It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

75% increase in cancer incidence predicted by 2030

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 01:08 PM
link   
So I've seen a couple articles in the ole' msm about this - mostly they point to the predicted increase due to common factors. I wonder if this is really the beginning of a campaign to make people think all of the cancers that we are experiencing are "natural" as opposed to Fukashima, cell phones, depleted uranium and a myriad of other nuclear reasons.


Although incidence rates and the burden of some types of cancer (such as cervical cancer and stomach cancer) appear to be mainly declining in countries transitioning socially and economically towards higher levels of human development, the reduction is likely to be offset by a substantial increase in the types of cancer more associated with a so-called “Westernised” lifestyle, including breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer.


They even contradict themselves:


While increasing living standards in the coming decades in lower-HDI countries may lead to a decrease in the burden of some infection-related cancers, the authors warn that, irrespective of future developments, there may be a surge in the types of cancer which currently affect mainly higher-HDI countries


The interesting thing is that the blame ultimately, in their opinions, lie with "westernised way of living". In one sense they are correct. The Western way is lie, obfuscate, and dump poisons on our populations for $.

Just Accept it. You have cancer.

ColoradoJens
edit on 1-6-2012 by ColoradoJens because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by ColoradoJens
 


Hasn't it kinda seemed like everything people do daily will give them cancer?

Doesn't help Fukishima is littering the planet with radiation as nobody seems to care!

But doesn't it seem like people should end up saying, if you breathe outside, there is a good chance to come down with cancer!



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Chrisfishenstein
 


Removing Saddam Hussein from power was the right decision early in my presidency. It was the right decision now. And it will be the right decision ever" Actual Quote from George W. Bush

unfortunatly i agree.
when one of the sons,,executed some of the Soccer Team,,from the Olympics,,for loosing.
ya they had too go.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 01:23 PM
link   
It was only a week ago they were saying the amount of people getting cancer was reducing. I'd take what you read in the MSN with a pinch of salt dude.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 01:23 PM
link   
Isn't cancer something people will die from when other ways to die are staved off?

You got to die from something.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by kidtwist
It was only a week ago they were saying the amount of people getting cancer was reducing. I'd take what you read in the MSN with a pinch of salt dude.


That's the idea. What is spread about through news sources (my link is not msm however) is there to convey the idea that we should just get used to it. It is just the way it is. BS, in my opinion. There are reasons cancer is increasing. No one wants to talk about them because there are so many.

CJ



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by satron
Isn't cancer something people will die from when other ways to die are staved off?

You got to die from something.


Tell it to my kid aged three when he "got" his.

CJ



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Chrisfishenstein
 


Agreed. The norm is now, "well, everyone has cancer, it's just a matter of time before it becomes active." Of course there is truth in this to a degree. I for one believe we are covering up the reasons why this is happening.

CJ



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 03:39 PM
link   
I agree with the OP this announcement also bothers me not only because of the alarming expected percentage increase in cancer, but also it comes concurrent with an unnerving silence and obvious lack of mainstream news coverage concerning health consequences in people, animals or fish following the most recent environmental disasters in the Gulf and Japan.

Certainly I believe that personal choices will affect the chances of getting cancer, however this study, and the timing of the announcement smack of propaganda in my opinion. The complete lack of consideration of any impact of large scale impact of environmental toxins and the total emphasis on the individual's health habits seem like this was a study undertaken with an underlying agenda.

My gut feeling is the true purpose of this study is to begin preparing everyone for the anticipated consequences of recent historic environmental disasters in addition to the daily exposure to chemicals and toxins in food, air, water, etc.

It appears from this study “they” are laying the foundation for the blame to be put upon an individual’s health habits, predictably shifting the focus away from big corporate or governmental liability and the true causes of such an alarming increase within 30 years.

Watch for more changes in laws that will increase protections to corporations and insurance companies in the area of environmental liability rather than expanding any protections or benefits to victims.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by TZela
 


Thanks TZela, I concur. Isn't it ironic directly after the Fukishima disaster the EPA RAISED the acceptable levels of radiation in the US?

CJ



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 03:57 PM
link   
You seem to misunderstand the point of the study. It does not claim a 75% increase in developed countries. It is talking about the global rate.

The point of the article is that, even with overall cancer rates tending to decline in developed countries, the global rate may increase due to large increases in developing countries. The total population of developing countries is greater than that of developed countries, therefore as cancer rates increase in those countries (due to changes in population size, lifestyles, and age) the global rate may be skewed to a large increase.

The global cancer "burden" may be transferred from away from developed populations to those which are currently developing because of the increase in certain types of cancers in those populations.


