Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

17 Substances Added to Cancer Agents List ..hepititus B and C & STD's

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
ElsewheresDaughter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-31-05 02:19 PM
Original message
17 Substances Added to Cancer Agents List ..hepititus B and C & STD's
Edited on Mon Jan-31-05 02:29 PM by ElsewheresDaughter
WASHINGTON - The government on Monday added 17 substances to the official list of cancer-causing agents, including the first viruses: hepatitis B and C and some human papillomaviruses that cause common sexually transmitted diseases.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=541&ncid=716&e=8&u=/ap/20050131/ap_on_he_me/cancer_causers


Lead and lead compounds, X-rays, compounds found in grilled meats and various substances used in textile dyes, paints and inks are among the other new listings, the Department of Health and Human Services (news - web sites) said in releasing the 11th edition of the federal Report on Carcinogens.


The additions bring to 246 the total number of substances that either are "known to be human carcinogens" or "reasonably anticipated to be human carcinogens." The report now lists 58 "known" — including the viruses — and 188 "reasonably anticipated" substances.

Report on Carcinogens, Eleventh Edition: http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov


Hepatitis B and C, which cause liver disease, were added because studies in humans show that chronic infections cause liver cancer. Some of the human papillomaviruses, which are sexually transmitted, were included because studies show they cause cervical cancer in women, the department said.


ahh smell the landover baptist church's hand in this


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
TO Kid Donating Member (565 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-31-05 02:47 PM
Response to Original message
1. Everything causes cancer
I think it would be simpler just to list the stuff that doesn't.

Seriously, though, I'm surprised they finally got around to including HPV. The link with cervical cancer has been well-known for years now but anti-tobacco propagandists have been trying to suppress it in favour of their old lie about smoking causing cervical cancer. Who knows, maybe they'll eventually admit to the link between c. pneumo bacteria and lung cancer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DBoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-31-05 02:49 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Not true!
Very few substances tested are found to cause cancer. While true that almost anything is fatal in large enough quantities, true carcinogens are actually very rare.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
baba Donating Member (452 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-31-05 07:12 PM
Response to Reply #1
13. Let me guess.
You're a smoker.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Heddi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-31-05 03:06 PM
Response to Original message
3. This really isn't any new information
The Hep-B Vaccine is called the "first cancer vaccine" because Hep-B *CAN* Cause liver cancer in some patients, therefore, a Hep-B vaccine can prevent cancer.

And HPV (human papilloma virus--aka--genital warts) has been linked for many years to cervical cancer.

So while this may seem alarming, this is absolutely nothing new to the medical community.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happynewyear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-31-05 03:06 PM
Response to Original message
4. link doesn't work
at least for me anyway ... ?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sybylla Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-31-05 03:10 PM
Response to Original message
5. Wouldn't it just be easier to say life causes cancer
They publish sanitary lists like this without discussing their role in increasing the risk or even if they are merely secondary or tertiary contributors. And they never talk about the people who have managed to reduce their risk by avoiding all the things on the list and still get cancer.

Do chronic infections cause cancer or merely set the stage for cancer to develop. There is a big difference and one that is rarely reported correctly.

This is just more chicken little crap from a media too lazy to do any investigating and analyzing of its own.

What I'd like to see is how many cancer deaths could be prevented if everyone had a god damned annual checkup and how we can get health care for all. Now that would be news.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TO Kid Donating Member (565 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-31-05 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Some do
I remember reading an article back in the 1970s by someone who said that. He pointed out the correlation between longer lifespans and higher cancer rates and concluded that in most cases cancer is just a part of growing old. The argument is not without merit- our bodies are kept going long past the sell-by date due to technology that has virtually eliminated most causes of premature death. Treated water and cleaner food make infectious diseases less prevalent and antibiotics render most of them non-lethal. Better nutrition improves the immune system and speeds healing. Better medical technology make most injuries survivable. The net result is that growing old, which was the exception just 150 years ago, is now the norm so we can expect to encounter a lot of maladies that those in previous generations never lived long enough to get.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Emillereid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-31-05 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. More and more DNA transcription errors as we age --
personally I wonder if real old age is a bargain at all -- from what's I've seen many, if not most, old people are miserable -- alive well past their sell- by date as you say. If they were cheese or bread, they would be sprouting mold. Not everyone ages so poorly of course -- it's amazing to me that some people are old and falling apart in their seventies, while others don't seem old at all well into their eighties. I met George McGovern last week -- and it was hard to believe that he is almost 83 -- he is still such an alive, articulate, intelligent and vibrant man. I still can't believe Americans chose Nixon over him!! Anyway, why some age the way he and some others do while others just seem to fall apart -- and live their last days in pain and misery is beyond me. There is the suggestion from Bruce Ames' lab at Berkeley that a lot of it might come down to the health and well being of our mitochondria. It does appear that supplementation with acetyl-carnitine and lipoic acid might boost mitochondrial function and forestall some of the DNA errors that accompany aging. I use them -- figure they can't hurt. My worst fear is being real old and miserable and a blithering idiot -- but still alive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TO Kid Donating Member (565 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-31-05 04:32 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. Yep
I think heredity plays a huge role in aging, but then I'm biased- I'm descended from a long line of people who smoke like chimneys, drink like fish and live damn near forever (must be the French background). Of my dad's ten siblings, eight are still kicking and the youngest is 73. My grandmother lived past a hundred but never admitted to being over 95- she did some creative subtraction when she found out that the church where she was baptized burned down and all the records were destroyed in the fire.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-31-05 05:00 PM
Response to Reply #6
12. The Bush plan for health care
reported in today's L.A. Times will shorten our lives and lower cancer rates. I'm sure Bush will take credit for the decrease in cancer cases if he is still around.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
enough Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-31-05 03:36 PM
Response to Original message
7. It seems to me that many more young people are getting cancer now
than in previous decades. I am sixty and several of my friends' children have cancer now, or have died of it in the last year.

I think we are going to have to get serious about understanding cancer risk as an environmental public health problem, not just as a problem of individual life-style and medical care.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TO Kid Donating Member (565 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-31-05 04:06 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. I think a closer look at genetics is in order
A lot of the nastier substances have been around for a very long time, many at higher levels than they are today. But look at it from a natural selection standpoint- a good example would be diabetes. Before the 1920s, diabetes was a death sentence and most diabetics died in childhood or in their teens. Since the discovery of insulin, diabetics have been growing up and having children of their own- children who might inherit the susceptibility to diabetes. A similar but less dramatic example is the invention of eyeglasses than enabled nearsighted people to gain a higher standard of living. Every time we cure or control a hereditary condition to the point where it ceases to be a reproductive disadvantage, that condition will become more prevalent.

In the case of childhood cancers, while I don't rule out environmental factors (especially for some badly polluted regions), I suspect that a lot of it is due to the low infant mortality rate of the modern world. A lot of kids who in previous centuries would not have survived past the age of ten are living full lives and having children of their own. Also, let's not forget that we are better at detecting cancer than we used to be; in past centuries many childhood deaths were attributed to "crib death" or "natural causes".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DARE to HOPE Donating Member (552 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-31-05 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. Better nutrition would help, though...
They are changing their whole understanding of fats in our diet. Corn and soy and other polyunsaturates increase the odds of cancer AND heart disease, where monounsaturated (virgin olive oil) and saturated fats like grassfed butter and beef as well as oily fish and virgin coconut oil actually PROTECT against both heart disease and cancer.

Also, sugar causes all diseases, as well as cancer, to proliferate.

Water and all the healthy greens can clean out the toxins, and many herbs as well. Do it now. Easier than when the cancer takes over.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 02:18 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC