• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Cancer hitting younger people

In the news yesterday a growing correlation between pot smokinglu8ng cancer, and throat cancer. That is on top of the psychological portable reported, like psychosis among teen smokers.

article said:
People may wonder if smoking marijuana is less harmful than smoking cigarettes because cigarettes have more obvious cancer-causing substances. It's important to understand that marijuana isn't chemical-free. It contains a mixture of compounds and chemicals including tar, ammonia, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, cyanide, benzene and many others.
Smoking marijuana is undoubtedly safer than smoking cigarettes. That isn't a relevant metric, however. Also, the link isn't actually making a claim. It is saying we don't know, it is hard to actually draw the line between harm from marijuana smoking if smokers also used cigarettes.

The tobacco industry has been trying to indicate marijuana is dangerous for decades. We still lack any evidence to suggest that is true. Smoking anything likely has to have some negative effect on the lungs. We know that cigarettes trash the lungs.

Vaping kind of blew up out of no where and needs to be assessed. Luckily in America markets don't have to show their products don't kill their users. If that happens, a class action suit will solve the problem after the fact.
The thread has descended into politics. Conspiracy theories and name calling.

National politics is like a cancer spreeing everywhere....
Health has become a partisan issue
Yes it has become partisan. 'I'm gonna smoke where ever I like and when ever I like regardless of how it affects other people' vs 'Get that shit away from me'.

I am in the latter. Makes me sick and affects my breathing, same with tobacco. The stink of stale tobacco and pot on somebody's clothes.
 
I have noticed something that just MIGHT have something to do with increased youth cancer rates.
I go to swim laps, and the adjacent kiddie pool is full of babies, toddlers and pre-teens. And they are FAT. Not just overweight - about 40% of them are fucking obese.
I don’t think it matters what they’re eating; if they eat that much of it, they’re going to suffer.
I've noticed most children at my daughters school are of average weight to skinny. However, anecdotes aren't very meaningful. Especially in this case when we are talking about young adults, not infants.
To avoid these, a rule of thumb is to stick to products with fewer than five ingredients and avoid items with ingredients that are hard to pronounce.
I get Cleveland Clinic Wellness Letters and some time back they said this very thing. This is something I've been doing for the past twenty years.
The medical community is loath to make any official public statements linking UPFs to cancer without strong evidence lest they get sued by the food industry. Well, I'll not be that evidence and I'm trying to convince my daughter not to either.
Yep. In particular, one chemical Dihydrogen Monoxide (its only 1 molecule different than Carbon Monoxide!) kills many thousands every year and yet it continues to be ignored by Big Food. :mad:
Get Sean Hannity to blather about it and it'll be the number one problem in America in 3 weeks. TSwizzle will post UK Daily Mail articles about it.
Damn. If they had longer to work on it they would find alway to blame it on Harris, and failing that, on Obama.
Is it just my imagination, or do 9 about out of 10 random threads on this forum ultimately lead to blaming of Trump or Republicans?
How is this blaming Republicans?

He's saying Republicans are easily led into going after the cause of the day and blaming Democrats for it. He's not blaming Republicans for anything about Dihydrogen monoxide as that's a classic case of cherry picking to make something look very different than it is. There's a long list of things blamed on it that are all completely true, but utterly misleading.
 
In the news yesterday a growing correlation between pot smokinglu8ng cancer, and throat cancer. That is on top of the psychological portable reported, like psychosis among teen smokers.

article said:
People may wonder if smoking marijuana is less harmful than smoking cigarettes because cigarettes have more obvious cancer-causing substances. It's important to understand that marijuana isn't chemical-free. It contains a mixture of compounds and chemicals including tar, ammonia, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, cyanide, benzene and many others.
Smoking marijuana is undoubtedly safer than smoking cigarettes. That isn't a relevant metric, however. Also, the link isn't actually making a claim. It is saying we don't know, it is hard to actually draw the line between harm from marijuana smoking if smokers also used cigarettes.

The tobacco industry has been trying to indicate marijuana is dangerous for decades. We still lack any evidence to suggest that is true. Smoking anything likely has to have some negative effect on the lungs. We know that cigarettes trash the lungs.

