No, two-thirds of all cancers are not caused by bad luck

Misleading concluding answers that have been rushed so to meet magazine deadlines for science research, leaves much room for more research. We need a cure for bad luck.

Marilyn said: We need a cure for bad luck.

First of all yes, cancer rate varies massively between tissues. Even when the fact that some tissues are much more cellular than others is taken into account this is true. All of the most common cancers in western and developed Asian countries arise from epithelial linings, hematopoietic precursors in bone marrow, or lymphocytes. This is also probably true in less developed nations as well, but statistics aren't as available. There are high populations of these types of cell in the body AND they divide a lot. Different types of cancer are more common in different countries. But among developed countries the difference isn't radical. Gastric adenocarcinoma is more common in East Asia and colonic adenocarcinoma is more common in Western Europe, US, Canada, and Australia, for example.

Also, when it comes to risk factors for developing any type of cancer, genetics is an important one that cannot be controlled. Several can be controlled - not smoking, exercising, not eating too much processed meat, not being too overfat, getting screening tests, and possibly, eating more fruit and vegetables, and to some degree not drinking excessively, are behaviors that reduce risk of cancer. These behaviors are not known to increase any risk, and they help against cardiovascular disease, too. Sunlight is controversial. Most people are advised not to get too much due to the unequivocal risk of melanoma (which exists for people of all skin tones, although is most for paler skinned people). However, sun exposure seems to reduce risk of other cancers. Moderation and avoidance of burning seem to be best current advice. Very pale people should be especially cautious, and get regular skin exams.

That said, you can reduce risk, but there are many types of cancer for which there is no known risk factor. Cells divide, mutations occur, and there is always some chance that something will go wrong. It's like crossing the road. If you run across a busy road in dark clothing at night without looking, you are more likely to be hit. It you cross carefully at a crosswalk in broad daylight, less so. Yet there is always some chance that a drunk being chased by the cops will suddenly appear, moving too fast for you to avoid. You can put the odds in your favor. But chance plays a role in the incidence of cancer. Even if reporting of those results was a little mixed up. (Chance could reflect the fact that risk factors exist that no-one is yet aware of, but it's still chance from our perspective right now.)

However, many fearful people deny this. Due to fear, they tell themselves that some special diet they eat or something is perfectly protective against cancer. While good habits are to be encouraged, this exaggerated sense of control does two harmful things. It causes people to be negative toward those struggling with cancer ("it was your fault for not being a vegan, paleo, or whatever"), and also, it can lead people to forego preventative tests. There are websites dedicated to vegans and others who thought that they were perfectly protected from cancer, yet got cancer. Eat a healthy diet, exercise, avoid smoking and other such things, but also get your screening tests and be grateful for good health.

One thing about getting older and starting to come all unglued is that you suddenly learn new things you didn't know you wanted to learn.

For example, Branch Retinal Vein Occlusion and other aging eye diseases are now being treated by injecting a vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitor, such as Avastin, directly into the vitreous of the eye.

Avastin (bevacizumab) is a fairly new drug developed by Genentech that is used to inhibit the rapid growth of arteries that supply blood to cancers. However, it has recently been used off-label to treat the eye diseases caused by aging and diabetes.

One of the body's responses to injury, blocked arteries or veins, and cancer is to grow veins and arteries to supply blood to the "disturbed" area. In the case of cancer, this can be bad because the cancer effectively generates its own blood supply very rapidly. Cutting off that supply with a VEGF inhibitor reduces metastasis and allows cancer killing drugs to be kept within the cancer growth itself. So VEGF inhibitors are used in conjunction with other treatments meant to destroy the cancerous growth.

In the case of eye diseases, runaway vein growth can lead to macular degeneration and retinal detachment; and therefore blindness.

Interestingly, there are times when arterial growth can save or postpone a problem with arterial blockage, as in the case of heart disease. If arteries manage to grow around blockages by plaque, blood flow to the heart may continue for a while.

The more one knows about how cells and the body work, the less one is inclined to think they are intelligently designed. It is just cells doing their thing in whatever environment they find themselves.

Of course, one way to cure all this is to lower the temperature sufficiently so that all cell activity stops. But then one doesn't know what is going on, and that is probably no fun either.

