Well, this could sure deflate some of the fear mongering industry on 'do this / don't do that' or else risk cancer.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Plain old bad luck plays a major role in determining who gets cancer and who does not, according to researchers who found that two-thirds of cancer incidence of various types can be blamed on random mutations and not heredity or risky habits like smoking.
The researchers said on Thursday random DNA mutations accumulating in various parts of the body during ordinary cell division are the prime culprits behind many cancer types.
They looked at 31 cancer types and found that 22 of them, including leukemia and pancreatic, bone, testicular, ovarian and brain cancer, could be explained largely by these random mutations - essentially biological bad luck.
I imagine some of the remaining types were related to what is known to be cause/effect. Things like asbestos, that apparently causes a very specific type of lung cancer that is identifiable to it.
That kinda sucks when you think about it. It means you could work your butt to the bone in good living every day, and still kick the bucket by the same cause of death as a hard charging party animal.
I'm willing to bet a lot of folks won't want to consider this very seriously.
Post by whitealice on Jan 23, 2015 15:58:53 GMT -6
Well, I'm at extreme high risk for cancers according to those fear mongerers but the things that make me so high risk are not general public things. They are due to specific agents that were used to treat me prenatally and as an adult but even those still just up that likelihood for me and don't guarantee it. Most people will never be exposed to those things (chemotherapy drugs and DES) so totally agree with you.
It's like smoking and lung cancer. 3 out of 4 of my grandparents were smokers. None of them died from lung cancer. One died from salivary cancer and she didn't chew tobacco. She was exposed to radiation as the wife of an atomic vet. Talking about emphysema or stroke incidence--those ones make more sense (1 died of emphysema, 2 suffered from strokes). But cancer? That's a stab in the dark in my book that's making some pretty heavy handed declarations. What I've seen has made me very skeptical of those cancer warnings.
Genetically speaking, I stand a risk of breast cancer, as my grandmother had it some 30 years ago. It metastasized to her lungs, but they were able to successfully treat it back then, and it never resurfaced. She died of colon cancer, and we know the family on my mom's side has had many, many people back through many generations die of colon, stomach and esophageal cancer. I'm assuming that, again speaking genetically, my demise is possibly going to be a cancer somewhere along the digestive tract, since we seem to have established through generations that we're predisposed to have at least a risk of it.
I've already accepted that I probably drew the short straw in the genes, these cancers seem to clearly skip generations, while heavily impacting others. My mom, her siblings & cousins have no instances of cancer. I have several cousins who've already battled it. I await the battle myself, with the middle finger primed & raised 123nin
One of the things that you might look at is where your grandmother was living those 30 years ago. As a granddaughter of an atomic vet, I've kept up on the subject for obvious reasons. During the Nevada tests, portions of the US were actually hit with radioactive fallout and people hit with this fallout had significantly increased rates of cancers, including breast. They are called "downwinders". My daughter's great grandmother, for instance, was living in Arizona and developed breast cancer. She was awarded a settlement from the US government for radiation exposure. If your grandmother was in that fallout range, it could potentially reduce the possible genetic risk of breast cancer for you.
Downwinders would've been living in "certain areas" of Utah, Nevada, and Arizona:
One of the things that you might look at is where your grandmother was living those 30 years ago. As a granddaughter of an atomic vet, I've kept up on the subject for obvious reasons. During the Nevada tests, portions of the US were actually hit with radioactive fallout and people hit with this fallout had significantly increased rates of cancers, including breast. They are called "downwinders". My daughter's great grandmother, for instance, was living in Arizona and developed breast cancer. She was awarded a settlement from the US government for radiation exposure. If your grandmother was in that fallout range, it could potentially reduce the possible genetic risk of breast cancer for you.
Downwinders would've been living in "certain areas" of Utah, Nevada, and Arizona:
It obviously wouldn't help lower any digestive tract risk.
30 years ago, she lived in the Grand Rapids area. As far as I know, nothing atomic ever went on here, so I doubt there was a fallout zone she lived in.
One of the things that you might look at is where your grandmother was living those 30 years ago. As a granddaughter of an atomic vet, I've kept up on the subject for obvious reasons. During the Nevada tests, portions of the US were actually hit with radioactive fallout and people hit with this fallout had significantly increased rates of cancers, including breast. They are called "downwinders". My daughter's great grandmother, for instance, was living in Arizona and developed breast cancer. She was awarded a settlement from the US government for radiation exposure. If your grandmother was in that fallout range, it could potentially reduce the possible genetic risk of breast cancer for you.
Downwinders would've been living in "certain areas" of Utah, Nevada, and Arizona:
It obviously wouldn't help lower any digestive tract risk.
30 years ago, she lived in the Grand Rapids area. As far as I know, nothing atomic ever went on here, so I doubt there was a fallout zone she lived in.
Yep, Grand Rapids would be in the clear. Ah well, was worth a shot, lol.