Cancer Research UK Science Blog

> We can't conclude "O is true, therefore H"

Definitely, but if O had been false we might have learned something. More interestingly though:

> another thing to consider is fallout incorporated into tobacco and then smoked

That's an interesting thought, I'd never considered that.

My expectation for beta and gamma emitters is that they would be unlikely to cause cancer specifically in the lungs, because lungs aren't very dense and would have a pretty low interaction cross section for such penetrating radiation. For comparison, I-131 -- a beta emitter common in fallout -- is a significant risk for thyroid cancer only because iodine is biologically concentrated in the thyroid.

However, if there were significant fallout of alpha emitters, which were deposited in tobacco, this could conceivably deliver a significant localized dose to the lungs. Alpha emitters are more or less only dangerous internally, but smoke particulates that become lodged in the lungs could do the job. There appears to be a fair amount of literature on this -- Naturally occurring Po-210 is apparently still considered a danger today [1], and has been known to the cigarette companies since the 60s [2]. Some apparently comes from decay of natural U (via a few intermediaries) in phosphate fertilizer.

A figure in one paper I was able to find [3] suggests up to 100 pCi/kg Pu-239 and Pu-240 (both alpha) in leaves and grass in Finland circa 1963, declining to less than 5 pCi by 1967. The modern Po-210 alpha…

Good chat, despite it's mildly aggressive nature. Here's what:

So, an organisation that basically labels everything in the world as either a potential carcinogen or carcinogen [0] when the second lowest score they award still reads as 'potential carcinogen' is more powerful than actual evidence, accrued across enormous longitudinal studies, first from scandinavia [1] but backed significantly by australia [2] and integrated into a plausable mechanism for increases in >70 year olds [3] combined with a finding that would actually revolutionise physics and biology for suggesting a new mechanism for the interaction of electromagnetism and biology?

Alarmists are everywhere [4]. But that doesn't mean they are right. It's easy to listen to fear, but just because someone is screaming and crying doesn't make them right. Serious claims deserve to be looked at seriously, and this one has been throughly examined, in research that is continuing. And it continues to be debunked by huge datasets - not just the referenced studies but also the million woman study [5][6] and others.

So yes, I repeat, for anyone versed in science, physics and with their head screwed on straight, the science is settled, and I challenge you to demonstrate either a mechanism or a throughly vetted dataset that proves otherwise.
And i'll remind you that hitting the first answer on google does not constitute research.

[0]…

You forget that life expectancy for native populations aren't due to them to not living long lives, but more due to the fact they have more deaths at childhood (due to stuff like bacteria infections and other diseases we now prevent). So you have a big chunk of population dying young. Also these cultures can be more violent and often have wars killing a big chunk. But past that bump it's not as short as the average (it's far larger). For example the Native Americans if one of them lived to 40, he could expect to live to round 70. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/12o4py/what_was_the_average_life_expectancy_of_a_native/

70 is easily a cancer age. Going by the current research at https://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2015/02/04/why-are-cancer-rates-increasing/ one can expect 3/4 people over 60 to have cancer. And it's increasing.

So yeah the not living long enough doesn't really hold water. Also juvenile cancers weren't really a thing at all until the modern world (more likely bacterial infections until we discovered penicillin were more likely for juvenile deaths).

From a link in the article: http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2013/03/01/can-the-power-of-the-public-help-personalise-cancer-treatment/

> Take these results from a microarray below: the pink horizontal band is, effectively, the length of a chromosome – and any peaks indicate extra copies of that particular region.

> There are four regions where you can see the levels change – these show where alterations have occurred in a specific part of the genome. But to be able to home in exactly on which genes are affected, and identify those that may play a key role in cancer, our scientists need to know precisely where this shift begins and ends – and for this we need the accuracy of the human eye.

It sounds like this game is built on the idea the human eye is somehow better at detecting peaks in a signal than a computer, which doesn't make any sense to me.

Can someone explain what's actually being gained from the human component here besides good PR?

The discussion is about testing now, today. It's not about testing in 10 years time.

> can only help, never hurt

This is simply untrue. Assuming for a moment that people can avoid overreacting you're still ignoring the stress caused by getting a partial dx.

And if you're not going to do anything with the information it's pointless doing it: you've exposed people to risk (hospitals are low risk, not no risk, environments) for no purpose.

I've linked to doctors and statisticians and healthcare researchers all saying the same thing. Here's a UK Cancer charity which repeats the point: https://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2018/03/06/overdiagnosis-when-finding-cancer-can-do-more-harm-than-good/

What you chose to do with your body is, of course, totally up to you. But you should stop spreading the FUD that imaging is harmless or that more information is always better.

I do stand corrected on colon cancer.

However, I stand by my general stance. Many cancers simply wouldn't show up in a population with a much shorter life expectancy. I'm not about to say it isn't partially environment or lifestyle (other things do cause cancer), just that we notice because of our life span and ability to detect these. I get this from articles like the one listed at the end, which states: The main reason cancer risk overall is rising is because of our increasing lifespan. And the researchers behind these new statistics reckon that about two-thirds of the increase is due to longevity. Colon cancer seems to be an outlier, and there are a couple of these. Cervical cancer is caused by a very common virus and often affects younger women, just to give another example.

http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2015/02/04/why-are-cancer-rates-increasing/