Mike Elzinga said: One thing about getting older and starting to come all unglued is that you suddenly learn new things you didn't know you wanted to learn. For example, Branch Retinal Vein Occlusion and other aging eye diseases are now being treated by injecting a vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitor, such as Avastin, directly into the vitreous of the eye. Avastin (bevacizumab) is a fairly new drug developed by Genentech that is used to inhibit the rapid growth of arteries that supply blood to cancers. However, it has recently been used off-label to treat the eye diseases caused by aging and diabetes. One of the body's responses to injury, blocked arteries or veins, and cancer is to grow veins and arteries to supply blood to the "disturbed" area. In the case of cancer, this can be bad because the cancer effectively generates its own blood supply very rapidly. Cutting off that supply with a VEGF inhibitor reduces metastasis and allows cancer killing drugs to be kept within the cancer growth itself. So VEGF inhibitors are used in conjunction with other treatments meant to destroy the cancerous growth. In the case of eye diseases, runaway vein growth can lead to macular degeneration and retinal detachment; and therefore blindness. Interestingly, there are times when arterial growth can save or postpone a problem with arterial blockage, as in the case of heart disease. If arteries manage to grow around blockages by plaque, blood flow to the heart may continue for a while. The more one knows about how cells and the body work, the less one is inclined to think they are intelligently designed. It is just cells doing their thing in whatever environment they find themselves. Of course, one way to cure all this is to lower the temperature sufficiently so that all cell activity stops. But then one doesn't know what is going on, and that is probably no fun either.

Olivia said: Random mutations may account for two-thirds of the risk of getting many types of cancer, leaving the usual suspects — heredity and environmental factors — to account for only one-third, say the authors, Cristian Tomasetti and Dr. Bert Vogelstein, of Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. “We do think this is a fundamental mechanism, and this is the first time there’s been a measure of it,” said Dr. Tomasetti, an applied mathematician. Olivia Jane, Editor, [link deleted]

harold said:

Olivia said: Random mutations may account for two-thirds of the risk of getting many types of cancer, leaving the usual suspects — heredity and environmental factors — to account for only one-third, say the authors, Cristian Tomasetti and Dr. Bert Vogelstein, of Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. “We do think this is a fundamental mechanism, and this is the first time there’s been a measure of it,” said Dr. Tomasetti, an applied mathematician. Olivia Jane, Editor, [link deleted]

This appears to be spam that should be deleted. By the way, random mutations essentially account for ALL cancers. Harm may also be done by genetically "normal" cells that are induced to act in an abnormal way by actual cancer cells, but there essentially always appears to be a somatic mutation somewhere. What genetics and environment do is increase the risk for the types of somatic mutation sets that provoke the development of cancer.

This appears to be spam that should be deleted.

It is particularly good to hear harold give us the benefit of his area of expertise.

A colleague of mine who specialized in studying mutation rates once told me that using rates for different kinds of cancers in different countries, and assuming that those differences were not genetic but due to culture such as diets, one could project that about half of all cancer could be eliminated if we adopted the right cutural practices.

Note that this is not just a statement about half of all variation in cancer rates.

harold said: First of all yes, cancer rate varies massively between tissues. Even when the fact that some tissues are much more cellular than others is taken into account this is true.

Joe Felsenstein said: It is particularly good to hear harold give us the benefit of his area of expertise. A colleague of mine who specialized in studying mutation rates once told me that using rates for different kinds of cancers in different countries, and assuming that those differences were not genetic but due to culture such as diets, one could project that about half of all cancer could be eliminated if we adopted the right cutural practices. Note that this is not just a statement about half of all variation in cancer rates.

Scott F said:

harold said: First of all yes, cancer rate varies massively between tissues. Even when the fact that some tissues are much more cellular than others is taken into account this is true.

Okay. I know that I know very little about biology. But aren't all "tissues" "cellular"? What would a non-cellular tissue look like? The only things in the body that I can think of that are non-cellular are teeth and bone, but I wouldn't call those "tissues". Maybe tendons too?

Marilyn said: We need a cure for bad luck.

Speaking of cancer, I'm reading The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer
by Siddhartha Mukherjee, an oncologist, researcher and professor of medicine. It's a fascinating book! It's also the basis for an upcoming series of films on PBS.

