AGS Steam Games

Forums → WEPR → Cancer of The World

9 5610
Hectichermit
offline
Hectichermit
1,828 posts
Bard

So with everything in the world causing "Increased Risks of Cancer" I put it to my fellow Armor Games forumnauts.

This is the Normal Rates of Cancer

Its a lovely idea that the great scientists who added up each individual forms of cancer to give the Total Risk but I find that hard to believe. I mean seriously what are the chances of you getting all the forms of cancer or at least one isn't the sum of it. There are way too many factors and I would like to believe the summation of every risk of cancer would mean 30-50% of people having a form of cancer. Might as well enjoy my bacon and burgers if its that high already.

Anyways lets have a bit of fun with this, ignoring the summation lets take an individual risk approach and then go out on the interwebs and find things you do that would increase that risk and post your chances of acquiring it.

this

From CNN.com

The report outlined that simply eating 50 grams of processed meat each day -- the equivalent of two slices of ham -- can increase the risk of such cancer by 18%. However, the authors say the risks are relatively small to begin with

So at 4.84 for colon cancer that is a whopping increase to 5.71. If i did my math right :P
.

  • 9 Replies
SportShark
offline
SportShark
2,980 posts
Scribe

Might as well enjoy my bacon and burgers if its that high already.

Yeah, if risk of getting cancer was this high, the best thing to do would be to just give up and keep increasing our risk of getting cancer by eating all the unhealthy food we want. This help the problem a lot.

There are way too many factors and I would like to believe the summation of every risk of cancer would mean 30-50% of people having a form of cancer

Exactly. Who are they to say that you have a ceratain chance of getting a cancer when they have never met you and have no idea what your lifestyle is like.

The best ways to avoid cancer:

Eat healthy unprocessed unscrewed around with organic food.

Hospitals are for broken bones and other mechanical injuries, not sniffles. Unless you contract something like malaria, you don't need to go racing off to the ER to get prescribed a motherload of pills whenever you get a cold. Pill are subject to suspicion.

Don't get vaccinated. Instead keep your immune system strong by eating well and avoid sugar and all sugar products like you would a live culture of weaponized Ebola. Avoid sick looking people too. If you still have to be around a sick person like a co worker, wear a medical mask and goggles and never eat or touch your face after being near them. If they don't like it, treat them to a swift kick to the testes. They need to learn to be tolerant of other people's beliefs, right.

Don't do the wild thing with dirty women you don't know.

Limit TV, cell phone, and computer time to 30 min a day.

Have someone scrape the asbestos off your ceiling and remove all traces of it from your home.

Don't drink or smoke.

If you don't agree with all of these things, you WILL get cancer and die a slow and excruciating death.

HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,259 posts
Regent

I mean seriously what are the chances of you getting all the forms of cancer or at least one isn't the sum of it.

Naturally, the chances of getting all forms of cancer would be very low; according to the numbers and if I did the math correctly, it would be 2.4*10^(-34) % (risk of developing all cancers simultaneously, for males).

As for the "All invasive sites" risk, like you I wasn't sure that the sum of all risks would be a good indicator of total risk; and I couldn't believe that such an organization would make such an amateur error. So I added all risks, and the number I got was even higher for both males and females; hence why I think the risk given is not the sum of all other risks, but observed data as for the rest.

Exactly. Who are they to say that you have a ceratain chance of getting a cancer when they have never met you and have no idea what your lifestyle is like.

That is why they explicitly state that "These numbers are average risks for the overall US population. Your risk may be higher or lower than these numbers, depending on your particular risk factors."

Hospitals are for broken bones and other mechanical injuries, not sniffles. Unless you contract something like malaria, you don't need to go racing off to the ER to get prescribed a motherload of pills whenever you get a cold. Pill are subject to suspicion.

I agree but for different reasons. Pills won't give you cancer, though there may be other effects linked to unnecessary over-consumption of medicine.

Don't get vaccinated.

Vaccines don't give you cancer, they prevent you from getting other nasty things.

avoid sugar and all sugar products

Here again I don't see the relevance. Too much sugar may give you diabetes, but cancer? Anyway, don't avoid it altogether; a regular and diverse diet should give you all the sugar you need.

Limit TV, cell phone, and computer time to 30 min a day.

TV, cell phones and computers are not linked to cancer in any way. The only issue I see is problems linked to a sedentary lifestyle, and sleep cycle issues due to the bright light.

If you don't agree with all of these things, you WILL get cancer and die a slow and excruciating death.