Vaping kind of blew up out of no where and needs to be assessed. Luckily in America markets don't have to show their products don't kill their users. If that happens, a class action suit will solve the problem after the fact.
The thread has descended into politics. Conspiracy theories and name calling.

National politics is like a cancer spreeing everywhere....
Health has become a partisan issue
Yes it has become partisan. 'I'm gonna smoke where ever I like and when ever I like regardless of how it affects other people' vs 'Get that shit away from me'.

I am in the latter. Makes me sick and affects my breathing, same with tobacco. The stink of stale tobacco and pot on somebody's clothes.
It's all relative. 'I'm going to rub and spray so much fragrance all over my body that when in public people within two meters of me will struggle for fresh air.' No you don't smell pleasant. You are overwhelming. BO would be less offensive.

I can't remember the last time I've smelled tobacco smoke let alone it be to the point of being offensive. I have occasionally gotten a whiff of weed from a passing vehicle in the park. This is troubling but not for the smell.

I've removed most fragrances from my life to the point that when they are present they are so much more offensive now. Even the kitchen garbage bags. Why do they see fit to spray what smells like baby powder in garbage bags? FFS. It's a garbage bag. Now I have to buy garbage bags from the organic grocery. Once having run out of my usual fragrance free laundry soap, I used some long leftover Tide I had. The smell was so overwhelming to me I had to rewash the clothes.

I think the smell of marijuana is not so much offensive as it is foreign to many. To me it is as aromatic as cut grass or autumn leaves. Then again, Farmer John and his manure/slurry spreader would likely have an entirely different opinion on the matter.
 
The physical health effects of marijuana are secondary to the negative effects to your mental self. Like spending your afternoon smoking pot, propped up on your elbows marveling at an ant hill, when you should be at a JOB or mowing the lawn, or teaching yourself atomic physics.
The Friday evening before, I told that little spider in my basement window I was going to leave my bong out on the bench over night and not to mess with it. But did he listen? No. There he was the next morning, curled up at the base of it.
My point being, there is a time for weed and a time for work. The young and/or irresponsible take intoxicants when they should be taking care of other things in life. It's called growing up and some never quite get there. There's nothing new under the sun here.
 
I've removed most fragrances from my life to the point that when they are present they are so much more offensive now. Even the kitchen garbage bags. Why do they see fit to spray what smells like baby powder in garbage bags? FFS. It's a garbage bag. Now I have to buy garbage bags from the organic grocery.
We have been on the "free and clear" bandwagon for a long time now. I'd rather live with the smell of garbage than the smell of "NEW! Ocean Breeze scent!".
WTF?
Laundry detergent, same deal. WHY? Why do they DO that?
At the same time, I actually like the smell of permethrin (fly) spray, horse poop and skunks (in small whiffs). I think a lot of it is purely associative.
 
I have noticed something that just MIGHT have something to do with increased youth cancer rates.
I go to swim laps, and the adjacent kiddie pool is full of babies, toddlers and pre-teens. And they are FAT. Not just overweight - about 40% of them are fucking obese.
I don’t think it matters what they’re eating; if they eat that much of it, they’re going to suffer.
While other reasons may add to it, I was going to say the same thing. Obesity is a big risk factor for some types of cancer. My younger sister was very obese and she, and while not young, was diagnosed with kidney cancer that had already metastasized when she was 59. Kidney cancer is one of the types of cancer that is more likely to occur in people suffering from obesity. And, sadly, we have a terrible epidemic of obesity. I'm not judging. I don't understand how it happened, but it's sad and it may be at least part of the reason why cancer is rising among young people.

Based on what I've read over the years, some people get cancer without a single risk factor. They might be very healthy, have very good habits, do not use any type of drugs, etc. and they still get cancer. Cancer is strange, in that any one of any age can contract it. I will never forget the sad experience during nursing school, doing clinical on a pediatric cancer ward. At that time, most of those children died, as we had very little treatments for them. And, a close friend of mine in high school, had a 9 year old brother who died of leukemia. He died quickly without any symptoms until he was diagnosed, so the rise in cancer rates probably have many causes, but obesity is one risk factor. It's kind of like smoking.

