I can’t get to the full text unless I physically go to the library. Anyone care enough for me to remember to do that next Tuesday?
I was about to take a crack at it, but my institution doesn’t have any access at all. Not even the print copies. Odd, since it’s one of the bigger names in cancer treatment and research… Makes me wonder about the quality of this particular journal.
Consider this your reminder.
60% of this isn’t remotely true. Another 25% may be factually true but has been phrased such a way as to make it misleading.
We’ve been through this a bazillion times in “Comment on Cecil’s columns” and “Great Debates”, thanks largely to Cecil’s columnson the subject.
Hemp isn’t paticularly more versatile than any other crop.
Hemp has a lot of other uses, but so does any other crop.
Hemp is a second rate source of all sorts of things, but isn’t a first rate source of anything.
Hemp is a very minor crop in areas where it is legal to grow. Hemp production has been falling steadily since the invention of plastics and it continues to fall. Hemp porduction in the US was almost nil when it was made illegal. That should tell us that in a polymer world hemp isn’t cost effective.
The carbon footprint of hemp is higher than alternatives for any given use, not lower. Figures which suggest otherwise are based on using hemp for multiple uses while ignoring similar uses for competitors.
“We” probably are missing out by not cultivating it, but the limited production in areas where production is legal tells us tha we aren’t missing out on much.
FTR I’m not a marijuana user and never have been, but I couldn’t give a toss if they legalised both industrial and recreational cannibis tommorrow. But let’s not pretend that hemp is a particularly versatile or environmentally freindly crop when it is no such thing. Hemp is just a plant crop. Like all the crops it has benefits and disadvantages, both economic and environmental.
But I think the most telling fact concerning the viability of hemp is looking at the insgnificant amounts produced in the US pre-banning and the tiny amount cultivated in countries like Canada or India and the decline in world production. Sure, if people want to grow tiny amounts they should be free to do so, but lets not pretend it’s got vast economc or environmental potential.
Odd. I can download it through sciencedirect. It’s all a bit beyond me, but if you want any specific info just ask.
To answer questions already asked:
Cancers considered: Head and neck, Oesophagus, Stomach, Colon, Rectum, Pancreas, Lung, Soft tissue sarcoma, Melanoma of skin, Breast, Uterus, Cervix, Ovary, Prostate, Testis, Bladder, Kidney, Brain, Unknown primary site, Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, Hodgkin’s disease, Multiple myeloma
“Overall, only 13 out of the 22 malignancies evaluated showed any improvement in 5-year survival, and the improvement was greater than 10% in only three of those 13 malignancies. The five most ‘chemo-sensitive’ cancers, namely testis, Hodgkin’s disease and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, cervix and ovary, accounted for 8.4% of the total incidence in Australia in 1998. In this group, the 5-year survival rate due solely to cytotoxic chemotherapy was 14%.”
That sounds reasonable, though the numbers they produce will depend on their statistical methods. It does jive with my understanding (at the molecular biology and genetics level) that a lot of treatment involves throwing all of the options at the patient to see what works, since each new cancer is practically unique. However, chemo is almost always combined with other treatments like surgery and radiation therapy, and there can be synergistic effects between all of these methods. The chemo and radiation shrinks the tumor, surgery removes most of it, and chemo eradicates any bits left behind (ideally).