Cancer is a product of industrial environment

#76
#76
MG1968 said:
you shouldn't encourage him like that. It's like feeding bears in the forests, eventually they become used to it and they have to be put down for their own good.
Click to expand...

Why, my motives could not be more transparent.

As always.
 
#77
#77
kptvol said:
And they establish what? That the 0.1% thing was made up by you? Or that the foundation behind the cancer is a modern disease theory is pure idiocy?
Click to expand...

I believe the math will be less than 0.1% but I was rounding up.

If you want the peer-reviewed literature:

Antiquity of cancer - Capasso - 2004 - International Journal of Cancer - Wiley Online Library (full paper, quote from the conclusions)

It is undoubtedly true, however, that the prevalence of neoplastic disease has increased tremendously over the past century. Indeed, paleopathological data on the extreme rarity of cancer in antiquity meshes perfectly with historical information; for example we know that in Germany the mortality for cancer was only 3.3% in 1900, although it had climbed to over 20% in 1970. In addition we know that today about half of all men and one-third of all women develop cancer and about 20% of all deaths are due to cancer.141 This is an impressive increase and seems to demonstrate that the increase in cancer prevalence is only a recent biological event.
Click to expand...

An experimental study of mummification pertinent to the antiquity of cancer - Zimmerman - 2006 - Cancer - Wiley Online Library (abstract only, but well cited paper):

The relatively recent description in scientific literature of many types of cancer suggests their infrequency until the relatively recent past, a view supported by the paucity of diagnoses of malignancies in ancient remains. While overall life span was short in antiquity, many individuals did live to the “cancer age,” as there is ample evidence of a variety of degenerative disorders. It has been suggested that tumors are not well enough preserved for diagnosis, and tumors experimentally mummified and rehydrated were evaluated as to their preservation. It was found that cancers were actually better preserved than normal tissues. The absence of tumors in ancient tissues must be considered a reflection of a markedly lower incidence than in the modern population of the United States, in which cancer accounts for approximately 17% of all deaths. It is suggested that this increase in cancer is due to factors in the modern industrialized environment.
Click to expand...

Game, Set, and Match.
 
Last edited:
#79
#79
utgibbs said:
I believe the math will be less than 0.1% but I was rounding up.

If you want the peer-reviewed literature:

Antiquity of cancer - Capasso - 2004 - International Journal of Cancer - Wiley Online Library (full paper, quote from the conclusions)



An experimental study of mummification pertinent to the antiquity of cancer - Zimmerman - 2006 - Cancer - Wiley Online Library (abstract only, but well cited paper):



Game, Set, and Match.
Click to expand...

Excellent citations. Witty closing.
 
#82
#82
ok, so the ancient Egyptians didn't get cancer. What was their life expectancy otherwise?

thanks to modern technology, we don't die from a ruptured appendix, abscessed teeth, and chicken pox.

Cancer, in all of it's forms, is a terrible disease, but because of evil things like the private sector, surviving a cancer diagnosis is becoming more and more the rule and not the exception.
 
#85
#85
MG1968 said:
ok, so the ancient Egyptians didn't get cancer. What was their life expectancy otherwise?
thanks to modern technology, we don't die from a ruptured appendix, abscessed teeth, and chicken pox.

Cancer, in all of it's forms, is a terrible disease, but because of evil things like the private sector, surviving a cancer diagnosis is becoming more and more the rule and not the exception.
Click to expand...

MG - KIDS GET CANCER AT AN ACCELERATED RATE NOW. Life expectancy is a specious arguement.

You keep asking the wrong questions. Who is suggesting we should start dying of gangrene from paper cuts because we want to live in filth without antiseptics? We are smart enough to remove carcinogens from our lives or, at least protect ourselves better!!!!!!!

Or do you not agree?

WTF is everyone cheerleading for cancer? Are you all nutjob ecoterrorists?
 
#86
#86
utgibbs said:
MG - KIDS GET CANCER AT AN ACCELERATED RATE NOW. Life expectancy is a specious arguement.

You keep asking the wrong questions. Who is suggesting we should start dying of gangrene from paper cuts because we want to live in filth without antiseptics? We are smart enough to remove carcinogens from our lives or, at least protect ourselves better!!!!!!!

Or do you not agree?

WTF is everyone cheerleading for cancer? Are you all nutjob ecoterrorists?
Click to expand...

I was just wondering the same thing.

It's like you just read my mind. Seriously.
 
#87
#87
utgibbs said:
Not according to the actual people who monitor these things:

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Slum growth 'shames the world'

UN-HABITAT

Communist China is the one bright spot in raising people out of poverty. However, the inequality and polarization is wildly rampant.

http://www.ourfutureplanet.org/news...alization Reducing Poverty and Inequality.pdf
Click to expand...

