One year on from Blackpool and Fukushima....

[MrGongGong]

I share those doubts, but making wild and easily refutable claims about cancer being a disease of but recent vintage, and dismissing oceanic survey work in which WHO medics are central (on the flimsy grounds that the US Government is also major player) in no way helps us understand what causal links might be at work.

well put

[teamsaint]

if the US government is involved, it is certainly grounds for suspicion !!
They have a big vested interest in the Nuclear Industry.
difficult to know what you can trust.

As you suggest, it is very important that we get to the root of the causal links.

[Budapest]

Huff's "How to lie with statistics" was core reading when I was a science undergrad. The modernity of cancer is a myth. No more, no less.

http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/can...amoderndisease

I disagree with you. Firstly, there is no proper scientific evidence of widespread cancer much before the mid 19th century (or maybe you can provide some). Secondly, we're talking about an epidemic of cancer here. All epidemics in the distant past have left some trails in literature and the arts, be it bubonic plague, cholera, etc. There is absolutely nothing in the histories that even hints at a cancer epidemic. Yes, people did die from cancer in the early years of history; but what we're talking about here is people dropping dead like flies from it.

Sorry, Bryn, whilst you and Cancer Research UK are obviously well meaning it just doesn't explain what's going on at the moment.

[Budapest]

aaah
so by what ?
and whom ?

I remember the excellent Jon Ronson documentary about lunar conspiracy. One of the people in the discussion had analysed the film from the NASA missions frame by frame and was showing things that he thought were anomalies in the images, all very interesting and credible stuff until he was asked the question.
"So how do you think these got there ?"
and the answer
"Its the illuminati, of course, they live in caves at the north pole and come out at night in their flying saucers" :DOH:

Mr GongGong, plase don't try to put me into the category of the conspiracy theory brigade. I do not have a portrait of David Icke on my desk and I don't think that lizards from outer space are trying to take over the world. Everything I have stated here is fact, and I've tried to back it up with credible links.

You seem to agree with me, and I only say the above in case people don't get it.

[Resurrection Man]

.... Yes, people did die from cancer in the early years of history; but what we're talking about here is people dropping dead like flies from it.

....

But they're not. Did you read the link I posted?

[teamsaint]

But they're not. Did you read the link I posted?

whatever the truth is, can't see Fukushima helping get the cancer numbers down, tragically.

[Bryn]

I disagree with you. Firstly, there is no proper scientific evidence of widespread cancer much before the mid 19th century (or maybe you can provide some). Secondly, we're talking about an epidemic of cancer here. All epidemics in the distant past have left some trails in literature and the arts, be it bubonic plague, cholera, etc. There is absolutely nothing in the histories that even hints at a cancer epidemic. Yes, people did die from cancer in the early years of history; but what we're talking about here is people dropping dead like flies from it.

Sorry, Bryn, whilst you and Cancer Research UK are obviously well meaning it just doesn't explain what's going on at the moment.

Oh dear, this is so much like the ozone depletion history. Before Lovelock invented his electron capture device there was no reliable way of detecting the depletion of the ozone layer over Antarctica. Before the 20th Century much, and very probably most, cancer went undiagnosed. I have no doubt that industrialisation and the chemicalisation of agriculture have contributed to increase levels of carcinogens in the environment and the food we ingest. I fully expect that elevated levels of Strontium 90, etc., have also played their part, but how nuclear power has contributed in comparison to the internal combustion engine, smoking tobacco or the production and dispersal of, for instance, dioxins, is very much open to question.

[Budapest]

But they're not. Did you read the link I posted?

Resurrection Man, if I'm contributing to a thread I read all links that people give. Unfortunately the last two links you've given don't work, or at least they don't on my browser.

[Budapest]

Oh dear, this is so much like the ozone depletion history. Before Lovelock invented his electron capture device there was no reliable way of detecting the depletion of the ozone layer over Antarctica. Before the 20th Century much, and very probably most, cancer went undiagnosed. I have no doubt that industrialisation and the chemicalisation of agriculture have contributed to increase levels of carcinogens in the environment and the food we ingest. I fully expect that elevated levels of Strontium 90, etc., have also played their part, but how nuclear power has contributed in comparison to the internal combustion engine, smoking tobacco or the production and dispersal of, for instance, dioxins, is very much open to question.

Oh, come on Bryn, even a five year old could make the connection between nuclear energy and cancer. The quite amazing thing is how adults continue to deny it.

[Beef Oven]

Mr GongGong, plase don't try to put me into the category of the conspiracy theory brigade. I do not have a portrait of David Icke on my desk and I don't think that lizards from outer space are trying to take over the world. Everything I have stated here is fact, and I've tried to back it up with credible links.

