Despite any cutsey-poo made up "myth list" claims, or the woo any corporate apologists may spew.

"In May of 2010, the President’s Cancer Panel reported to President Obama that “the true burden of environmentally induced cancers has been grossly underestimated...”

"Exposure to environmental carcinogens (chemicals or substances that can lead to the development of cancer) can occur in the workplace and in the home, as well as through consumer products, medical treatments, and lifestyle choices...."

http://www.psr.org/environment-and-health/confronting-toxics/cancer-and-toxic-chemicals.html

I didn't see a claim that cancer wasn't caused by man-made synthetic chemicals?

In fact right here, from the source given: Environmental factors including tobacco smoke, nutrition, physical activity, and exposure to environmental carcinogens are estimated to be responsible for 75-80% of cancer diagnosis and death in the US. Oops, wrong source. But the OP basically says the same thing.

and to unmask the BS.

The debate goes on, as NBC reports: "David and Zimmerman therefore argue that cancer nowadays is largely caused by man-made environmental factors such as pollution and diet. They detailed their findings in the October issue of the journal Nature Reviews Cancer..."

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/39687039/ns/health-cancer/t/cancer-man-made-disease-controversial-study-claims/

Labeling one side of this debate as a "myth" has the rank stench of typical corporate apologistics, of which there is a tragic abundance in our era.

Blame the cancer on the victim. Which is where such extreme thinking goes. Live a natural lifestyle free of chemicals, you won't get cancer! That's dangerous advice.

Cancer is NOT mad-made, and it is NOT modern.

Man-made chemicals CAUSING cancer does not make cancer man-made.

You're really grasping at straws here.... I Fucking Love Science is anything but corporate apologists.

....yes, there are certain synthetic chemicals and bits of our radiological kit that are carcinogenic, sometimes extremely carcinogenic, but there's plenty of stuff in nature's natural kitchen that can cause similar genetic damage. Thus, humans are outfitted with a number of defenses against cancer causing mutations. The proteins p53 and p19ARF repair damaged strands of DNA and help kill off cells with genetic mutations, including those that lead to cancer. Secondly, the innate immune system, which we share with all plants and animals, includes a host of cells and mechanisms that attack cancerous tumors. Of course they don't always do the job, due in some degree to the fine line between proper function and auto-immune disorders.

My point being, genetic mutation, including that which causes cancer, is nothing new and life has evolved methods of dealing with dangerous mutations. Hell, genetic mutation is the driving force of evolution to start with, cancer being an unfortunate side effect. Human activities, however, can cause increased carcinogenic mutations, but to the original author's point, blaming cancer exclusively on human activity, corporate or not, is simply incorrect.

From a group that has chosen to ignore science when it's convenient to them. The last bastion of the anti-science crowd. If you have an actual response to the piece in question, please offer it up.

Equally true.

How does someone looking at the molecular structure diagram tell the difference between a "man made" and a "natural" molecule? What specific attribute differentiates the two?

but then it would never occur to me to Google "cancer."

She's super intelligent and educated, but when doctors tell you that you have terminal brain cancer you want to believe you can fix it, because the medical community cannot.

Our refrigerator is always packed with greens, seeds, grains, and foods I had never heard of before her diagnosis. She is determined to cure herself with diet. It is not working, of course, and she is back on chemo for the second time.

But I play along. She needs to feel like she is putting up the good fight. She works tirelessly at this, and feels like she is in control. I wouldn't rob her of that, any more than I'd discourage a religious cancer patient from praying.

The upside is that we eat a very healthy diet now (we always ate relatively healthy), and we're in good health (not counting the cancer) as a result.

The downside is that this diet (and her meds) keep her very thin, which bothers me. But her doctors don't think that's a problem.

and I make my one sane post and back out of the thread forever. The last thing I want to do is get dragged into the deep end of the crazy pool.

Myths 3 and 5 are particularly hilarious because diet has nothing to do with it because your system's pH is regulated by your lungs and kidneys; and enough bicarb will kill you by throwing you into temporary alkalosis while your lungs and kidneys work to get rid of it and you can die before they do.

Woo heads aren't just ridiculous, they're menaces.

Even dinosaurs got cancer.

And research done in old graveyards indicates that cancer occurred in the past at pretty much the same rates it does now. Keep in mind, that most cancers do not leave marks on bones, which is all we have to look at, and even with that limited evidence, we can tell that cancer is more or less a constant.

The only connection to modernity is that generally speaking we live longer, and since most cancers occur somewhat later in life, living longer simply gives more time to develop a cancer.

that my love of wine won't rot my liver and give me liver cancer. Living in this red state, wine is all that keeps me on an even keel.

There is no such thing as a safe level of alcohol consumption
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/mar/07/safe-level-alcohol-consumption

I will give this study credit for helping to drink less, which I needed to do, but I'm not giving the stuff up. Enjoy!

He is discounting the health benefits of moderate use of alcohol due to lack of proof at the same time he is asserting that there's no safe level of alcohol without proof.

There have been countless studies which have linked moderate alcohol consumption to health benefits, far more than the one or two he is citing.

http://www2.potsdam.edu/alcohol/AlcoholAndHealth.html

Because you don't have to twist my arm!

I don't think I have ever seen any study assert that sugars cause cancer, but certainly there are many studies that indicate certain cancers depend heavily on sugars to maintain a high growth rate. And there is no question that other sugar-related diseases can weaken the body in general and the immune system in particular, which can be an important factor in cancer survival.

I have no idea what this "IFL Science" site is, but it seems like pop, schlock pseudo-science -- and a connection of science-like articles posted by people with no particular credentials.

in this great game of probabilities, some wine now and then is one of the least of our worries. And I agree, it sometimes helps out here in red state America.

I must beg to disagree based on personal experience. Some of the things you mentioned are anecdotal and not proven by exhaustive, peer-reviewed double-blind studies.

They are nonetheless effective in some cases and do not merit the label "myth".

Some are hype, but such a complex discussion cannot be made here any more than dismissing them in a media-friendly sound-bite list can. There are many cancers, it is a very diverse and complicated disease.

No offense intended.

If there are claims made in the OP that you think are not based on the consensus of peer reviewed evidence, please bring the evidence showing otherwise forward. That's what discussion boards are here for, after all.

for lung cancer. because she was just too young to have cancer. it just couldnt be. but a guy on the interwebs told them it wasnt really cancer.
parents went broke, and lost their daughter. and got divorced.
woo kills.

I know they're anecdotes, but I've heard far too many similar stories. They break my heart.

Take care. Peace be with you and your family.

at least.
i mean, deaths...

Good stuff.

Myth 1: Cancer was virtually unknown until recently, and is solely man made

If one doesn't eat food...they will not die from cancer.. they will probably die from something other than cancer.
-
so food eating...any food, makes it more likely one will die from cancer
-
not eating any food makes it impossible to die from cancer...usually
if by "prevent" they mean impossible to get...geez, that is goofy