I couldn't agree more. – Because it is indeed very difficult to gauge just how the proliferation of chemicals affect our bodies, it seems to make sense to cut out what you can; but there's no point being paranoid: we can barely avoid exhaust fumes, chemicals in the office carpet, whatever finds its way into the water we drink and the food we eat (even if it's organic). Find your comfort level: I avoid parabens etc. wherever I can - and there are so many excellent products which make it easy - but that doesn't mean I won't use anyone else's soap to wash my hands with, when the need arises. And I do like the smell of Proraso...
Cancer and cosmetics
- Thread starter _JP_
- Start date
I couldn't agree more. – Because it is indeed very difficult to gauge just how the proliferation of chemicals affect our bodies, it seems to make sense to cut out what you can; but there's no point being paranoid: we can barely avoid exhaust fumes, chemicals in the office carpet, whatever finds its way into the water we drink and the food we eat (even if it's organic). Find your comfort level: I avoid parabens etc. wherever I can - and there are so many excellent products which make it easy - but that doesn't mean I won't use anyone else's soap to wash my hands with, when the need arises. And I do like the smell of Proraso...
While even the most base person will willingly concede that harmful chemicals cannot be in our best interest, your logic cannot work since by reversing it we must conclude that in the year 1215 when the world was far less impacted by man-made chemicals that there was hardly any cancer present anywhere.
We now know that this is simply not true. Many of the cancer cases were just not diagnosed or apparent enough to be obvious to the persons of that time.
In fact, by following the logic of the premise we can also presume that since things like sunblock lotions did not exist at that time (or not beyond what some crude, natural remedies offered), that there were much greater skin cancer rates. Folks were naturally forced to be in the sun more just to sustain themselves; their skin cancer rates should have been through the roof spastically.
Iron oxide is a naturally caused element. Even the Egyptians used it as a cosmetic since its natural reddish orange coloration parted a fair glow to the cheeks. This element, while completely 100% organically natural is also toxic and the results are cumulative over time.
My point is to be an educated and well rounded individual. Don't be one of the Three Blind Men who each have a definitive and vastly different "truth" of what an elephant is. Only by knowing all sides to an issue can you ever began to understand the honest truth of it.
-joedy
It is often claimed that in distant times past, cancer was not diagnosed and many died of it without anyone knowing what caused the death. I do not believe that this is true. Ok, many cancer deaths would have passed unnoticed but please bear in mind that at least a quarter of all cancers are external in nature and do not take great skill to diagnose. Until the mid 19th century cancer was relatively rare and not considered statistically important, especially outside major cities and industrial areas. The medical profession was aware of cancer but did not get the chance to study it often because of its rarity. Around the middle of the 1800s cancer rates began to rise, by the middle of the 20th century the upward trend had steepened and now we are looking at a rate of something like 1 in 3 likely to develop the disease. (And still rising). I understand that at the beginning of the last century the rate was about 1 in 200. Yes, I know that diagnosis has improved stratospherically in recent years but even so...
Cancer rates around the world vary widely also; in Hungary cancer death rates are 272.2 per 100,000 in men and 138.4 per 100,000 in women, whereas in Mexico cancer death rate is 85.0 in men and 78.9 in women.
Look at old medical textbooks: such books, older than the late 19th century tended to make only passing reference to cancer. Consider 'The practice of Medicine' by AA Stevens MD published in the 1920s, in its over 1000 pages it contains only two dozen references to cancer, the description of lung cancer takes up one paragraph and states that the disease is comparatively rare. Out of nearly 90,000 autopsies, it states, only 130 cases of lung cancer were found. Breast cancer is not mentioned at all. The first comprehensive English textbook on cancer was not published until 1940. All of this does not mean that cancer was not recognised by doctors but was simply rare enough to be statistically insignificant; compare and contrast with today. Something we are doing is wrong!
I have seen a lot of hostility generated by this thread..., why?? Is it always to be human nature to kill the messenger?
John.
PS. May I express my gratitude for your kind words for my wife, who is well and claims to have never felt better in her life.
I think that some new cancer diagnoses are in fact the new recognition of a phenomena that for most of human history went unnoticed, and this does boost statistics of cancer rates. Take ductal carcinoma in situ- a breast cancer diagnosis, but researchers have yet to decide whether it is in fact a cancer or not it is so small, and it is not really clear whether it could even progress to a life threatening condition or not. Nonetheless, thousands of women are recieving extremely troxic, invasive, depleting treatments to "treat" this cancer. Good for cancer research organisations because women do not die from it, they just get ill from the treatments, so it brings up the statisitics of people surviving cancer.
But even so, few researchers would try to claim that cancer is anything other than a disease of the developed world, and rates are rising way above what would be expected from better diagnosis or higher life expectancy- in fact cancers are occurring at increasing rates in children and young people.
It could well be that children are more at risk from environmental toxins than adults- officially permitted levels are set based on what is non toxic in adult males, of one chemical at a time. Levels of known toxins are continually rising anyway because few are going to decompose any time soon- hence polar bears have measurable levels of DDT in their livers, and american humans would for the most part be clasified unfit for human consumption due to unacceptable levels of DDT.
In addition to their lower body rate children have underdeveloped detoxification mechanisms, so I don't think we can expect cancer rates to slow down any time soon.
I think it is well worth our while to start changing a whole lot of things about the way our society uses and produces chemical pollutants- they are financially profitable for the companies concerned, it is true, but the reality is that we can surely survive as a species without producing these chemicals, and live happy and fulfilling lives. The other option seems to be ignoring the problem, and allowing cancer to become endemic to our society.
But even so, few researchers would try to claim that cancer is anything other than a disease of the developed world, and rates are rising way above what would be expected from better diagnosis or higher life expectancy- in fact cancers are occurring at increasing rates in children and young people.
It could well be that children are more at risk from environmental toxins than adults- officially permitted levels are set based on what is non toxic in adult males, of one chemical at a time. Levels of known toxins are continually rising anyway because few are going to decompose any time soon- hence polar bears have measurable levels of DDT in their livers, and american humans would for the most part be clasified unfit for human consumption due to unacceptable levels of DDT.
In addition to their lower body rate children have underdeveloped detoxification mechanisms, so I don't think we can expect cancer rates to slow down any time soon.
I think it is well worth our while to start changing a whole lot of things about the way our society uses and produces chemical pollutants- they are financially profitable for the companies concerned, it is true, but the reality is that we can surely survive as a species without producing these chemicals, and live happy and fulfilling lives. The other option seems to be ignoring the problem, and allowing cancer to become endemic to our society.
Similar threads
