burnsattornincan
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 23:05:21 GMT -5
Posts: 1,398
|
Post by burnsattornincan on Mar 7, 2011 21:16:25 GMT -5
True but to what degree? What is it now, something like 1 out of every 4? Get realistic.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,306
|
Post by swamp on Mar 7, 2011 21:21:55 GMT -5
True but to what degree? What is it now, something like 1 out of every 4? Get realistic. It may be more prevalent because people are living longer. .......but I also don't discount environmental factors |
|
|
|
Post by marjar on Mar 7, 2011 21:22:23 GMT -5
My grandparents were all immigrants, btw.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,433 
|
Post by billisonboard on Mar 7, 2011 21:32:13 GMT -5
True but to what degree? What is it now, something like 1 out of every 4? Get realistic. Granted deaths from cancer have tripled over the past hundred years. But looking at the chart, there are causes that have dropped significantly. Are more dying because they aren't dying of other causes first? www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922292.html |
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770 
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Mar 7, 2011 21:38:51 GMT -5
The incidences of cancer have, overall, been dropping over the past few years. Some forms have increased, however. The figure is nowhere near 1 out of every 4 people will get cancer. If you're talking about deaths from cancer, one out of every four deaths, at last estimate, is due to cancer.
|
|
burnsattornincan
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 23:05:21 GMT -5
Posts: 1,398
|
Post by burnsattornincan on Mar 7, 2011 22:22:14 GMT -5
The figure is nowhere near 1 out of every 4 people will get cancer. If you're talking about deaths from cancer, one out of every four deaths, at last estimate, is due to cancer.
I am trying to follow this logic without much success and I did not even participate in cocktail hour this evening. Maybe I should have.
|
|
|
|
Post by marjar on Mar 7, 2011 22:32:28 GMT -5
I'm interpreting it to mean that if one is a cancer victim, the odds are one in 4 you will die of it. Mortality being 25%, overall, for cancer victims.
|
|
|
|
Post by marjar on Mar 7, 2011 22:32:49 GMT -5
Duplicate post.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Mar 7, 2011 23:00:35 GMT -5
Um, that's because in the rest of the world your health plan is "Don't get sick". So, naturally-- if they survived, they're healthy. The unhealthy foreingers are dead. Um, 'don't get sick' is the Republican health plan. In other modern countries you go to the doctor whenever you need to- it's that simple, really. You should get out of the country more. |
|
burnsattornincan
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 23:05:21 GMT -5
Posts: 1,398
|
Post by burnsattornincan on Mar 7, 2011 23:35:20 GMT -5
I'm interpreting it to mean that if one is a cancer victim, the odds are one in 4 you will die of it. Mortality being 25%, overall, for cancer victims.
Alright, that makes more sense. I find that number, 25%, to be somewhat low though.
|
|
Loopdilou
Well-Known Member
AKA Mrs. Dark Honor
Joined: Feb 27, 2012 19:41:33 GMT -5
Posts: 1,365
|
Post by Loopdilou on Mar 8, 2011 0:26:00 GMT -5
I don't blame our food supply for cancer, I do blame our food supply/mentality/farm subsidies/myriad of other causes for our crappy ass diet and obesity. To me the farm to table movement is more about being aware of what we're eating and what effect that has on our overall health. ;D
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Mar 8, 2011 10:59:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Mar 9, 2011 19:54:49 GMT -5
Granted deaths from cancer have tripled over the past hundred years. But looking at the chart, there are causes that have dropped significantly. Are more dying because they aren't dying of other causes first?
It's likely because it is more easily diagnosed today than it was 100 years ago. The same tools were not available and if there was no grossly visible tumor, then cause of death was probably considered 'natural'.
Also consider that 100 years ago, you were far more likely to die of infectious diseases long before you'd normally get cancer. Infectious diseases killed a lot more younger people, especially children.
|
|
973beachbum
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:13 GMT -5
Posts: 10,501
|
Post by 973beachbum on Mar 10, 2011 11:09:07 GMT -5
I don't blame our food supply for cancer, I do blame our food supply/mentality/farm subsidies/myriad of other causes for our crappy ass diet and obesity. To me the farm to table movement is more about being aware of what we're eating and what effect that has on our overall health. ;D That jives with what the study found. It discussed them being healthier for a myriad of reasons including obesity and diabetes.  |
|
