Cancer is mostly man-made scientists suggest

[Tee Kay]

Which industrial substance causes chicken pox?

 

[Earthling]

So check the actualy. Come on, this is published in Nature

Provide us with a free link to the article? I couldn't blame anyone else when there is no link here to the source study and the journalist's article is just badly written like many are.

And I still think all those objections are valid and make sense. Did they actually determine and list the suspected cause of death for all the mummies then? (and that would be far more enlightening than just finding cancer however many times they did - the total list of all the suspected causes of death, which we could compare to modern statistics)

 

[Thoughtful Thug]

Which industrial substance causes chicken pox?

I don't know. But is it true that tobacco causes various cancers in many places in the human body?

Is there industrial man-made chemicals in almost all cigarettes?

 

[Traitorfish]

Which industrial substance causes chicken pox?

Chickens, presumably.

 

[Japanrocks12]

Which industrial substance causes chicken pox?

I could argue that parents sequestering kids in "pox parties" makes Chicken Pox "manmade" in the sense that that term is being used in this thread.

No, "manmade" implies that cancer wouldn't not exist unless humans did something deleterious to create a steady mutation rate. That's simply not true. Cancer occurs from errors in DNA replication and to claim that it is manmade because people exposed to carcinogens might get cancer at a greater rate betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of science.

 

[Tee Kay]

I don't know. But is it true that tobacco causes various cancers in many places in the human body?

Is there industrial man-made chemicals in almost all cigarettes?

Tobacco is natural. Humans though made the decision to smoke it (burning creates toxic compounds) and mass produce cigarettes (including various additives).

 

[uppi]

Provide us with a free link to the article? I couldn't blame anyone else when there is no link here to the source study and the journalist's article is just badly written like many are.

And I still think all those objections are valid and make sense. Did they actually determine and list the suspected cause of death for all the mummies then? (and that would be far more enlightening than just finding cancer however many times they did - the total list of all the suspected causes of death, which we could compare to modern statistics)

They don't do any statistics or anything in that direction, they don't have enough data to prove anything. Thus their conclusion is pretty tame and, as usual, has been blown out of proportion by the media:

It is hoped that research in palaeopathology will contribute to the elucidation of the pathogenesis of cancer. The publication of the first histological diagnosis of cancer in an Egyptian mummy is one step along the way. Despite the fact that other explanations, such as inadequate techniques of disease diagnosis, cannot be ruled out, the rarity of malignancies in antiquity is strongly suggested by the available palaeopathological and literary evidence. This might be related to the prevalence of carcinogens in modern societies.

So they cannot make a statement stronger than that the evidence hints at less occurrence of cancer in earlier times.

They do mention the shorter lifespan argument and say that they don't think it can explain it, but gain they don't have enough data to prove that.

And by the way: This is not published in Nature, but in one of its countless spinoffs, this one exclusively about cancer.

 

[Tee Kay]

I could argue that parents sequestering kids in "pox parties" makes Chicken Pox "manmade" in the sense that that term is being used in this thread.

No, "manmade" implies that cancer wouldn't not exist unless humans did something deleterious to create a steady mutation rate. That's simply not true. Cancer occurs from errors in DNA replication and to claim that it is manmade because people exposed to carcinogens might get cancer at a greater rate betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of science.

Well, I distinguish between man-made diseases and man-made phenomena. Cancer is not a man-made disease but its prevalence in modern society is partly a result of human activities and decisions.

 

[Thoughtful Thug]

Tobacco is natural. Humans though made the decision to smoke it (burning creates toxic compounds) and mass produce cigarettes (including various additives).

Oh, I see what you mean. It isn't tobacco that causes cancer, but the additives?

I thought it was both, with the additives add more risks.

 

[Babbler]

And by the way: This is not published in Nature, but in one of its countless spinoffs, this one exclusively about cancer.

But you expect the spin-off to have the same quality controls as the mothership, right?

Here's some skeptical takes from the Telegraph, New Scientist and Cancer Research UK. Frankly, the study would go better if the author didn't say "there is nothing in the natural environment that can cause cancer", which is patently false.

 

[Tee Kay]

Oh, I see what you mean. It isn't tobacco that causes cancer, but the additives?

I thought it was both, with the additives add more risks.

Burning tobacco itself release compounds. I'm not sure which ones are toxic though.

 

[Narz]

Which industrial substance causes chicken pox?

This is a thread about cancer.

Is there industrial man-made chemicals in almost all cigarettes?

These days, yeah. But it's fairly common knowledge that breathing smoke is bad for you. Even smoked meat is carcinogenic.

Frankly, the study would go better if the author didn't say "there is nothing in the natural environment that can cause cancer", which is patently false.

I agree that detracts, phrase like "natural environment" and "can cause" are kind of vague & hard to define anyway so statements like that probably should be best avoided altogether.

 

[Earthling]

And by the way: This is not published in Nature, but in one of its countless spinoffs, this one exclusively about cancer.

Ah, ok, thanks very much for more information though. As usual most of us just won't have access to the articles I guess (but sometimes you find out it is something that's free online and just don't know it, that's what I was asking) and that's fine - but that should be recognized I think, people are gonna ask questions that we can't know without reading the study firsthand, and I would agree as usual the media/journalists misinterpret or blow things out of proportion.

 

[Oerdin]

I honestly think the reason ancient people didn't get much cancer is because ancient people died at age 35.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

I saw this article a few days ago, linked from another site I frequent. I have several points:

1. No kidding some cancers are caused by environmental pollutants. We've known that for a long time. Lung cancer is caused by smoking. Thyroid cancer is caused by radiation.

2. Until the 20th century, due to lack of technology, it was not possible to discover a diagnosis for every disease, so a lot of diseases simply went unknown. Cancer was likely one of them.

3. Until the 20th century, most people died of an infection long before they were of an age advanced enough to have cancer. That may be why all those cadavers in this study were lacking in tumors.

4. Many cancers are caused by viral infections which did not exist until recent times.

5. Even if it is known that cancer is caused by human activity, it doesn't help to combat it.

 

[Thoughtful Thug]

I saw this article a few days ago, linked from another site I frequent. I have several points:

1. No kidding some cancers are caused by environmental pollutants. We've known that for a long time. Lung cancer is caused by smoking. Thyroid cancer is caused by radiation.

2. Until the 20th century, due to lack of technology, it was not possible to discover a diagnosis for every disease, so a lot of diseases simply went unknown. Cancer was likely one of them.

3. Until the 20th century, most people died of an infection long before they were of an age advanced enough to have cancer. That may be why all those cadavers in this study were lacking in tumors.

4. Many cancers are caused by viral infections which did not exist until recent times.

5. Even if it is known that cancer is caused by human activity, it doesn't help to combat it.

I wonder (number 4) if there are cases of viral infections that do not exist now?

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

They don't do any statistics or anything in that direction

...yeah, I think we're done here.

 

[Tee Kay]

This is a thread about cancer.

Heh. It was a response to Japanrocks

Last Post On Page Syndrome strikes Again.

 

[smellymummy]

it's amazing what a mummy can prove nowadays

 

[Narz]

5. Even if it is known that cancer is caused by human activity, it doesn't help to combat it.

Sure it does. Certain human activities (like smoking, working/living in highly polluted areas, certain diets, etc.) produce more cancers than others so if we avoid or minimize those activities we reduce our risk.