Mr. Young,

Could you please dispatch Byers' ridiculous post (along with my reply) to the BW. It just doesn't belong here - any part of it.

Keelyn said:

Robert Byers said: Cancer is very sad and my father died, in his 70's, of it. Yet surely all people would get cancer if they lived long enough by avoiding other death things. if everyone could make it to 150 years of life all would get cancer by then. In short cancer comes from decay of the bodies protection system. Thats why old age is when it hits. I think smoking is exaggerated as a cancer thing. indeed lifestyle choices probably have less effect then is thought. yet these things do cause decay in the later years. if we did not decay , I think possibly, smoking would not cause cancer. if smoking did it would do it mostly long before old age. however if decayb is the real reason then staying healthy would matter. The thread , I think, suggested one needed strange mutations to happen to get cancer. No. its just decay of the body and nutations I guess, then will happen. I think there must be a way to stop cancer in the early decades of life. I hope so.

Oh, that's why AML killed my younger brother when he was 14 - old age! That's enlightening. Are you really that stupid Byers? It is just nauseating that even you would make a post that inane.

Oh, that’s why AML killed my younger brother when he was 14 - old age!

Harald is right, and I think Robert B.'s comments illustrate the folly of being scientifically illiterate. He is unaware that cancer is caused by cells that refuse to die and then engage in runaway growth. It's more akin to reaching for a kind of immortality than simply "decaying." Who knows, maybe there are lifestyle changes or screenings he might participate to decrease his own risk of getting cancer.

Karen S. said: Harald is right, and I think Robert B.'s comments illustrate the folly of being scientifically illiterate. He is unaware that cancer is caused by cells that refuse to die and then engage in runaway growth. It's more akin to reaching for a kind of immortality than simply "decaying." Who knows, maybe there are lifestyle changes or screenings he might participate to decrease his own risk of getting cancer.

Oh, that’s why AML killed my younger brother when he was 14 - old age! *** Could you please dispatch Byers’ ridiculous post (along with my reply) to the BW. It just doesn’t belong here - any part of it.

Mike Elzinga said: This sounds like fruitful territory for some crackpot science: "Become one with your cancer and live forever."

When I was younger, my teacher's baby boy died of leukemia. At least it can often be treated now.

Robert Byers said:

harold said:

Keelyn said:

Robert Byers said: Cancer is very sad and my father died, in his 70's, of it. Yet surely all people would get cancer if they lived long enough by avoiding other death things. if everyone could make it to 150 years of life all would get cancer by then. In short cancer comes from decay of the bodies protection system. Thats why old age is when it hits. I think smoking is exaggerated as a cancer thing. indeed lifestyle choices probably have less effect then is thought. yet these things do cause decay in the later years. if we did not decay , I think possibly, smoking would not cause cancer. if smoking did it would do it mostly long before old age. however if decayb is the real reason then staying healthy would matter. The thread , I think, suggested one needed strange mutations to happen to get cancer. No. its just decay of the body and nutations I guess, then will happen. I think there must be a way to stop cancer in the early decades of life. I hope so.

Oh, that's why AML killed my younger brother when he was 14 - old age! That's enlightening. Are you really that stupid Byers? It is just nauseating that even you would make a post that inane.

I'm very sorry to hear about your brother. I almost feel guilty, but I'm going to riff on what Robert Byers said, because it does raise something interesting. As usual, when you look past that grammar and spelling, his arguments are in fact at least as good as those advanced by professional, paid creationists. Here he notes (correctly) that there is a general association of cancer risk with age. He then draws on the doctrine of "the Fall". Cancer is due to a general state of decay, implicitly brought into the world by man's sin. Its association with age is taken as evidence of its association with "decay". As explanations go, this is a rather sophisticated one, reflecting the thought of brilliant minds of the high middle ages, renaissance, and early modern era. As recently as the eighteenth century it made sense. It is much better than blaming cancer on witches or similar things, as is commonly done even today. But nevertheless this explanation raises all the usual objections. Scientific - where is the evidence, and how does this explanation deal with evidence that seems to be against it, such as a very old Earth (and much more)? Philosophical - if God is omnipotent and omniscient why did he put the serpent there in the first place, etc, etc, etc? I won't bother with the philosophical or theological here, since that is not my area of expertise. Biomedical science grounded in the theory of evolution provides a better explanation for cancer. it provides a useful explanation, that gives us insights we can use to fight cancer, rather than a fatalistic one. We know how DNA replicates, within the background of a given environment, and we can see how this explains both the diversity and relatedness of the biosphere, and, in a somewhat analogous way, how cells become cancer, and how, once cancer, they are transiently selected for at the expense of normal cells. Each malignant cancer can almost be thought of as a population that is selected for within the environment, but which eventually destroys the environment and goes extinct. Cancer therapy already works in many cases (most, to some degree), which confirms that the science based explanation is more useful.

