Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Scientists suggest that cancer is purely man-made

page: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Oct, 15 2010 @ 09:47 PM
It is a dichotomy of two things. Civilization with subsequent technology and the advent of science and medicine. A couple of centuries of ago it was rare to live past the age of 45 (at least in European terms). The Okinawans have been living as centurians for quite a while. The basis of such a difference is diet and the modern ability to cure cancer in some cases. For me the main culprit is the lack of a good diet. The following is a video from a survivalist named Christopher Nyerges and here are his informative videos:

But at the same time we must counteract the effect of radiation/ radio frequencies and man-made electromagnetic fields that may affect our DNA. Perhaps if we had better diets we could enjoy the marvels of our modern technology without having to sacrifice our lives.


posted on Oct, 15 2010 @ 10:03 PM
Wow.. this news just shocks me.

You would have thought, after all this time.. that we could have made the connection sooner. That all of the poisons put into our food and consumer products, approved by 'scientists', are causing cancerous growths, diseases and abnormalities. Thank you 'scientists'.

posted on Oct, 16 2010 @ 05:06 AM

Originally posted by OnceReturned
It's not a misquote. She is a faculty member at the University of Manchester, and the same quote can be found on the university's website, here. It's the last paragraph on that page.

Thanks for the original source! I tried looking for it myself but couldn't find it!

Anyways, you have correctly pointed out that she was not misquoted, but I instead believe that the author's conclusions has been uncritically misrepresented. For example, here are two different views on the article:

Cancer is not a disease of the modern world
Claims that cancer is only a 'modern, man-made disease' are false and misleading

Here are some of the criticisms being put forth from the above article:
“There are dozens of natural causes of cancer, including ultraviolet light from the sun, natural radiation from radionuclides such as radon in rocks, and infection by viruses that trigger cancer, such as the human papilloma virus, which causes cervical cancer and hepatitis viruses that can cause liver cancer. Likewise, soot and smoke from fire contain a multitude of carcinogens, as do fungal aflatoxins deposited on peanuts. ‘And that's to say nothing of cancers caused by genetic inheritance,’ says Kat Arney of Cancer Research UK.”

“Almost all the mummies and skeletons were of people who died before the age of 50. ‘Ageing is one of the major causes of cancer,’ says Schüz. He dismissed as ‘weak’ the authors' argument that they could find evidence for other diseases of ageing, such as arthritis and hardening of the arteries, and that cancer should therefore have shown up too. ‘In men today, 90 per cent of cancers occur after 50,’ he says. ‘So if you examined the bodies of 1000 modern men who died before 50, you wouldn't find many cancers either.’”

“One of the main arguments for cancer being an affliction of modernisation was the apparent lack of evidence for ‘common’ bone cancers in children. But again, the figures don't bear this out. ‘It's true it's a relatively common cancer, but even still it only affects 1 in 10,000 children,’ Schüz says. ‘So even if you have 10,000 childhood mummies, you'd be lucky to find one.’”

And the author agrees with the criticism
“David concedes that these are valid criticisms. ‘We're not saying what the explanation is, we're proposing it's modern living also taking into account that people living longer might be to blame,’ she says.”

In conclusion, the authors do not claim that WE have caused cancer, instead they have suggested that it is our modern lifestyle and our longer life spans which is the cause of the sudden increase of cancer, beginning with the industrial revolution.

I also agree that our modern lifestyle is partly the cause for the sudden increase of cancer, but that ain't news, I believe it's been known for some time.
One could say that cancer is simply the unwanted by-product of our current life styles.

posted on Oct, 16 2010 @ 11:00 AM
reply to post by Mahasamadhi

I'm all in favor of adopting a skeptical position when considering the claims in question; that's how we figure out if something is true. In fact, the more I learn about the issue the more it becomes clear to me that the claims made by the study's authors are too strong. It's simply not true that every instance of cancer can be attributed to human activity. It's virtually never the case that such a strong generalization is true. Even so, the author of the article in question is totally unambiguous about this point:

"[The data] has given modern society a clear message – cancer is man-made and something that we can and should address."
-Prof. Rosalie David, from her presentation How old is cancer? given in June of this year at the UK Association of Cancer Registries and National Cancer Intelligence Network conference

Despite the fact that this claim - taken literally - is not well supported, I think that it would be a mistake to dismiss the study's findings entirely. It's worth noting - as you did - that in the peer reviewed paper from Nature Reviews Cancer, the conclusions presented are substantially less extreme. I think that the evidence really does lend support to the idea that the modern lifestyle, byproducts of industrialization, and living in a largely man-made environment are substantial risk factors for cancer. Even though not all cancer can be attributed to these factors, the portion that can be is likely substantial enough that we would be unwise to dismiss the connection.

posted on Oct, 17 2010 @ 03:57 PM

Originally posted by predator0187
reply to post by auxxon

But you were staring at an eclipse. It went from one extreme to the other. It was caused by the pupil being dialated to night conditions to all of a sudden staring at the and unbelievably bright object. I was talking about just staring at it in the normal daytime.


Normally, I'd agree with you, but as I said it, was a partial eclipse, so there wasn't enough darkness to cause the pupil to dialate. I'd estimate that maybe only a 6th of the sun had been covered (this eclipse took place at some point between 1992 and 1994 and was only partially visible from South Africa).

new topics

top topics
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in