Cancer is a product of industrial environment

#1
utgibbs

utgibbs

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
7,394
Likes
0
#1
Ran across this report, and the ES is just shocking.

41% of all Americans will be diagnosed with cancer. 21% will die.

Cancer increasing among children.

"The Panel’s recommendations delineate concrete actions that governments; industry; the research, health care, and advocacy communities; and individuals can take to reduce cancer risk related to environmental contaminants, excess radiation, and other harmful exposures." [my emphasis]

I'm not sure there is a more compelling reason to reboot our culture and our lives.
 
Last edited:
#3
#3
How long do we live in an non-industrial environment? History suggests a lot shorter.
 
#4
#4
IPorange said:
How long do we live in an non-industrial environment? History suggests a lot shorter.
Click to expand...

That's not a function of industrialization - it's a function of observations on and about the real world outside the backdoor rather than taking the world as a product of faith.

I'm not going into a Marxist debate on whether we had to go through a process of industrialization before we could reach a point where we could de-industrialize while maintaining the achievements of these scientific inquiries. The fact is, culture determined we pour poison on our growing food. Culture produced ridiculous monoculture agriculture. Culture could have produced the Cuban organic revolution just as easily. And the list could be extrapolated to every carcinogen we produce. The scientific revolution preceeded the Capitalist revolution, so it is certain we could have gone a different way.

The fact is, if Thomas Midgley had been a chemist rather than an engineer, and had substituted bromine instead of chlorine in his CFCs, it is likely none of us would be here. And thus the dangers of our dominant culture are manifest. (Midgley, just FYI, was also responsible for tetraethyllead - you really couldn't make it up if you were writing a novel on how to destroy the world - as you well know, IP, one CFC factory could destroy the world much less a BFC).

The achievements you speak of are a scientific revolution - not an economic one. No one is suggesting rolling those back - although many on here advocate rolling back the Enlightenment.
 
Last edited:
#6
#6
utgibbs said:
That's not a function of industrialization - it's a function of observations on and about the real world outside the backdoor rather than taking the world as a product of faith.

I'm not going into a Marxist debate on whether we had to go through a process of industrialization before we could reach a point where we could de-industrialize while maintaining the achievements of these scientific inquiries. The fact is, culture determined we pour poison on our growing food. Culture produced ridiculous monoculture agriculture. Culture could have produced the Cuban organic revolution just as easily. And the list could be extrapolated to every carcinogen we produce. The scientific revolution preceeded the Capitalist revolution, so it is certain we could have gone a different way.

The fact is, if Thomas Midgley had been a chemist rather than an engineer, and had substituted bromine instead of chlorine in his CFCs, it is likely none of us would be here. And thus the dangers of our dominant culture are manifest. (Midgley, just FYI, was also responsible for tetraethyllead - you really couldn't make it up if you were writing a novel on how to destroy the world - as you well know, IP, one CFC factory could destroy the world much less a BFC).

The achievements you speak of are a scientific revolution - not an economic one. No one is suggesting rolling those back - although many on here advocate rolling back the Enlightenment.
Click to expand...

YouTube - Gabby Johnson, Blazing Saddles rant
 
#8
#8
I guess the fact that cancer has been around for hundreds if not thousands of years doesn't matter.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#10
#10
utgibbs said:
we could de-industrialize while maintaining the achievements of these scientific inquiries.
Click to expand...

now that would be a trick.

on a related note, which swath of the population would you tell they have to starve so we can de-industrialize?
 
#11
#11
volinbham said:
now that would be a trick.

on a related note, which swath of the population would you tell they have to starve so we can de-industrialize?
Click to expand...

As long as the government runs the de-industrialization initiative, everyone will be taken care of completely. You'll probably get a new house, too.
 
#12
#12
And no reason to point out that the article also mentions overall decreases in cancer morbidity and mortality.
 
#14
#14
kptvol said:
As long as the government runs the de-industrialization initiative, everyone will be taken care of completely. You'll probably get a new house, too.
Click to expand...

That would be awesome...but only if you and the other taxpayers pay for it. Having to pay for the roof over my head would really crimp my style.
 