The attempt to insinuate I deny people die of cancer before old age is malicious. i accuse that poster. anyways. my comment had nothing to do with the fall as such. I mean by decay simply getting old. Old age is the origin of most cancers and the serious death numbers from it. i conclude, rightly, its simply because of the decaying body. not some strange ideas, seemly, people put out about genetic heritage and other lifestyle causes. Yes thats involved but cancer is really a afterattack from a breakdown in the body's resistance. That was my point. i did add, that before old age, i think cancer could be fixed or very controled because its not from a general breakdown but a local one. Thats why its more rare relative. Nothing wrong with my comments and not really very creationist/evolutionist. It seems to me researchers say cancer is unrelated to general breakdown but I might be wrong. this thread hinted at it. No reason to use this subject to attack me in such a serious issue of health.

phhht said:

Robert Byers said:

harold said:

Keelyn said:

Robert Byers said: Cancer is very sad and my father died, in his 70's, of it. Yet surely all people would get cancer if they lived long enough by avoiding other death things. if everyone could make it to 150 years of life all would get cancer by then. In short cancer comes from decay of the bodies protection system. Thats why old age is when it hits. I think smoking is exaggerated as a cancer thing. indeed lifestyle choices probably have less effect then is thought. yet these things do cause decay in the later years. if we did not decay , I think possibly, smoking would not cause cancer. if smoking did it would do it mostly long before old age. however if decayb is the real reason then staying healthy would matter. The thread , I think, suggested one needed strange mutations to happen to get cancer. No. its just decay of the body and nutations I guess, then will happen. I think there must be a way to stop cancer in the early decades of life. I hope so.

Oh, that's why AML killed my younger brother when he was 14 - old age! That's enlightening. Are you really that stupid Byers? It is just nauseating that even you would make a post that inane.

I'm very sorry to hear about your brother. I almost feel guilty, but I'm going to riff on what Robert Byers said, because it does raise something interesting. As usual, when you look past that grammar and spelling, his arguments are in fact at least as good as those advanced by professional, paid creationists. Here he notes (correctly) that there is a general association of cancer risk with age. He then draws on the doctrine of "the Fall". Cancer is due to a general state of decay, implicitly brought into the world by man's sin. Its association with age is taken as evidence of its association with "decay". As explanations go, this is a rather sophisticated one, reflecting the thought of brilliant minds of the high middle ages, renaissance, and early modern era. As recently as the eighteenth century it made sense. It is much better than blaming cancer on witches or similar things, as is commonly done even today. But nevertheless this explanation raises all the usual objections. Scientific - where is the evidence, and how does this explanation deal with evidence that seems to be against it, such as a very old Earth (and much more)? Philosophical - if God is omnipotent and omniscient why did he put the serpent there in the first place, etc, etc, etc? I won't bother with the philosophical or theological here, since that is not my area of expertise. Biomedical science grounded in the theory of evolution provides a better explanation for cancer. it provides a useful explanation, that gives us insights we can use to fight cancer, rather than a fatalistic one. We know how DNA replicates, within the background of a given environment, and we can see how this explains both the diversity and relatedness of the biosphere, and, in a somewhat analogous way, how cells become cancer, and how, once cancer, they are transiently selected for at the expense of normal cells. Each malignant cancer can almost be thought of as a population that is selected for within the environment, but which eventually destroys the environment and goes extinct. Cancer therapy already works in many cases (most, to some degree), which confirms that the science based explanation is more useful.