Some people can smoke 3 packs of cigs a day and live into their 90s, while others get lung cancer in their 40s. And some people, like my husband's late grandmother can be very obese their entire lives yet live to be 94, then die peacefully, while in the very early stages of dementia. It's complicated.
The single biggest determinant leading to the triggering of certain types of cancer like colon, pancreatic, prostrate and breast cancer, and later morbidity and mortality outcomes, is nutrition. By an enormous margin. Certain cancer types are virtually nonexistent in certain portions of the world where humans live primarily on a whole food plant based diet, driven either by culture or through lack of financial resources. The same is true for certain other diseases like coronary artery disease (which is the leading killer of humans in the United States, claiming over 650,000 lives each year), stroke, Type 2 diabetes, sexual function and other conditions. While there are other factors and comorbidities that influence the onset and progress of such conditions, like genetics, lifestyle, smoking, obesity, hypertension, etc., nutrition is the single largest factor that influences what diseases we get and how these diseases respond to therapy. There is very strong evidence that eating a whole food plant based diet free from added oils and sugar can stop the progress of, and selectively reverse the symptoms of heart disease, in many cases even causing a regression of the stenosis in the coronary vessels (and other arteries). The key to nutrition appears to be the proportion of fat that we consume, and secondarily, the source of this fat. A person eating the typical "western diet" consumes about 30 to 40 percent of their caloric intake through fat, primarily from animal sources. Eating a whole food plant based diet drops the caloric fat intake to about 8 to 10 percent, all of it plant based. And this apparently makes all the difference.
 
Certain cancer types are virtually nonexistent in certain portions of the world where humans live primarily on a whole food plant based diet, driven either by culture or through lack of financial resources.
I think there’s probably considerable merit to that, despite being totally skeptical about that kind of correlation. Makes me wonder things like … does this population live long enough on average, for cancers other than the childhood variety to even appear?
Probably they do. But even if they don’t, presence profiles of known carcinogens should be considerably lower in such groups.
They’re probably way more active and fit than some normal American couch veg as well, which can’t hurt (unless it does, because of work hazards etc).
I’ve done everything possible to get cancer except prolonged physical inactivity.
At 74 I’m starting to think genetic predisposition is the dominant variable - at least in my own case.
 
I have noticed something that just MIGHT have something to do with increased youth cancer rates.
I go to swim laps, and the adjacent kiddie pool is full of babies, toddlers and pre-teens. And they are FAT. Not just overweight - about 40% of them are fucking obese.
I don’t think it matters what they’re eating; if they eat that much of it, they’re going to suffer.
While other reasons may add to it, I was going to say the same thing. Obesity is a big risk factor for some types of cancer. My younger sister was very obese and she, and while not young, was diagnosed with kidney cancer that had already metastasized when she was 59. Kidney cancer is one of the types of cancer that is more likely to occur in people suffering from obesity. And, sadly, we have a terrible epidemic of obesity. I'm not judging. I don't understand how it happened, but it's sad and it may be at least part of the reason why cancer is rising among young people.

Based on what I've read over the years, some people get cancer without a single risk factor. They might be very healthy, have very good habits, do not use any type of drugs, etc. and they still get cancer. Cancer is strange, in that any one of any age can contract it. I will never forget the sad experience during nursing school, doing clinical on a pediatric cancer ward. At that time, most of those children died, as we had very little treatments for them. And, a close friend of mine in high school, had a 9 year old brother who died of leukemia. He died quickly without any symptoms until he was diagnosed, so the rise in cancer rates probably have many causes, but obesity is one risk factor. It's kind of like smoking.

