Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by TSE, Aug 24, 2010.

  1. TSE macrumors 68030

    Jun 25, 2007
    St. Paul, Minnesota
    No. I don't have cancer. But I was just wondering something.

    Do people from regions without electronics, processed food, etc. basically regions that are unaffected by the industrial revolution still get cancer or get it at the same rate? I've been researching this a little bit because I'm bored and curious.
  2. lewis82 macrumors 68000


    Aug 26, 2009
    Totalitarian Republic of Northlandia
    I suppose they have a similar rate of cancer, but die because of other causes (starvation, contaminated water, AIDS, etc).
  3. iJohnHenry macrumors P6


    Mar 22, 2008
    On tenterhooks
    Yes, the older people get, the more likely the body will break-down and develop cancerous cells.

    In backwards countries they are simply listed as dying from "natural causes".

    They lack the medical infrastructure to detect, let alone treat, cancer.

    And being remote does not protect them from air-born pathogens.

    Plus, we have genetic disposition to certain types of cancer.
  4. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus


    Jan 9, 2004
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    This news article ran just a few days ago...

  5. TSE thread starter macrumors 68030

    Jun 25, 2007
    St. Paul, Minnesota
    So basically, the american diet has no correlation to cancer?
  6. Ugg macrumors 68000


    Apr 7, 2003

    Obesity is a major contributing factor to colon cancer.
  7. Iscariot macrumors 68030


    Aug 16, 2007
    Cancer is recorded as far back as ~1 600 B.C.E. and ancient Egypt. Cancer is a disease in which cells display uncontrolled growth, and any organism can potentially develop cancer. It's basically errors in cell division. Thus anything that contributes to error accumulation in cellular processes contributes to cancer.

    Since errors are also naturally occurring, poor nutrition and exposure to carcinogens raise the risk of developing cancer — sometimes dramatically — but developing cancer is not binary. According to the WHO, upwards of 30% of cancers are preventable by avoiding risk factors.
  8. awmazz macrumors 65816

    Jul 4, 2007
    There was a recent situation here in not long ago where where 18 women working in the same ABC television office in Brisbane got breast cancer between 1996 and 2006. They shut the place down in 2006 and studied it. They didn't find anything conclusive, such as radiation levels were below acceptable 'public health levels' (is any radiation acceptable?). There are various theories for the cancer to be contagious like this in clusters of genetically different women in this case, and why only the women were affected and only breast cancer as opposed to cervical or lung cancer etc. The strongest theory so far is a virus.
  9. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Jul 4, 2003
    Terlingua, Texas
    "(is any radiation acceptable?)"

    Dunno about "acceptable", but "unavoidable" is reality. Cosmic rays, for one thing, which are attenuated somewhat by atmospheric density.

    East Texas will definitely make the needle swing on a scintollemeter, even though there's no marketable quantity of uranium. Uranium mining areas, ofcourse, are broad-0area--but generations of farmers and ranchers have lived lengthy lives in them. And, of course, some rock formations emit slight but steady amounts of radiation.

    And if you live downwind from a coal-fired electric generating station, you're getting more radiation than if you lived next door to a nuke plant...
  10. Jaro65 macrumors 68040


    Mar 27, 2009
    Seattle, WA
    Really? How so?

Share This Page