What's With All The Cancer?

[romansperson]

Lifespan may account for the rise in cancer in older people, but what about rise in cancer in children and adults under the age of 50? And the fact that cancer rates in developing nations are now equaling those in industrialized nations? Lifespan is hardly a factor in many of those countries.

 

this fails to address the advent of overprocessed foods that are full of artificial colors, synthetic preservatives and fillers that have little or no nutrional value at all. Foods such as these are being consumed in massive quantities by people AND by pets---and there are some pretty obvious health ramifications.

 

Considering that our pets are being exposed to many of the same risk factors as humans--- exposure to hazardous chemicals, food colorings and preservatives, pollutants, pesticides

 

Can you point to any proof of any of this? Because I know the belief that 'chemicals' are killing us all is really popular, but I've never seen any actual statistics to back that up, other than the ones that point to air pollution, which is becoming a big problem in developing countries.

 

Are cancer rates *really* going up for children and adults under 40 (not 50, as cancer incidence always rises after 40), or is it a function of the fact that something else that used to kill high rates of young people isn't killing them now, like smallpox or polio or tuberculosis?

 

From WHO's 2003 worldwide cancer study:

 

"The predicted sharp increase in new cases – from 10 million new cases globally in 2000, to 15 million in 2020 - will mainly be due to steadily ageing populations in both developed and developing countries and also to current trends in smoking prevalence and the growing adoption of unhealthy lifestyles."

 

and, in the "Key Statements" section:

 

"Researchers will demonstrate that successful behavioral changes in tobacco, alcohol and diet will prevent far more cancers than the elimination of toxins such as industrial pollution, car exhaust and dioxins"

 

So - not much in there about 'chemicals' as a major caustive factor. Plenty in there about poor choices though. It's really too bad that in most cases it takes years of poor choices for cancer to show up. I wonder how many people would start smoking if previous smokers got lung cancer after just a few weeks or months of smoking?

 

Anyway, when it comes to cancer in our greys, I'd really love to see a study that compares groups of greyhounds who had racing careers against groups of greyhounds from the same genetic background that didn't - there is a suspicion that osteosarcoma risk goes up due to repeated small injury to the long bones, which is obviously something that is a lot more likely to happen to a greyhound who goes through training and then races than one that doesn't. I wonder if there is any way to make that happen? I know there are 'oops' litters of greyhound puppies from time to time who aren't trained to race. It would be interesting to see if those puppies are less likely to get osteo over their lifetimes. Though of course I don't know what we'd do with that information unless it could lead to some way of changing racing training or the design of racetracks so that the risk goes down. That doesn't seem likely though.

 

 

[Guest fastdogs]

Considering that our pets are being exposed to many of the same risk factors as humans--- exposure to hazardous chemicals, food colorings and preservatives, pollutants, pesticides and secondhand smoke; poor diet; obesity; inadequate exercise---I’d say it’s a pretty big leap to think that these factors have NO impact on the statistics of the health problems we are seeing in pets today---including cancer.

 

No doubt that they are being exposed to the same risk factors as humans, they live in the same environment we do. The problem I have with the correlation is the difference in biological systems between greys and humans. I've seen my boy eat things that would make me violently ill and I've eaten things that would kill him. Our systems are too different for me to be comfortable with statistics gathered from humans studies, applied to greys and the findings accepted at face value for truths. Especially not from an organization that stands to benefit (for the lack of a better word) from increased cancer findings.

[JerseyGirlInOz]

"Researchers will demonstrate that successful behavioral changes in tobacco, alcohol and diet will prevent far more cancers than the elimination of toxins such as industrial pollution, car exhaust and dioxins"

 

So - not much in there about 'chemicals' as a major caustive factor. Plenty in there about poor choices though. It's really too bad that in most cases it takes years of poor choices for cancer to show up. I wonder how many people would start smoking if previous smokers got lung cancer after just a few weeks or months of smoking?

 

 

Tobacco is full of chemicals. Alcohol is often synthesized from chemicals, and often contains preservatives---which are chemicals. Processed foods are often made with GMO's, stripped of any natural nutrional value, then colored all pretty and made to last longer with preservatives---which are chemicals. When the body becomes overloaded with chemicals it functions less efficiently, which makes it all the more difficult for it to cope with all the environmental toxins (which, incidentally, are also chemicals).

