'Bad luck' mutations increase cancer risk more than behavior, study says

Discussion in 'Science' started by HereWeGoAgain, Mar 24, 2017.

  1. HereWeGoAgain

    HereWeGoAgain Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2016
    Messages:
    27,942
    Likes Received:
    19,979
    Trophy Points:
    113
    http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/23/health/cancer-mutations-bad-luck-study/
     
  2. Media_Truth

    Media_Truth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2016
    Messages:
    2,789
    Likes Received:
    1,026
    Trophy Points:
    113
    When I read something like this, I see the 66% due to bad-luck, and I think, this just means that they can't figure out why. In short, there is still much-much to be learned about cancer causes. We know for a fact that radiation can directly cause cancer, or can increase the risk of certain cancers. We also know that a radioactive particle (alpha emitter or beta emitter) can be ingested or inhaled. A few facts:

    1. Prior to the mid-1970s, all countries were dumping radioactive wastes into the oceans, often in steel barrels, which are slowly deteriorating.
    2. More recently, the Mafia has gotten into the radioactive waste disposal business. They've dumped massive amounts of wastes off the coast of the government-less country of Somalia. Some has washed ashore and killed and sickened residents.
    3. Increased cancer rates are showing up in areas where waste has been buried, as far back as WWII. Check out Berkeley, MO, a suburb of Saint Louis, where cancer rates are way up, near a park, which was a waste storage dump, from Malinckrodt's uranium refining in WWII, over 60 years ago.
    4. We hear about Chernobyl, Fukushima, and Three Mile Island; and we are familiar with these large releases into the environment; but there have been numerous other violations, that get little fanfare.

    I spoke to a friend of mine who worked at the Los Alamos research facility. He said that if you ingest or inhale a radioactive particle, you may be lucky, and it may be excreted. Otherwise, it could get into an organ, bloodstream, or bones.
     
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2017
  3. HereWeGoAgain

    HereWeGoAgain Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2016
    Messages:
    27,942
    Likes Received:
    19,979
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It may be a built-in limitation of cell replication.
     
  4. Media_Truth

    Media_Truth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2016
    Messages:
    2,789
    Likes Received:
    1,026
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Could be - like I said - there is so much unknown in the scientific study of cancer causes. However, it's scientific fact that radiation can cause cancer, and the more powerful the levels, and the higher the frequency of the radiation, the more likely the source can cause cancer.
     
  5. HereWeGoAgain

    HereWeGoAgain Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2016
    Messages:
    27,942
    Likes Received:
    19,979
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It is believed that cosmic rays are a primary driver of mutations.

    Incidentally, cosmic rays are also a major cause of computer errors.
     
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2017
  6. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Did your friend mention 1400 above ground nuclear explosions in period of 20 years or so ( 5-7 per a year) each times more powerful than Chernobyl and Fukushima, and Three Mile Island all together? Any spike of cancer?
     
  7. sdelsolray

    sdelsolray Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2016
    Messages:
    1,322
    Likes Received:
    300
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I would just like to add some of the science background. Most multicellar organisms on Earth reproduce in two ways. The first, meiosis, happens once for each individual organism and involves the inheritance of genetic material from parents and subsequent embryology and birth. Any cancer causing genes passed from the parents to its offspring will originate during the meiosis process. As stated above this is a rather small source of cancer.

    After birth, most individual cells in the organism reproduce asexually, through mitosis, which is simply duplicating the genetic material from the parent cell to two surviving hopefully identical cells. This happens with the cell's nuclear DNA as well as the DNA in symbiotic cells (i.e., mitochondria in animals and chloroplasts in plants).

    Certain mutations within the cells which replicate through mitosis, after the individual is born, can cause cancer. The mutations have a variety of causes, including copying errors, radiation, certain chemistry (e.g., carcinogens), among other reasons.
     
    HereWeGoAgain likes this.
  8. Media_Truth

    Media_Truth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2016
    Messages:
    2,789
    Likes Received:
    1,026
    Trophy Points:
    113
    5-7 per year, for 20 years doesn't add up to 1400. Are you implying that radiation doesn't cause cancer? I would suggest you read the Nobel prize-winning, "Voices from Chernobyl", to learn more about the effects of radiation poisoning, and long-term cancer deaths.

    Chernobyl has a 1000 square mile exclusion zone. Fukushima has Cesium contamination farther from the accident than they had originally estimated. A contained blast in a non-population zone, with follow-up clean-up is a lot different than these accidents. Also, a melted, out-of-control core, still undergoing fission, uncontrollably, is different than a spent bomb.

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jan/10/chernobyl-nuclear-deaths-cancers-dispute

    Predicted deaths range from 4,000 to half a million
     
  9. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I had per a month in my mind, my fingers typed per a year. 5-7 nuclear explosions per a month each times more powerful than Chernobyl and Fukushima, and Three Mile Island all together. Now can you answer my question?
     
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2017
  10. Media_Truth

    Media_Truth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2016
    Messages:
    2,789
    Likes Received:
    1,026
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I did in my previous post
     
  11. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Someone needs to invent a DNA Replicator Checker (nanobots) that checks for copying errors and immediately eradicates the bad copies...
     
  12. HereWeGoAgain

    HereWeGoAgain Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2016
    Messages:
    27,942
    Likes Received:
    19,979
    Trophy Points:
    113
    CHKDSK for humans! :D Yes, people [futurists et al] have been talking about this sort of thing for some time now.
     
  13. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Sure, in your mind.
    I just wanted to demonstrate that wherever Media and other overwhelming majorities of the scientific community talk about nuclear they want the public not to look at the fact of 1400 nuclear explosions each times more powerful than Chernobyl and Fukushima, and Three Mile Island all together. They are in business of deception by omission most important facts and and events.
    Carry on.
     
  14. Media_Truth

    Media_Truth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2016
    Messages:
    2,789
    Likes Received:
    1,026
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You seemed to ignore this, so I'll repost it - A contained blast in a non-population zone, with follow-up clean-up is a lot different than these accidents. Also, a melted, out-of-control core, still undergoing fission, uncontrollably, is different than a spent bomb.

    With all due respect, you really should study the Chernobyl issue further. Read about the contamination, the containment, the elephant's foot, the Nobel prize winning "Voices of Chernobyl". I think you'll choose your words and your arguments a little more carefully.
     
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2017

Share This Page