I give up. What DOES cause cancer?
Oct 28, 2015 21:34:34 GMT -6
kdog, Glencairn, and 4 more like this
Post by Charles1952 on Oct 28, 2015 21:34:34 GMT -6
I know, reading the news reports, we've come to believe that everything above a bare subsistence, vegetarian diet causes cancer. (I think they're preparing us for something.) But after all this time, don't we have a better answer? Well, actually, yes we do. It's just bad luck. No. I'm not kidding.
There are some popular language articles on the subject, but there's also a more scientific one which we might be able to get through.
It's not immediately clear from the article, but after re-reading it a few times it dawned on me that they were saying something like this. "There are many different types of cancer: skin, ovary, esophagus, liver, and on and on. We looked at 31 types of cancer. In 22 of the 31 types, we found that they were largely explained by bad luck. In the normal course of life, cells divide. In those 22 types, the cancers were caused largely by the cell division just happening to have a "manufacturing" error attributable to bad luck or chance.
The above quotes come from:
www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jan/01/two-thirds-cancer-cases-caused-bad-luck-lifestyle-genes
but there are many similar articles.
The more scientific article can be found here:
www.medscape.com/viewarticle/837771
That article contains the following link to an abstract of the study:
www.sciencemag.org/content/347/6217/78.abstract
The study itself is behind a subscription wall.
Anyway, the Medscape article includes this rather obtuse quote:
They do their best to clear that up with this comment:
I think all of this means that 71% (22 of 31) of the various types of cancers they looked at have random chance as their major cause. And, no, I wasn't able to find out which types of cancers were which. Still, we may not be able to do much about cancer except early detection.
If anyone knows more about this, I'd be glad to hear of it.
I think I'll go back to steak, bacon, scotch, and anything else.
There are some popular language articles on the subject, but there's also a more scientific one which we might be able to get through.
Most cases of cancer are largely the result of bad luck rather than unhealthy lifestyles, diet or inherited genes, new research suggests.
Random mutations that occur in DNA when cells divide are largely responsible for two thirds of adult cancers across a wide range of tissues.
The more often cells divide, the more likely it is that letters of their genetic code will become jumbled, leading to an increased cancer risk.
Overall, the study found that random mutations due to stem cell division could largely explain around 65% of cancer incidence.
People who live a long life despite exposure to cancer-causing agents such as tobacco are not so much blessed with good genes as good luck, said the professor.
He pointed out that large intestine tissue underwent four times more stem cell divisions than small intestine tissue. And colon cancer was much more prevalent than small intestine cancer.
Random mutations that occur in DNA when cells divide are largely responsible for two thirds of adult cancers across a wide range of tissues.
The more often cells divide, the more likely it is that letters of their genetic code will become jumbled, leading to an increased cancer risk.
Overall, the study found that random mutations due to stem cell division could largely explain around 65% of cancer incidence.
People who live a long life despite exposure to cancer-causing agents such as tobacco are not so much blessed with good genes as good luck, said the professor.
He pointed out that large intestine tissue underwent four times more stem cell divisions than small intestine tissue. And colon cancer was much more prevalent than small intestine cancer.
It's not immediately clear from the article, but after re-reading it a few times it dawned on me that they were saying something like this. "There are many different types of cancer: skin, ovary, esophagus, liver, and on and on. We looked at 31 types of cancer. In 22 of the 31 types, we found that they were largely explained by bad luck. In the normal course of life, cells divide. In those 22 types, the cancers were caused largely by the cell division just happening to have a "manufacturing" error attributable to bad luck or chance.
The above quotes come from:
www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jan/01/two-thirds-cancer-cases-caused-bad-luck-lifestyle-genes
but there are many similar articles.
The more scientific article can be found here:
www.medscape.com/viewarticle/837771
That article contains the following link to an abstract of the study:
www.sciencemag.org/content/347/6217/78.abstract
The study itself is behind a subscription wall.
Anyway, the Medscape article includes this rather obtuse quote:
The authors then calculated how much of the variation in cancer risk can be explained by the number of stem cell divisions. The linear correlation equal to 0.804 suggested that 65% of the differences observed in cancer incidence among different tissues could be explained by the total number of stem cell divisions in those tissues.
In their paper, the authors note that some types of tissue develop cancers far more frequently — in fact millions of times more so — than other tissue types. While scientists have recognized this phenomenon for more than 100 years, it has never been explained.
In their paper, the authors note that some types of tissue develop cancers far more frequently — in fact millions of times more so — than other tissue types. While scientists have recognized this phenomenon for more than 100 years, it has never been explained.
They do their best to clear that up with this comment:
But the current findings now show that organs with a large number of lifetime stem-cell divisions have higher incidences of cancer. In other words, tissues in which stem cells divide frequently, such as the colon, were more likely to develop cancer than those with less frequent stem cell division.
Using the analogy of an automobile accident, the authors note that their results would be "equivalent to showing a high correlation between length of trip and getting into an accident. Regardless of the destination, the longer the trip is, the higher the risk of an accident."
Using the analogy of an automobile accident, the authors note that their results would be "equivalent to showing a high correlation between length of trip and getting into an accident. Regardless of the destination, the longer the trip is, the higher the risk of an accident."
I think all of this means that 71% (22 of 31) of the various types of cancers they looked at have random chance as their major cause. And, no, I wasn't able to find out which types of cancers were which. Still, we may not be able to do much about cancer except early detection.
If anyone knows more about this, I'd be glad to hear of it.
I think I'll go back to steak, bacon, scotch, and anything else.