The attempt to insinuate I deny people die of cancer before old age is malicious. i accuse that poster. anyways. my comment had nothing to do with the fall as such. I mean by decay simply getting old. Old age is the origin of most cancers and the serious death numbers from it. i conclude, rightly, its simply because of the decaying body. not some strange ideas, seemly, people put out about genetic heritage and other lifestyle causes. Yes thats involved but cancer is really a afterattack from a breakdown in the body's resistance. That was my point. i did add, that before old age, i think cancer could be fixed or very controled because its not from a general breakdown but a local one. Thats why its more rare relative. Nothing wrong with my comments and not really very creationist/evolutionist. It seems to me researchers say cancer is unrelated to general breakdown but I might be wrong. this thread hinted at it. No reason to use this subject to attack me in such a serious issue of health.

So tell us, Robert Byers: why do your all-powerful gods give us cancer? After all, aren't they supposed to be loving and just?

phhht said:

phhht said:

Robert Byers said:

harold said:

Keelyn said:

Robert Byers said: Cancer is very sad and my father died, in his 70's, of it. Yet surely all people would get cancer if they lived long enough by avoiding other death things. if everyone could make it to 150 years of life all would get cancer by then. In short cancer comes from decay of the bodies protection system. Thats why old age is when it hits. I think smoking is exaggerated as a cancer thing. indeed lifestyle choices probably have less effect then is thought. yet these things do cause decay in the later years. if we did not decay , I think possibly, smoking would not cause cancer. if smoking did it would do it mostly long before old age. however if decayb is the real reason then staying healthy would matter. The thread , I think, suggested one needed strange mutations to happen to get cancer. No. its just decay of the body and nutations I guess, then will happen. I think there must be a way to stop cancer in the early decades of life. I hope so.

Oh, that's why AML killed my younger brother when he was 14 - old age! That's enlightening. Are you really that stupid Byers? It is just nauseating that even you would make a post that inane.

I'm very sorry to hear about your brother. I almost feel guilty, but I'm going to riff on what Robert Byers said, because it does raise something interesting. As usual, when you look past that grammar and spelling, his arguments are in fact at least as good as those advanced by professional, paid creationists. Here he notes (correctly) that there is a general association of cancer risk with age. He then draws on the doctrine of "the Fall". Cancer is due to a general state of decay, implicitly brought into the world by man's sin. Its association with age is taken as evidence of its association with "decay". As explanations go, this is a rather sophisticated one, reflecting the thought of brilliant minds of the high middle ages, renaissance, and early modern era. As recently as the eighteenth century it made sense. It is much better than blaming cancer on witches or similar things, as is commonly done even today. But nevertheless this explanation raises all the usual objections. Scientific - where is the evidence, and how does this explanation deal with evidence that seems to be against it, such as a very old Earth (and much more)? Philosophical - if God is omnipotent and omniscient why did he put the serpent there in the first place, etc, etc, etc? I won't bother with the philosophical or theological here, since that is not my area of expertise. Biomedical science grounded in the theory of evolution provides a better explanation for cancer. it provides a useful explanation, that gives us insights we can use to fight cancer, rather than a fatalistic one. We know how DNA replicates, within the background of a given environment, and we can see how this explains both the diversity and relatedness of the biosphere, and, in a somewhat analogous way, how cells become cancer, and how, once cancer, they are transiently selected for at the expense of normal cells. Each malignant cancer can almost be thought of as a population that is selected for within the environment, but which eventually destroys the environment and goes extinct. Cancer therapy already works in many cases (most, to some degree), which confirms that the science based explanation is more useful.

The attempt to insinuate I deny people die of cancer before old age is malicious. i accuse that poster. anyways. my comment had nothing to do with the fall as such. I mean by decay simply getting old. Old age is the origin of most cancers and the serious death numbers from it. i conclude, rightly, its simply because of the decaying body. not some strange ideas, seemly, people put out about genetic heritage and other lifestyle causes. Yes thats involved but cancer is really a afterattack from a breakdown in the body's resistance. That was my point. i did add, that before old age, i think cancer could be fixed or very controled because its not from a general breakdown but a local one. Thats why its more rare relative. Nothing wrong with my comments and not really very creationist/evolutionist. It seems to me researchers say cancer is unrelated to general breakdown but I might be wrong. this thread hinted at it. No reason to use this subject to attack me in such a serious issue of health.