 

There are plenty of statistics to back this up---as a matter of fact, I'm hard pressed to find experts who DON'T believe that chemicals are a contributing factor on some level. But it seems as though you've already made up your mind to the contrary--and I admire your optimism.

 

But for anyone who is interested in finding out more about the impact of chemicals on our heath and the health of our animals (domesticated and wild), here are some good places to start:

Environmental Medicine, Parts 1, 2, 3 & 4 by Walter J. Crinnon (scroll down to "The Environmental Medicine Series")

The 100-Year Lie by Randall Fitzgerald

Silent Spring by Rachel Carson

Toxic Overload by Dr. Paula Baillie-Hamilton

Stop The 21st Century Killing You by Dr. Paula Baillie-Hamilton

The Environmental Working Group

The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics

Organic Consumers Association

Edited June 28, 2007 by JerseyGirlInOz

[JerseyGirlInOz]

Considering that our pets are being exposed to many of the same risk factors as humans--- exposure to hazardous chemicals, food colorings and preservatives, pollutants, pesticides and secondhand smoke; poor diet; obesity; inadequate exercise---I’d say it’s a pretty big leap to think that these factors have NO impact on the statistics of the health problems we are seeing in pets today---including cancer.

 

No doubt that they are being exposed to the same risk factors as humans, they live in the same environment we do. The problem I have with the correlation is the difference in biological systems between greys and humans. I've seen my boy eat things that would make me violently ill and I've eaten things that would kill him. Our systems are too different for me to be comfortable with statistics gathered from humans studies, applied to greys and the findings accepted at face value for truths. Especially not from an organization that stands to benefit (for the lack of a better word) from increased cancer findings.

Comparing the digestive system of dogs vs. humans with bioaccumulation of toxins is comparing apples and oranges.

 

If anything animals are more vulnerable to bioaccumulation and toxic overload simply due to the fact that they, for the most part, have a smaller body mass than humans. Here's a good article that explains toxins and their effect on pets in more detail: Toxins, Allergies and Your Pet

 

And this is from the AVMA website:

"Collectively, animals and people breathe the same air, drink the same water, and eat from the same source of plant and animal food products. Therefore, what affects the air and water for people, also affects the air and water of our pets, livestock, and diverse wildlife species. In addition, animals have a major influence upon the health of our ecosystems-urban, rural, and natural. This interdependence of all animal life creates a common interest in ecosystem health and preserving biodiversity between veterinarians and many other disciplines, including wildlife biologists, physicians, ecologists, environmental scientists, and several others. The complex nature of modern environmental problems demands effective team efforts by scientists from multiple disciplines in order to solve or prevent world environmental problems."

Edited June 28, 2007 by JerseyGirlInOz

[Guest fastdogs]

Comparing the digestive system of dogs vs. humans with bioaccumulation of toxins is comparing apples and oranges.

 

That's exactly my point. A corelation has been made between two biologically different systems without studying both. To make assumptions about animal cancer rates based on human studies is inappropriate.

[JerseyGirlInOz]

Comparing the digestive system of dogs vs. humans with bioaccumulation of toxins is comparing apples and oranges.

 

That's exactly my point. A corelation has been made between two biologically different systems without studying both. To make assumptions about animal cancer rates based on human studies is inappropriate.

 

I think you missed MY point. The fact that dogs can eat raw meat and their own poop but can't eat chocolate is totally irrelevant to how neurotoxins, endocrine disrupters, and bioaccumulation of toxins affect virtually all living beings. The links I gave you ARE based on animal studies, and clearly state that toxins affect animals in much the same manner as they do humans.

 

From what I can tell, your view on this subject seems to be just based on YOUR OPINION, since you haven't presented any actual evidence to the contrary---nor have you acknowledged any of the information that has been presented to you. You've made it abundantly clear that the facts that have been presented to you (if you've even bothered to read them at all) are irrelevant to your opinion on the subject---and you're certainly entitled to your opinion.