#15
#15
volinbham said:
now that would be a trick.

on a related note, which swath of the population would you tell they have to starve so we can de-industrialize?
Click to expand...

Again, I'm not the one ready to roll back the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment principles have allowed us to have a planet with nearing 7 billion inhabitants. Nothing else.

And again, if you want to go into a Marxist debate on whether we had to industrialize to deindustrialize, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I'm not with Marx on historical determinism, but you are welcome to be.

I made mention of the Cuban model as far as food production. Read up on it; very interesting, very unique, and veritably, I believe, a model for the future.

Cancer has been around forever, but not at a 41% of the population clip. It was more like 0.1%.
 
#17
#17
utgibbs said:
Yes, think about it if we were back down to a 0.1% cancer rate! :good!:
Click to expand...

I'd like to see some links to this 0.1% cancer rate.

Don't think deindustrializing is going to get rid of viral cancers. Probably also need to keep those Coppertone plants going if we don't want melanoma rates to increase. A lot of cancers, specifically breast cancer, are frequently caused by genetic factors. I've also seen it estimated that around 30% of cancers in the US are caused by smoking. Seems that could be taken care of pretty easily without reverting to the Stone Age.
 
#20
#20
kptvol said:
De-industrialization means less access to internet porn and more reliance on bicycles. Bad news for balls.
Click to expand...

Guess I'll have to horde some dirty mags or actually try to get laid since I am constantly riding my bike.
 
#21
#21
Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't mind a little de-industrialization. It would make my bicycle commute a hell of a lot safer, that's for sure. And I could even open up my dream bicycle repair shop with increased demand.
 
#22
#22
utgibbs said:
I made mention of the Cuban model as far as food production. Read up on it; very interesting, very unique, and veritably, I believe, a model for the future.

Cancer has been around forever, but not at a 41% of the population clip. It was more like 0.1%.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to even comment on the Cuban model...

As far as cancer being at higher rates now than before... meh, not really losing any sleep on that. 150 or so years ago, measles, small pox and the flu killed people and made life expectancies in the 40 or early 50's.

Like I said, it is a trade off. You gain a little here, lose a little there. You can't get something for nothing. Conservation of energy, etc.
 
#23
#23
Rasputin_Vol said:
I'm not going to even comment on the Cuban model...

As far as cancer being at higher rates now than before... meh, not really losing any sleep on that. 150 or so years ago, measles, small pox and the flu killed people and made life expectancies in the 40 or early 50's.

Like I said, it is a trade off. You gain a little here, lose a little there. You can't get something for nothing. Conservation of energy, etc.
Click to expand...
Having two parents that died of cancer, the fight against cancer is improving, although just be prepared to either be put in a free study program and or in some cases mortgage your house to obtain drugs most people can't afford or it is too late by the time you get approved by insurance to pay for drugs you need.
 
#24
#24
volinbham said:
now that would be a trick.

on a related note, which swath of the population would you tell they have to starve so we can de-industrialize?
Click to expand...

This is the conundrum for any sort of change, for climate or whatever reason. It's a decision we can't ethically make.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#25
#25
kptvol said:
I'd like to see some links to this 0.1% cancer rate.

Don't think deindustrializing is going to get rid of viral cancers. Probably also need to keep those Coppertone plants going if we don't want melanoma rates to increase. A lot of cancers, specifically breast cancer, are frequently caused by genetic factors. I've also seen it estimated that around 30% of cancers in the US are caused by smoking. Seems that could be taken care of pretty easily without reverting to the Stone Age.
Click to expand...

Who said anything about the Stone Age?

First world economies have been de-industrializing for quite awhile now. Of course, we still import the carcinogens from abroad when we no longer make them here.

It's not rocket science: we know we produce a myriad of carcinogens; we know they didn't have these in antiquity. It's not that we live longer either - kids are being disproportinately hit.

The vacuousness of establishment press reporting on this is staggering to behold. Infantile does not come close to doing it justice:

Just ask Mummy: Cancer the least of their worries - CNN

Cancer is a man-made disease, study claims - Health - Cancer - msnbc.com
 
Last edited:
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top