So tell us, Robert Byers: why do your all-powerful gods give us cancer? After all, aren't they supposed to be loving and just?

And Byers, isn't cancer a product of your designer, just like DNA and the guinea worm? How can you tell? Why did your designer screw up so badly, to overlook something like cancer in his work?

phhht said: And Byers, isn't cancer a product of your designer, just like DNA and the guinea worm? How can you tell? Why did your designer screw up so badly, to overlook something like cancer in his work?

Just Bob said:

phhht said: And Byers, isn't cancer a product of your designer, just like DNA and the guinea worm? How can you tell? Why did your designer screw up so badly, to overlook something like cancer in his work?

phhht, don't you get it? Little children die of cancer and other horrible diseases today because they're being punished for something their great great... farback great grandparents did 6,000 years ago. By a just and loving god.

Just Bob said: phhht, don't you get it? Little children die of cancer and other horrible diseases today because they're being punished for something their great great... farback great grandparents did 6,000 years ago. By a just and loving god.

Over on BioLogos, there was a conversation on whether there existed anything scientifically useless. Of course there are many things scientifically useless! I pointed out that tumors are useless, that even evangelicals had them removed. And then a silly man told me that God uses tumors to teach people lessons. Unbelievable! Take up smoking and God can teach you even more!

Karen S. said: Harald is right, and I think Robert B.'s comments illustrate the folly of being scientifically illiterate. He is unaware that cancer is caused by cells that refuse to die and then engage in runaway growth. It's more akin to reaching for a kind of immortality than simply "decaying." Who knows, maybe there are lifestyle changes or screenings he might participate to decrease his own risk of getting cancer.

Karen S. said: And then a silly man told me that God uses tumors to teach people lessons.

Please stop baiting the Byers troll -- you know it never learns, and I do not have the time or inclination to send so many comments to the Bathroom Wall.

stevaroni said: Ancestors who were, let us not forget, mere children themselves, being little more than a few days or weeks old when they transgressed, and, at the time having no working knowledge of good or evil or wrong or right at all, since such information had been purposely withheld from them, apparently to be sequestered somehow in a bright, shiny, tantalizing, forbidden fruit.

But what about immediately after the Fall. How long did it take predators to learn the skills to be successful hunters?

Karen S. said:

But what about immediately after the Fall. How long did it take predators to learn the skills to be successful hunters?

Which raises interesting issues. Cats are obligate carnivores, so before the Fall they ate grass and leaves...and crapped their brains out. So things improved for them after the Fall.

I heard this story on the news a couple of weeks ago and I thought what ? Doesn't smoking cause cancer ? You can generally be pretty sure that when anyone is diagnosed with cancer the answer to the question "did they smoke" will generally be "yes".

Then again, genetics also plays a part. Neither of my parents in law ever smoked and both died of cancer. My grandmother was the same. My own mother has survived cancer and never smoked as well, so in a sense that is bad luck.

However, the headline in the national media was misleading.

Ian Derthal said: I heard this story on the news a couple of weeks ago and I thought what ? Doesn't smoking cause cancer ? You can generally be pretty sure that when anyone is diagnosed with cancer the answer to the question "did they smoke" will generally be "yes". Then again, genetics also plays a part. Neither of my parents in law ever smoked and both died of cancer. My grandmother was the same. My own mother has survived cancer and never smoked as well, so in a sense that is bad luck. However, the headline in the national media was misleading.

I think the more interesting question about smoking is why it took so long historically to associate it with a higher rate of mortality (and not just from lung cancer).

My guess would be that people were already dying of so many other things, particularly infectious disease, that smokers had a higher probability in the past of dying from something else first.

I think the more interesting question about smoking is why it took so long historically to associate it with a higher rate of mortality (and not just from lung cancer).

harold said: Male heavy smokers are especially at risk for myocardial infarction ("heart attack").

TomS said: But what about immediately after the Fall. How long did it take predators to learn the skills to be successful hunters? How long would would it take potential prey to learn which animals are to be avoided? Just think how many encounters with skunks there were in those first days after the Fall. How many poisonous animals were killed at first before their warning colors would take effect?

Karen S. said:

I think the more interesting question about smoking is why it took so long historically to associate it with a higher rate of mortality (and not just from lung cancer).