:) Communist China is now raising people out of poverty because Capitalistic American companies like WalMart are employing all of their cheap labor to produce inexpensive goods.
 
#88
#88
Vol423 said:
:) Communist China is now raising people out of poverty because Capitalistic American companies like WalMart are employing all of their cheap labor to produce inexpensive goods.
Click to expand...

gibbs wants our middle class to make $2,500 a year like the average chinese citizen apparently.
 
#90
#90
droski said:
gibbs wants our middle class to make $2,500 a year like the average chinese citizen apparently.
Click to expand...

I wonder how utgibbs likes the taste of rats. They're a dietary staple in much of China thanks to their lack of poverty.
 
#91
#91
utgibbs said:
What are you talking about?
Click to expand...

Reboot your own life... leave mine alone. If you want to warn me, fine... but liberals seldom if ever stop there. If someone will not do the "right thing" on their own... then liberals have to make them do it for their own good.

If you don't want the conveniences of an "industrial environment" then pool money with all your liberal friends, buy some remote land, and have at it. Again, just leave the rest of us alone.
 
#93
#93
sjt18 said:
Reboot your own life... leave mine alone. If you want to warn me, fine... but liberals seldom if ever stop there. If someone will not do the "right thing" on their own... then liberals have to make them do it for their own good.

If you don't want the conveniences of an "industrial environment" then pool money with all your liberal friends, buy some remote land, and have at it. Again, just leave the rest of us alone.
Click to expand...

:thumbsup:
 
#94
#94
utgibbs said:
MG - KIDS GET CANCER AT AN ACCELERATED RATE NOW. Life expectancy is a specious arguement.

You keep asking the wrong questions. Who is suggesting we should start dying of gangrene from paper cuts because we want to live in filth without antiseptics? We are smart enough to remove carcinogens from our lives or, at least protect ourselves better!!!!!!!

Or do you not agree?

WTF is everyone cheerleading for cancer? Are you all nutjob ecoterrorists?
Click to expand...

we can't even manage forests, how can we remove carcinogens?
 
#95
#95
sjt18 said:
Reboot your own life... leave mine alone. If you want to warn me, fine... but liberals seldom if ever stop there. If someone will not do the "right thing" on their own... then liberals have to make them do it for their own good.

If you don't want the conveniences of an "industrial environment" then pool money with all your liberal friends, buy some remote land, and have at it. Again, just leave the rest of us alone.
Click to expand...

With all due respect.....if you had really thought through the issues at hand, or could comprehend the intrinsic correctness of our many socialistic stances, you'd see how we liberals are always right.

Or, you're simply a racist / sexist / blue-bood or redneck.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#96
#96
Tenacious D said:
With all due respect.....if you had really thought through the issues at hand, or could comprehend the intrinsic correctness of our many socialistic stances, you'd see how we liberals are always right.

Or, you're simply a racist / sexist / blue-bood or redneck.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

That would suffice.
 
#97
#97
MG1968 said:
we can't even manage forests, how can we remove carcinogens?
Click to expand...

Here's the main problems we've encountered in both regards:

1. Haven't thrown enough money at it.
2. Haven't "wished" hard enough.
3. Republicans have undermined our efforts. Particularly white ones. And those who listen to the radio. Or vote.
4. Gun-owners.
5. People who stand for the national anthem.
6. Veterans
7. People who don't wish to emulate Europe, but instead, think its simply a vast expanse of human waste and ignorance.

Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
Last edited:
#98
#98
Tenacious D said:
Here's the main problems we've encountered in both regards:

1. Haven't thrown enough money at it.
2. Haven't "wished" hard enough.
3. Republicans have undermined our efforts. Particularly white ones. And those who listen to the radio. Or vote.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

you forgot to mention gun owners, veterans, and people who stand up for the National Anthem at baseball games.
 
#99
#99
utgibbs said:
Not according to the actual people who monitor these things:

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Slum growth 'shames the world'

UN-HABITAT

Communist China is the one bright spot in raising people out of poverty. However, the inequality and polarization is wildly rampant.

http://www.ourfutureplanet.org/news...alization Reducing Poverty and Inequality.pdf
Click to expand...

First, the data is utter trash and second, you're arguing as if the onset of the industrial revolution has increased poverty numbers, which is patently stupid.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#100
#100
BigPapaVol said:
First, the data is utter trash and second, you're arguing as if the onset of the industrial revolution has increased poverty numbers, which is patently stupid.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

I take exception to this. Strong exception!

UTG will now fill in the details of my argument.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top