Fears of real cancer risks allayed

http://news.smh.com.au/fears-of-real-cancer-risks-allayed/20080204-1pyg.html

Breast implants, deodorant and coffee are extremely unlikely to cause cancer, according to a new risk report designed to allay panic that everything can be carcinogenic.

The new risk assessment developed by an Australian cancer specialist puts in perspective the risks of getting the disease from a range of agents, including dental fillings, marijuana and cured meats.

Cigarette smoking, alcohol drinking, deliberate exposure to sunlight and some relatively rare cancer drugs sit in the highest risk bracket for proven carcinogens, said Professor Bernard Stewart, from the University of NSW and South Eastern Sydney and Illawarra Health.

Among the "likely" risks were dope smoking, solarium use, eating large quantities of processed meats and living near a waste dump.

Considered less risky were hair dye use and living near power lines, while there was inadequate evidence for mobile phones, cosmetics and food additives.

Prof Stewart all but ruled out risk for a range of other rumoured carcinogens including artificial sweeteners, coffee, deodorant, dental fillings, breast implants and fluoridated water.

---

Your job may cause cancer: research

http://news.smh.com.au/your-job-may-cause-cancer-research/20080204-1pye.html

Hairdressers, sewing machinists, vegetable growers, meat workers, truck drivers and cleaners are among the professions fingered in new research on links between occupation and cancer.

The researchers continue to believe that only about 10 per cent of cancers caused by occupations are reported as such.

freediver wrote on Feb 4^th, 2008 at 12:06pm:

Cigarette smoking, alcohol drinking, deliberate exposure to sunlight and some relatively rare cancer drugs sit in the highest risk bracket for proven carcinogens, said Professor Bernard Stewart, from the University of NSW and South Eastern Sydney and Illawarra Health.

I suppose the experts know what they're talking about (most of the time?). Cancer seems to strike almost at random. I think there's little doubt about the link between smoking and cancer, but I have a grand uncle who lived to 100, smoked roll-your-owns, and drank everyday. A close relative who hadn't smoked in 30 years, drank little, died of cancer at 51. I think there's no doubt too about the association of smoking and lung cancer, but maybe something biological sets it off? In other words, are the victims already predisposed through biology? My mother smoked from the age of 14, never watched her diet, and died aged 80. You'd think cancer would strike more consistently, wouldn't you?  

It's a totally random thing - like rolling dice. Smoking or whatever may weigh the dice in favour of one outcome, but the outcome is still a random process. You don't know exactly when or if your number is going to come up.

freediver wrote on Feb 4^th, 2008 at 2:05pm:

It's a totally random thing - like rolling dice. Smoking or whatever may weigh the dice in favour of one outcome, but the outcome is still a random process. You don't know exactly when or if your number is going to come up.

That's pretty much the way I see it. Like heart disease. Look at Paul Landa, healthy, fit, drops dead playing tennis in his early 40s. Jim Fixx, instigator of the "running revolution", died of a heart attack at 54, while running. But, his father died of a heart attack in his early 40s. Fixx gave up smoking two packets a day, and took to running ten miles every day. He thought this was the pathway to immortality, but he was warned by Nathan Pritikin to watch his diet, which he didn't, because he felt running made him immune to heart disease. In this case the genetic factor seems to have determined the outcome. But sometimes I wonder. Cancer can strike anyone, anytime, regardless of genetic factors.
Must be a "number up" thing. The gods have it all worked out.  ;)