The first study associating smoking and cancer was ignored. And the tobacco industry fought anything that came out against smoking. The "scientists" of the Marshall Institute rallied to protect the tobacco industry, just as today they shrug off climate change.

A doctor noticed that chimney sweeps were prone to testicular cancer. And the epidemic of cigarette smoking had to start before anyone would notice an association between it and cancer. But of course, the tobacco industry fought tooth and nail against any association. Remember how they neutered they deflated warning label down to "smoking may be hazardous to your health"?

callahanpb said: I think the more interesting question about smoking is why it took so long historically to associate it with a higher rate of mortality (and not just from lung cancer).

Ah, I basically just repeated what Harold said. Sorry about that.

My father was born in 1912, so he probably started smoking by 1932. He used to tell me that in the '30's "everyone" knew smoking was bad for your health, and when he began smoking they called cigarettes coffin nails. I doubt that the tobacco industry was fooling anyone who did not want to be fooled. They certainly did not fool themselves.

Karen S. said: A doctor noticed that chimney sweeps were prone to testicular cancer. And the epidemic of cigarette smoking had to start before anyone would notice an association between it and cancer. But of course, the tobacco industry fought tooth and nail against any association. Remember how they neutered they deflated warning label down to "smoking may be hazardous to your health"?

harold said: but between the high infectious disease and trauma death rate, few women smoking, and the types of tobacco used, the effects were harder to detect.

Karen S. said: A doctor noticed that chimney sweeps were prone to testicular cancer.

Actually, that’s squamous cell carcinoma of the scrotum, not testicular cancer.

The really sad part about the chimney sweeps with cancer is that they were recruited and put to work as children.

callahanpb said:

harold said: but between the high infectious disease and trauma death rate, few women smoking, and the types of tobacco used, the effects were harder to detect.

(Italics added.) I was thinking the same thing, but shouldn't a lack of female smokers have made the effect easier to detect? You would have a number of causes of death that weren't obviously sex-linked but were affecting men at a much higher rate than women. Even with that, I can see it being swamped by noise, and statistical analysis was in its infancy.

Karen S. said: The really sad part about the chimney sweeps with cancer is that they were recruited and put to work as children.

callahanpb said:

Karen S. said: A doctor noticed that chimney sweeps were prone to testicular cancer.

"A sweep is as lucky as lucky can be." (Mary Poppins) It's probably in poor taste, but that song pops into my mind every time anyone mentions chimney sweeps and testicular cancer. I checked and the good luck thing isn't just in the movie: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimney_sweep#Good_luck_omen I wonder if there is a connection, like "lucky to be alive at all" or it is just one of those inexplicable traditions.

callahanpb said:

Karen S. said: A doctor noticed that chimney sweeps were prone to testicular cancer.

"A sweep is as lucky as lucky can be." (Mary Poppins) It's probably in poor taste, but that song pops into my mind every time anyone mentions chimney sweeps and testicular cancer. I checked and the good luck thing isn't just in the movie: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimney_sweep#Good_luck_omen I wonder if there is a connection, like "lucky to be alive at all" or it is just one of those inexplicable traditions.

harold said: When women started smoking, they suddenly started getting more of the same diseases previously noted to be increased in male smokers. That really made the smoking link clear. Previously there were more confounding variables. "Men who smoke more are also more likely to do such and such" (drink, etc).

harold said: Squamous carcinoma of the scrotum. NOT testicular cancer.

The song is ironic, chimney sweep being a stereotypically hard, dangerous, dirty, poorly paying job. Bert's cheerful and optimistic attitude despite his difficult station in life are probably intended bot to be somewhat humorous, and to refer to some of the more positive stereotypes of the British working class.

TomS said: But what about immediately after the Fall. How long did it take predators to learn the skills to be successful hunters? How long would would it take potential prey to learn which animals are to be avoided? Just think how many encounters with skunks there were in those first days after the Fall.

Look up antelapsarianism.

When Adam was naming the animals, why did he give the anteater that name? Did he wonder about why falcons were soaring? Why did rabbits produce so many offspring so often? Did ask God about so many inexplicable designs in nature?

An brief obsessive self-correction - primary testicular cancers have essentially no known controllable behavioral risk factors. There is an association with cryptorchidism and a weak association with tall height.