You seem to agree with me, and I only say the above in case people don't get it.

Have you read 'and the truth shall set you free' by Gordon Banks? It sheds a lot of light on this subject.

[Bryn]

Oh, come on Bryn, even a five year old could make the connection between nuclear energy and cancer. The quite amazing thing is how adults continue to deny it.

Do try and actually read what other contributors here write. "I fully expect that elevated levels of Strontium 90, etc., have also played their part, ... ". How is that a denial of a connection between nuclear energy and cancer? What I question is the relative risk compared to other carcinogenic vectors.

[Budapest]

Do try and actually read what other contributors here write. "I fully expect that elevated levels of Strontium 90, etc., have also played their part, ... ". How is that a denial of a connection between nuclear energy and cancer? What I question is the relative risk compared to other carcinogenic vectors.

If you have children, or nephews or nieces or whatever, ask yourself how you are going to explain all this crap.

You call it "the relative risk compared to other carcinogenic vectors".

I call it people who should be put in jail.

[Frances_iom]

If you have children, or nephews or nieces or whatever, ask yourself how you are going to explain all this crap..

I did some work on church collections - see www.manxnotebook.com/history/poor/jurbycol.htm - obvious cancers seems to be quite common - most concers would not be seen and remember there would be no autopsies.

[Resurrection Man]

Resurrection Man, if I'm contributing to a thread I read all links that people give. Unfortunately the last two links you've given don't work, or at least they don't on my browser.

The link does work...just underpowered and so overloaded with viewings from For3! Here is the summary..


PURPOSE: From 1950 to 1990, the overall cancer mortality rate increased steadily in the United States, a trend which ran counter to declining mortality from other major diseases. The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of lung cancer on all-cancer mortality over the past 50 years.

METHODS: Data from the National Centers for Health Statistics were used to develop mortality rates for all forms of cancer combined, lung cancer, and other-cancer (all-cancer minus lung cancer) from 1950 to 1998.

RESULTS: When lung cancer is excluded, mortality from all other forms of cancer combined declined continuously from 1950 to 1998, dropping 25% during this period. The decline in other-cancer mortality was approximately 0.4% annually from 1950 to 1990 but accelerated to 0.9% per year from 1990 to 1996 and to 2.2% per year from 1996 to 1998.


And here is another extract from a study specifically designed to look at the links between radiation, nuclear testing and incidence of cancer...

To date, follow-up of troops present at other tests have not shown an overall increased number of deaths from cancer. One study compared about 1,000 veterans who received the highest doses of radiation to other veterans who were minimally exposed. The risk of dying from some blood-related cancers (certain leukemias and lymphomas) was higher in those exposed to radiation, and the risk of dying overall was also slightly higher. However, the risk was not increased for other types of cancers known to be caused by radiation, and the overall risk of dying from any form of cancer was not higher. taken from here http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/CancerC...uclear-weapons

[MrGongGong]

Mr GongGong, plase don't try to put me into the category of the conspiracy theory brigade.

well maybe don't make statements like this ?

Yes, people did die from cancer in the early years of history; but what we're talking about here is people dropping dead like flies from it.

They aren't
and

Oh, come on Bryn, even a five year old could make the connection between nuclear energy and cancer. The quite amazing thing is how adults continue to deny it.

I don't think anyone said that there wasn't any connection between the two ?
but you seem to be suggesting that virtually no-one died of cancer before ?

All epidemics in the distant past have left some trails in literature and the arts, be it bubonic plague, cholera,

Earlier this year I had an operation to remove a tumour from my kidney (and my kidney as well ), involved large amounts of CT, MRI and Ultrasound Scanning to collect information. I probably had had it for years until it caused symptoms (which were also the same symptoms of several other things including cancer) if this was a little as 20 years ago i would probably have died of it, it would have been undetected or diagnosed which is not to say that it didn't exist.

In France you can buy treatments for "heavy legs" which seems to be a widespread condition ? yet no-one in the UK (or even Belgium for that matter) seems to suffer from it ?

You can only refer to something that you know exists it would be pretty difficult for a writer like Camus to write a follow up novel to "The Plague" about AIDS

People do live longer, cancer is a disease that usually affects people in old age, when I was in hospital in a ward full of people with cancer they were all (except me ) in their 60's onwards, when I was young men in their 70's (those who had survived WW!) were very old indeed , now many run marathons.
etc etc

It's a bit like the stuff in the news recently about the apparent "epidemic" of children with special needs , as if they weren't there before !

NONE of which (as many have said) is reason to be complacent or even to support the building of more NP stations