radioactive
radioactive
Out of context: Reply #21
- Started
- Last post
- 27 Responses
- detritus0
“cancer was quite rare 100 years ago”
You have a source for that?
The ‘1-in-3’ cancer rates we labour under are predominantly a function of our increased longetivity - sure, people probably died of cancer less a hundred years ago, but only because they dies of something far more prosaic 30 years before they'd've gotten cancer...
Don't forget - ‘Cancer’ is a hugely broad spectrum term and many cancers found in old age are simply an increasingly statistical likelihood of DNA unravelling and unable to sustain itself.
Google telomeres, then YouTube 'cloud chamber' to see a neatly-described image of how totally at the whim of universal radiation we are anyway, regardless of human meddling.
- I googled "cancer rate 1400 years ago"
first response "http://wiki.answers...
there tons more out thereGeorgesIV - http://wiki.answers.…
also just look at rates of ADHD in europe compare to US, or autism, everything is linked to our diet, which is a lot diverse than it was 100 years agoGeorgesIV - our diet, which is a lot diverse than it was 100 years ago,GeorgesIV
- You are joking right georges? You can't believe some wiki rant.monospaced
- I don't know why I mentiend telomeres here - they're really not relevent to cancer. I blame the tired.detritus
- Maybe the radiation is getting to you.nb
- I googled "cancer rate 1400 years ago"