You should write cancer.org and have them add a 100% risk of cancer due to disagreeing with you
Doombreed
offline
Doombreed
7,022 posts
Templar

Don't get vaccinated

umm...Why not? You can keep your immune system strong through your actions sure, but vaccines do not reduce the strength of your immune system. In fact, you could say they increase it by giving it the ability to fight back against notorious deseases (like HahiHa pointed out, "they prevent you from getting other nasty things" )

SportShark
offline
SportShark
2,980 posts
Scribe

umm...Why not? You can keep your immune system strong through your actions sure, but vaccines do not reduce the strength of your immune system. In fact, you could say they increase it by giving it the ability to fight back against notorious deseases (like HahiHa pointed out, "they prevent you from getting other nasty things" )

I know how they are supposed to work, but that's not the point. I am one of those "insane nutjobs" that believes that they are cancer causing viles of industrial disease and heavy metals. I'd rather stay clear of them and just take good care of myself. My beliefs in this matter are not unfounded either; my aunt's daughter was paralyzed after contracting a severe case of polio from the vaccine. My aunt later won a little short of a million dollars in the following lawsuit and it's still on public record.
HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,259 posts
Regent

From CNN.com

The report outlined that simply eating 50 grams of processed meat each day -- the equivalent of two slices of ham -- can increase the risk of such cancer by 18%. However, the authors say the risks are relatively small to begin with

So at 4.84 for colon cancer that is a whopping increase to 5.71. If i did my math right :P

I didn't notice this at first, but I don't think this operation gives any meaningful results. The 4.84% is an average, as such it must already contain the risks represented by consumption of processed meat.

I know how they are supposed to work, but that's not the point. I am one of those "insane nutjobs" that believes that they are cancer causing viles of industrial disease and heavy metals. I'd rather stay clear of them and just take good care of myself. My beliefs in this matter are not unfounded either; my aunt's daughter was paralyzed after contracting a severe case of polio from the vaccine. My aunt later won a little short of a million dollars in the following lawsuit and it's still on public record.

I am sorry for your aunt's daughter's condition, but keep this in mind; first, correlation =/= causation; and second, a judge or a jury is not a medical reference.

As for the claim that vaccines cause cancer, this has never been scientifically proven, despite extensive investigation. I suggest we stick to this for now, and keep the vaccine topic for a dedicated thread (feel free to make one if you want to debate this).
Hectichermit
offline
Hectichermit
1,828 posts
Bard

As for the "All invasive sites" risk, like you I wasn't sure that the sum of all risks would be a good indicator of total risk; and I couldn't believe that such an organization would make such an amateur error. So I added all risks, and the number I got was even higher for both males and females; hence why I think the risk given is not the sum of all other risks, but observed data as for the rest.

Well I did not really take the time to total the numbers out but lets assume they have reasons for not adding a few of them to the sum because of overlapping areas.

But given that its some 43% for men and 37% for women. That is incredible high.

As for conspiracy theories I have one. The rapid increase in cancer...is due to the fallout of the nuclear age, the detonation of thousands of nukes along with the introduction of radioactive waste into the environments means people exposed to radiation today is much higher then lets say 100 years ago.

Also would love to see a map of the United States comparing the nuclear test zones and the rates of cancer on a state based level

Heres one for the Nuclear Fallout :P

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/37/US_fallout_exposure.png

Anyone wonder where out food is grown and raised?

http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/1148410/yuccamtn_waste_locations.jpg

Heres one for nuclear dumps

HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,259 posts
Regent

But given that its some 43% for men and 37% for women. That is incredible high.

It is, but that corresponds with data from other countries. Incidence cases are often cited as numbers of new cases per 100'000 persons per year, but I found a German website that also gives a lifetime risk; 51% for men, 43% for women. 0.0

As for conspiracy theories I have one. The rapid increase in cancer...is due to the fallout of the nuclear age, the detonation of thousands of nukes along with the introduction of radioactive waste into the environments means people exposed to radiation today is much higher then lets say 100 years ago.

On a global scale, no. I am not saying it had no effect at all, but the dilution of the radiation means it is hardly above the background radiation levels and cannot account for global incidence rates for cancer. On a local scale, it is a different story...

But since we're on the topic of conspiracy theories, I say everything is the fault of Monsanto Their product Roundup contains glyphosate which is known to cause several health issues, among which are some types of cancer. Analyses have found widespread distribution of residues of the product in humans; for example, in Switzerland traces of glyphosate were found in the urine of every second adult.
(Naturally I am not accusing Monsanto of being at the origin of all cancers, but I am serious when I say their products certainly have an impact)
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,987 posts
Grand Duke

Don't do the wild thing with dirty women you don't know.

I think you're barking up the wrong tree, cancer isn't an STD.... :|

SportShark
offline
SportShark
2,980 posts
Scribe

I think you're barking up the wrong tree, cancer isn't an STD.... :|

I know, but people who do this are advised to get the recommended vaccines. But since I believe that vaccines cause cancer, that's why I say just don't do the thing at all (with the wrong kind of people).
Showing 1-9 of 9