I only have to open a newspaper and check the obits, or read about famous people and their “battle against cancer” which they lost.
Cancer is so on the rise. It seems to be everywhere. Or is it?
Many folks postulate that a great deal of cancer is caused environmentally.
So, is there a map… or statistics… related to the USA (or any other country) that would show amounts of cancer cases per state or county which would show which environmental agents most correspond to cancer being "produced?
Try This:
Keep in mind that as recently as the 1970’s “cancer” was a work you never, ever said in polite company, people would die without ever naming their disease, and if it was found out you had cancer you (and possibly your family as well) might well be shunned.
Part of the perceived rise in cancer is the change in society that now allows people to admit they have it and speak of it.
Part of it is also that we die less frequently of other things, like typhus and cholera, that used to carry off a lot of people every year, some of which might have developed cancer had they lived longer. As other causes of debility and death diminish cancer becomes more prominent.
Cancer is one of those things that used to be referred to as “natural causes”.
And as we’ve gotten better at treating and in some cases stopping cancer, people “have cancer” for much longer, and “get cancer again” which wouldn’t have happened often in the old days.
You should note that a cancer cluster is not significant unless it is one of the same type of cancer, and they are rare. There are so many factors that influence it, that simply moving to a low cancer place would probably not have any effect on an individual.
We all have to die of something. Hopefully old age.
It appears that cancer rates for any given age is actually going down. The only reason that more people are dying of cancer is that they are living longer and thus less likely to die of other causes. As times goes on, more and more of us will die of diseases of old age like cancer, heart attack, stokes, and pneumonia.
Bill Gates was on Australian TV tonight, and he spoke about this
"Recent UQDI research has revealed that the prevalence of cervical cancer in Vanuatu is amongst the highest in the world. "
The suspicion is that they have lower immunity to HPV, and more exposure (Due to the number of tourists ?)
[quote=“Broomstick, post:3, topic:659529”]
as recently as the 1970’s “cancer” was a word you never, ever said in polite company, people would die without ever naming their disease, and if it was found out you had cancer you (and possibly your family as well) might well be shunned./QUOTE]
Is this really true? And if so, why?
Yes, certain diseases (i.e sexual ones) were once unmentionable, and cause for deep embarrassment.
But cancer?
I think it was kept quiet mostly because it was basically untreatable, and nobody wants to talk about their death sentence and imminent “execution”.
This is very true.It used to be perfectly acceptable to die…that’s what hospitals were for!
Until about 1950, it was pretty much accepted that if you were elderly and entered the hospital , you might not come out . You got old, you died. No need to specify how. “Natural causes” was a perfectly acceptable scientific and medical term.
Today, of course, we expect the opposite. Everybody who is hospitalized is expected to recover, and we expect to hear all the details. So Cancer is a pretty common word now.
We know what the causes of most types of cancer are, and while environmental factors play a role (in some more than others), they are typically among the leading causes:
From the World Health Organization:
The maps your asking about are available from the National Cancer Institute, the Centers for Disease Control, or a number of other sources.
Worldwide data and maps from the World Cancer Research Fund.
[quote=“chappachula, post:9, topic:659529”]
Old fart, here. Stunningly, yes, this is true. In my hometown, growing up in the 60s, people would say things like “She’s got . . .” and then their voices would trail off or they might mouth the word “cancer”, but would never say it out loud.
I remember when people thought cancer was contagious. Seriously.
Now we know that it’s caused by Monsanto. And fluoride.
Yes.
Damnifino - it was largely untreatable? (Surgery might be attempted but usually just extended your time and didn’t cure you, and could be horribly disfiguring) No one knew what caused it? Haven’t a clue, but I’m old enough to remember when mentioning it was largely taboo.
You do well to be careful what conclusions you draw from reports about celebrities.
Look, Bardos, let’s get something straight. How many news stories about something you see tells you nothing - NOTHING - about how common that thing really is. The purpose of the news on many local TV stations and some cable channels and certain newspapers is not to inform you about what is commonly going on in the world. Their purpose is to keep you in a constant state of panic so you’ll keep watching or reading them. The last thing they want to do is to tell you the statistics about how common something is and what the trends in it are. Why should they tell you that the crime rate is much lower than it was 20 years ago? Why should they tell you that the rate of deaths in auto accidents per mile driven is just a fraction of what it was sixty years ago? Why should they tell you that significant progress is being made on most diseases and the average lifespan continues to increase? They don’t want you to look up the statistics on mortality. They want to keep you ignorant. Turn off that TV and throw away those newspapers. Learn how to look up statistics.
Here we have another who apparently believes that “cancer” is a single disease; it isn’t even close.
Both of my parents died of "lung cancer’ in 1989. We were told (well, my not-quite-up-on-medical-terms sister) was told that there were 5 diseases lumped in the “lung cancer” basket. Mother lasted 9 months, Father 4 months.
In the US, you must possess 2 documents to legally fly an airplane:
Pilot’s license (there are several flavors of that as well)
Medical Certification
Last I heard, if the word “cancer” appeared in your medical record, the FAA would cancel your medical certificate.
That is the history of that word.
In the ongoing debate of prostate cancer, it is theorized that, if we live long enough, all men will develop cancer of the prostate (the problem is detection - it’s something of a crap shoot at present).
Some people are still reluctant to metnion it by name. I’ve heard it called “the big C” quite recently by someone who had just been diagnosed. I think no one wants to say “although I look fine and healthy now, I will be dead in six months” but to a lot of people that is what you are saying when you tell them you have cancer.
How about alcohol - it is a factor in 3.6% of cancer cases and 3.5% of cancer deaths worldwide. That is fairly significant, and increasing rates of alcohol abuse among the young will start to push the median age of diagnosis down (although there will be a considerable lag time ~ 10-20 years).
The FAA will pull your medical for just about any really serious illness. They don’t want you flying when you’re sick.
However, if your cancer goes into remission and stays there for a sufficient time you can get that medical certification back.
This says more about your surroundings than anything else, unless you’re 400 years old. And the mentions of cancer carrying a stigma, not being discussed, etc. are simply cultural anecdotes. There were pubic campaigns to educate people about cancer 100 years ago.
The idea that cancer was largely untreatable in the 1970s? That’d be a shock to the doctors who formed the American Cancer Society in 1913. They were doing radiation treatment in the 1890s, and treating cancer with chemotherapy in the 1940s.
Have survivability rates gone up? Sure. Half of those diagnosed with cancer in 1970 survived five years (now its about 2/3). But I think the personal recollections of folks in this thread may not reflect the larger picture.