Our findings suggest that rapid societal and economic transition in many countries means that any reductions in infection-related cancers are offset by an increasing number of new cases that are more associated with reproductive, dietary, and hormonal factors.

www.thelancet.com...


edit on 6/1/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


I understood what the article said. You are correct that they did say that developing countries would move from one "type" to another. However, it says that as westernised nations continue with their ways, they too will have an increase. My question is wether this is simply a "dumbing down" piece of propaganda. The bottom line is that cancer will continue to manifest itself at an increasing rate - why anyone thinks that Ghana all of a sudden will be eating mcdonalds and playing with their I-phones (as if that is the answer here) is anyone's guess.


The global cancer burden is set to surge more than 75% by 2030, according to new research published Online First in the Lancet Oncology. The rise is predicted to be even larger in the developing world, with the poorest countries experiencing a projected increase of more than 90%.


Perhaps it is the phrase "westernised" that has me thinking. What does that mean and why is our lifestyle so conducive to developing these cancers? Is it the food? The water? Cell phones? What is it? Why does the article say "hormonal" and "reproductive"? And note, the number in the developing world is 90% - as the article states, it is predicted to be even larger in the developing world.

CJ
edit on 1-6-2012 by ColoradoJens because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-6-2012 by ColoradoJens because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by ColoradoJens
 


The bottom line is that cancer will continue to manifest itself at an increasing rate - why anyone thinks that Ghana all of a sudden will be eating mcdonalds and playing with their I-phones (as if that is the answer here) is anyone's guess.

You are using the word cancer as if it were a single thing. It is not. That is the point, the study shows that the level of development affects the type of cancer which a population is subject to.

A span of 18 years is not exactly "suddenly", it represents the maturing of a generation and the aging of another generation and all of the influences which those generations are subject to in the process.

This is not "anyone's guess". It is the result of the study which studied demographics and trends in the period between 1988 and 2002. The study found that certain cancers increase with development while others decrease. The study found that in developing populations the increases outstrip the decreases.


Perhaps it is the phrase "westernised" that has me thinking. What does that mean and why is our lifestyle so conducive to developing these cancers? Is it the food? The water? Cell phones?
What it means as far as the study goes is that western cultures display higher rates for certain types of cancer then less developed countries. That as those populations become more developed, those types of cancer are found to increase. Food, probably. Water, not so much. Cell phones, not for the types of cancer they are talking about. But it's not likely to be attributable to any single cause.


And note, the number in the developing world is 90% - as the article states, it is predicted to be even larger in the developing world.
Yes, that's the point. The dramatic increase in the developing world is what drives the global 75% increase. If a dramatic increase were predicted for developed countries that 90% increase would result in greater increase in global incidence, not a number significantly less than that 90%. The global increase is due to the increase in developing populations.


edit on 6/1/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 10:13 PM
link   
reply to post by ColoradoJens
 


When I was young I remember hearing about distant people who were dying of cancer. So a friend of a friend of a friend. Today my entire circle of acquaintences and friends are littered with cancer. If someone doesn't have it yet, that seems to be the oddity.

There is no way cancer is decreasing. In 15 years the rates will sky rocket if we make it that long.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Egyptia
 


Today my entire circle of acquaintences and friends are littered with cancer

We're getting older, aren't we? So are acquaintances and friends. And the older you get, the more you will see.

Are you in the US? Despite your perceptions, even in those types of cancer which have increased in incidence in the past decade, the increase has been slight. But many types have shown a decrease. Your friends and acquaintances is not an adequate sample.
edit on 6/1/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Perhaps not adequate scientifically but one cannot help but notice such things and be alarmed at the general increase in many illnesses in the general public. I have a hard time believing the scientific census' conducted by 'they' that are well funded and owned as being legitimate sources in what is an actual true representation of 1st world illnesses with the advent of microwave technologies, gmo foods, and the other million poisons raining down on us if you catch my drift.
edit on 1-6-2012 by Egyptia because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 10:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Egyptia
 


I have a hard time believing the scientific census' conducted by they that are well funded and owned if you get my drift.

I don't.

But if you're talking about personal experience. I haven't noticed any particular increase in illness with my friends and acquaintances other than those which can be ascribed to the same thing which is causing our hair to turn grey.



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 12:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Strange what is causing our hair to turn grey early? As for me my head of hair is dark without any grey which is odd for my age.



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 03:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Egyptia
 

Mine isn't early.
Niether is that of my friends.



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Phage, on topic to the fact that this is not based entirely on the developing world - here is a grim look at the US aka a westernised nation:


n 2008, there were 1,437,199 new cancer cases in the US. It is estimated that 2,220,692 new cases of cancer will occur in the US in the year 2030 – a 55 percent increase. (Mexico will experience a 52 percent increase by 2030, Canada will experience a 66 percent increase.)


US Cancer rates to Increse by 55% by 2030

Aging IS a factor. However, the incidences of neuroblastoma and in-utero cancers are only growing. And that is in the most western society. What you are saying is true, and there are reasons why cancers are growing world wide that we can point to - and rightly so. However something has happened over the last 50 years (other than just diagnosing) that is causing this. What do you think is the cause? Just age?

CJ



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join