Some people can smoke 3 packs of cigs a day and live into their 90s, while others get lung cancer in their 40s. And some people, like my husband's late grandmother can be very obese their entire lives yet live to be 94, then die peacefully, while in the very early stages of dementia. It's complicated.
The single biggest determinant leading to the triggering of certain types of cancer like colon, pancreatic, prostrate and breast cancer, and later morbidity and mortality outcomes, is nutrition. By an enormous margin. Certain cancer types are virtually nonexistent in certain portions of the world where humans live primarily on a whole food plant based diet, driven either by culture or through lack of financial resources. The same is true for certain other diseases like coronary artery disease (which is the leading killer of humans in the United States, claiming over 650,000 lives each year), stroke, Type 2 diabetes, sexual function and other conditions. While there are other factors and comorbidities that influence the onset and progress of such conditions, like genetics, lifestyle, smoking, obesity, hypertension, etc., nutrition is the single largest factor that influences what diseases we get and how these diseases respond to therapy. There is very strong evidence that eating a whole food plant based diet free from added oils and sugar can stop the progress of, and selectively reverse the symptoms of heart disease, in many cases even causing a regression of the stenosis in the coronary vessels (and other arteries). The key to nutrition appears to be the proportion of fat that we consume, and secondarily, the source of this fat. A person eating the typical "western diet" consumes about 30 to 40 percent of their caloric intake through fat, primarily from animal sources. Eating a whole food plant based diet drops the caloric fat intake to about 8 to 10 percent, all of it plant based. And this apparently makes all the difference.
I agree for the most part, but I've read some science articles that make the claim that there is no perfect diet for everyone, although I agree that most of what we eat should be plant based. I don't think eating small portions of lean meats is necessarily unhealthy. I don't like meat, especially red meat, but due to my chronic iron deficiency anemia, I do eat a little bit of it, as well as chicken and sometimes fish. I can't prove it, but I don't think I absorb sources of non heme iron very well. l love broccoli and greens, but I'm skeptical that I absorb enough of the iron in those foods. I recently learned that dark chocolate is high in iron, so I've added a little of that to my diet. I'm thin, and fairly active for someone who suffers with severe chronic pain.

But, most obese people don't eat a healthy diet. In addition to eating too much, a lot them, who I've known through my former jobs, drank enormous amounts of sodas, and didn't eat many vegetables. One young woman told me that she drank two liters of soda a day. This is common here. She was obese and if I remember correctly, she nearly died of heart disease while in her 40s. A close friend of mine who is only 55, has become obese. She promised me she would give up her sodas and Red Bull drinks. She also needs and wants to stop smoking tobacco. She also smoke a little bit of weed, mostly to help with stress and depression. My small city has an extremely high rate of severe obesity. It's rather sad. Eating in restaurants doesn't help, as a lot of the food isn't healthy and is very high in calories and fat. My late sister ate processed meat for lunch everyday, which has been associated with cancer. She also ate way too much, but she had lost over 100 lbs on Weight Watchers shortly before her cancer diagnosis. I've read that obesity is a risk factor for kidney cancer. Did you find this to be common when you were working in oncology?

I agree with the article I read recently that gave evidence that there is no one diet that works for everyone. I think it was in Scientific American. It discussed how humans have eaten since prehistoric times, with or without meat. It mentioned all the natural foods that early humans ate, as well as how we started eating meat. Supposedly, eating meat helped with our early ancestors intellectual development. Has that been debunked, as far as you know, or was it that meat has a high rate of protein that isn't found in many other foods.? My protein level is frequently borderline. I've been pestered by doctors to eat more protein, but I've been this way for decades, so I usually tune them out.

We are exposed to lots of chemicals that people in places like the Rain Forrests in SA, aren't. Do you think the environmental pollution we are exposed to has much of an influence on the development of cancer? Stress seems to impact people's health as well. I do wonder if that plays a role in diseases like cancer. And, why do some infants or young children develop cancer? My mom was addicted to sweets, was thin, and died at age 97 after suffering from dementia for about 7 years. I know that's anecdotal. And, why do so many older men get bladder cancer? You're the expert here, so I value your opinion. So many questions. So few answers.

But, as some of us said before, younger people were never as obese, statistically speaking as they are these days, at least in the most developed countries. I spoke to a middle aged doctor from California the other day and he told me that he was the only person in his high school class who was't obese. It's hard to deny that obesity has an influence on the cancer rate among younger people. Even kids in my town are often obese. This was almost never the case when I was growing up. How did this happen?

