shocking correlation between cancer rates ... JEFF9K Jan 2015 #34

But it should be "volume" not just height.. Helen Borg Jan 2015 #35

Thomas Samaras specializes in the corellation between height and longevity. JEFF9K Jan 2015 #36

Yay! I knew that being vegan was worth it!! Helen Borg Jan 2015 #37

More cells, more chances to 'win' a cancer? Erich Bloodaxe BSN Jan 2015 #52

Cancer will kill you if nothing else gets you first jeff47 Jan 2015 #2

Oh, neat. blkmusclmachine Jan 2015 #55

Any statistical spread spike91nz Jan 2015 #3

Yes. Yes. Yes. Or another way of saying it - truedelphi Jan 2015 #5

So many things I am sensitive to years later I will see an article saying it is linked lunasun Jan 2015 #7

I wonder if asthma, add, colitis, alzheimer's and autism are just bad luck? appalachiablue Jan 2015 #4

Bad luck due to environmental toxins in the case of glinda Jan 2015 #6

what's mds? n/t loudsue Jan 2015 #11

Marylands. Orrex Jan 2015 #12

doctors. progree Jan 2015 #21

MDS = Myelodysplastic Syndrome... rexcat Jan 2015 #48

Exactly. And there will tons of those coming up soon. glinda Jan 2015 #62

I guess people were just luckier 100 years ago CrawlingChaos Jan 2015 #8

It seems likely that a lot of cancer deaths were undiagnosed a century ago Orrex Jan 2015 #13

I'm sure that's true in some cases CrawlingChaos Jan 2015 #16

I'd need to see hard numbers Orrex Jan 2015 #18

One of the reasons for the rise of cancer rates sarge43 Jan 2015 #25

So you explain it by a vast network of scientists shilling for industries and making false reports.. Fred Sanders Jan 2015 #26

Surely you don't deny the existence of industry shills CrawlingChaos Jan 2015 #44

Cancer was not far more rare, per capita, 100 years ago than today, some types were, but there are reasons. Fred Sanders Jan 2015 #14

There are scientists and then there are shills working for polluters CrawlingChaos Jan 2015 #17

Indeed, critical thinking is essential. Let me help you: Orrex Jan 2015 #20

I would be interested Betty Jan 2015 #29

Plus there's the problem of our ability to save "unhealthy" people. jeff47 Jan 2015 #31

That *median* life expectancy was due largely to child and infant mortality CrawlingChaos Jan 2015 #40

the increased BC in younger women is linked with late or no childbearing zazen Jan 2015 #49

No way CrawlingChaos Jan 2015 #50

as a premenopausal BC survivor who might have had more kids, I've read a lot about this too zazen Jan 2015 #51

I don't see how that would explain the huge increase in BC rates CrawlingChaos Jan 2015 #56

What was the rate of diagnosis of breast cancer a century ago? Orrex Jan 2015 #53

Why don't you assign yourself some homework CrawlingChaos Jan 2015 #57

I posted links that destroyed your erstwhile point Orrex Jan 2015 #59

The hell you did! OMG, you can't be serious CrawlingChaos Jan 2015 #60

FYI, stomping your feet and storming off is a poor substitute for argument Orrex Jan 2015 #61

And how many more carcinogens, pathogens, and polluted air & lakes are there now vs. ancient greece? Elmer S. E. Dump Jan 2015 #24

Not to mention smoking rates, obesity, no exercise, toxins, living longer, sun exposure, etc. Fred Sanders Jan 2015 #27

No, we died from something else first 100 years ago. jeff47 Jan 2015 #28

Many died in childhood and infancy CrawlingChaos Jan 2015 #42

I wasn't talking about median life expentancy jeff47 Jan 2015 #45

This is where I throw up my hands... CrawlingChaos Jan 2015 #46

No, I'm saying we can't do an easy, direct comparison. jeff47 Jan 2015 #47

Most didn't live long enough to get cancer hack89 Jan 2015 #32

100-200 years ago, people in cities breathed a toxic soup of coal ash NickB79 Jan 2015 #64

Being born is the cause of all the bad luck. Helen Borg Jan 2015 #10

Now this is a real example of ...... nolabels Jan 2015 #63

IMO this article is misleading or better yet Bull Shit watoos Jan 2015 #15

The problem with anecdotes is that you can't set up controls for a sample size of one. evirus Jan 2015 #19

Did prehistoric humans work around methyl chloride and tin tetrachloride? jeff47 Jan 2015 #30

Methyl chloride and tin tetrachloride killed the dinosaurs Orrex Jan 2015 #33

Um, It DIDN'T happen. Those are far from the only carcinogens in existance but GreatGazoo Jan 2015 #38

They aren't wrong. You're not understanding what they're doing. jeff47 Jan 2015 #39

You're saying, if I understand you correctly, that the body evolved a separate system to fight GreatGazoo Jan 2015 #41

No, it doesn't preclude those drugs jeff47 Jan 2015 #43

Bladder Cancer PADemD Jan 2015 #22

2/3rds. joshcryer Jan 2015 #23

, blkmusclmachine Jan 2015 #54

Does this mean doctors will quit trying to act like cancer is some moral failing on our parts? Jamastiene Jan 2015 #58