I've made it to 75, so I consider each birthday a gift, although if I don't get better treatment for my chronic pain, I might consider each year a punishment. :eek:

Let's just say it's complicated.
 
Last edited:
A largely plant-based diet, low in saturated fats and high in fibre, is almost certainly a good idea, for anyone who is genetically predisposed to a wide range of health issues - and it's currently impractical for most people to find out whether they are genetically predisposed, other than the hard way.

Having said which, "whole food" is (like "organic" and "natural") a marketing slogan, rather than a real attribute that a given diet can include (or lack).
 
The single biggest determinant leading to the triggering of certain types of cancer like colon, pancreatic, prostrate and breast cancer, and later morbidity and mortality outcomes, is nutrition. By an enormous margin. Certain cancer types are virtually nonexistent in certain portions of the world where humans live primarily on a whole food plant based diet, driven either by culture or through lack of financial resources.
I was just reading something not very long ago that suggested a viral link for colon cancer.

And if it is viral it would be quite possible for there to be an explosion of cases.
 
A largely plant-based diet, low in saturated fats and high in fibre, is almost certainly a good idea, for anyone who is genetically predisposed to a wide range of health issues - and it's currently impractical for most people to find out whether they are genetically predisposed, other than the hard way.

Having said which, "whole food" is (like "organic" and "natural") a marketing slogan, rather than a real attribute that a given diet can include (or lack).

I eat my food whole.
 
A largely plant-based diet, low in saturated fats and high in fibre, is almost certainly a good idea, for anyone who is genetically predisposed to a wide range of health issues - and it's currently impractical for most people to find out whether they are genetically predisposed, other than the hard way.

Having said which, "whole food" is (like "organic" and "natural") a marketing slogan, rather than a real attribute that a given diet can include (or lack).

I eat my food whole.
That's for you to chews.
 
Do Republicans not, in fact, spin wild conspiracy theories about water and water rights all the time? It is a bipartisan game I think.

Having spent many hours in water board meetings, I can attest that water rights is a game of its own. So much so that the County Commissioner, himself a cattle rancher with much to lose, told the meeting one time “I’d rather be upstream with a shovel than downstream with a decree!”
Basically an admission that it’s okay to “steal” water, but only if you’re going to get away with it.
You’re correct that it knows no Party (politically speaking of course).
 
Do Republicans not, in fact, spin wild conspiracy theories about water and water rights all the time? It is a bipartisan game I think.

Having spent many hours in water board meetings, I can attest that water rights is a game of its own. So much so that the County Commissioner, himself a cattle rancher with much to lose, told the meeting one time “I’d rather be upstream with a shovel than downstream with a decree!”
Basically an admission that it’s okay to “steal” water, but only if you’re going to get away with it.
You’re correct that it knows no Party (politically speaking of course).
We call the "Law of the River" where I'm from. No one can tell you exactly what this Law is, and it certainly isn't written anywhere, but it is forever cited as an invisible authority protecting the water rights of the Old Families.
 
an invisible authority protecting the water rights of the Old Families.
That’s it all right. The only thing that ever relaxes their grip on their claims, is a deep-pocketed developer paired with a local government eager for the EQRs*, which directly impact revenue.


*(Equivalent Residential Unit, a measure of water use allocation to residential properties)
 
Water rights and allocation in the west goes back to the 1800s.

Farmers vs cattle ranchers, an oft used plot in old western movies and TV shows.

East coast politicians madding allocation on western farms and ranches.





Water Shortages


A Tier 2 shortage declaration for 2023 operations further reduced the amount of water available to Nevada and Arizona. However, an exceptionally wet winter pushed Southern Nevada back into Tier 1 shortage for 2024. The risk of shortage remains high in future years.
 
Water rights and allocation in the west goes back to the 1800s.
The neighboring ranch’s water rights date to 1877-79 and they still occasionally get shut off for downstream water calls, from as far away as Kansas. There is a tangled kluge of laws, and really the only thing keeping the peace other than courts, is common interest. Water lawyers are expensive.
 
Back
Top Bottom