a question

Options
2»

Comments

  • oliviafinnegan
    oliviafinnegan Member Posts: 58
    edited November 2011

    I'm sorry about your mom, cycle-path. My brother died of lung cancer and he never smoked and led a pretty clean life. There is suspicion that his work had something to do with his case. Nothing is guaranteed in life and sometimes intuition is as valid as a medical test (maybe even more so at times).

  • cycle-path
    cycle-path Member Posts: 1,502
    edited November 2011

    Of course there's second hand smoke, too, and other airborne pollutants. 

    Perfect examples -- my mom smoked and did NOT get lung cancer, your brother did not smoke but DID get lung cancer. IMO what this says is that there are genes that predispose people to lung cancer. My mom probably didn't have those genes and there's a good chance that no matter what she did she wouldn't have gotten lung cancer. Your brother probably did have them the gene(s) and possibly the only way he would have avoided getting lung cancer would have been if he'd breathed pure oxygen 24 hours a day for his whole life. Something like that. 

    And IMO it's the same with BC. There are genes -- not just BRCA1 and BRCA2 -- that predispose you. With BRCA1 and BRCA2, you have a very high probability of getting BC, but there are certainly other BRCAxx genes yet to be discovered that don't give you such high probabilities. And if you have those undiscovered BRCA genes, there's something environmental that must go on that will cause the cancer to appear. Maybe the environmental thing is use of toenail polish, maybe it's oven cleaner, maybe it's consuming white wine and green beans at the same meal. 

  • bexybexy
    bexybexy Member Posts: 151
    edited November 2011

    I often think it's funny how cancer is much more common today than say 50 years ago and try and figure out why. My parents generation drank, smoked, ate sugar (they wouldn't of even known what diet drinks were), and generally did what they want. They also exercised a lot, I think the air was cleaner and they ate fresh food it was unheard of to have things from tins, so there was no need for artificial flavours and preservatives etc...

  • oliviafinnegan
    oliviafinnegan Member Posts: 58
    edited November 2011

    Bexy it is possible that some cancers were just not recognized or reported. I think cancer rates have something to do with where in North America you lived, too. Around the great lakes area where I grew up, there was a lot of industry and air pollution as a result. I remember tinned vegetables - my mom was the queen of a well stocked pantry, however I don't think meat and dairy was as infused with hormones as today. Because we weren't in front of computers, we were out playing in parks and gardens, that is true, however no parents I knew went to gyms or ran for exercise, etc. The other factor that I think has changed in our society is stress. Everyone I know who has developed bc has had dramatic stress in their life at some point with the cancer being diagnosed approximately 5 years later. I have nothing to offer in terms of proof, just experiential evidence. 

  • Beesie
    Beesie Member Posts: 12,240
    edited November 2011

    I think it's true that many cancers were not reported in the past. It's also true that people are living longer - and most cases of cancer develop after the age of 60.  Both my parents and two of my grandparents had cancer, all in their 70s (actually my Mum was 80). A generation or two earlier, most people died before they were 60 so these cancers would never have developed. 

    Certainly some types of cancer are more prevalent today and seem to develop at an earlier age.  How much of this is due to better/more accurate/more precise screening?  In the past, if an early stage cancer wasn't caught, the person might have died of other causes before the cancer had developed to the point of being diagnosed and being problematic.

    All that said, I do believe that we live in a more toxic society.  However there's simply no way to know which of the millions of things that we've been exposed to in our lives might have contributed to each of our individual cases of cancer.   Was the seed of my BC started when I was a kid, because of something that I was exposed to then?  Or was it something more current, something that I am exposed to now? Was my BC the result of genetics, not in the traditional sense but because I inherited extreme breast density from my mother?  Or was it genetic in the more traditional sense, caused by an inherited gene mutation that hasn't been identified yet (I've tested BRCA negative for the known mutations)?  Was my BC caused by my lifestyle or personal choices?  I've never taken birth control pills (well I tried them for a couple of months only) or HRT, but I do consume white wine and green beans together quite often.  Whatever planted the seed of my BC, whether it was before I was born, or 45 years ago or in the years just prior to my diagnosis, was the growth of the cancer triggered by some other toxin or environmental factor or by the stress in my life in the couple of years prior to my diagnosis? 

    I think there's a two part answer.  1.We don't know. and   2. All of the Above.  We certainly don't know, and it certainly possible that it's "all of the above".  I believe it's impossible to know what caused the development of my BC.  And believing that, I choose to not stress about it.  I also choose to not significantly change my life or my habits because I don't want to deprive myself for what very well might be no reason at all. I try to have habits that contribute to overall good health, but I don't overdo it and I won't stop enjoying something (wine, meat, dairy being three examples) because it might possibly negatively affect a small percentage of people in random (but very imprecise) research studies. I'd rather enjoy my life. 

  • bexybexy
    bexybexy Member Posts: 151
    edited November 2011

    I totally agree with you there. My decision to not eat meat and dairy is purely down to the fact I am vegan and have been for 2 years, and vegetarian 5 years ago. SInce I got diagnosed my mum (who has always worried about my diet) has starting asking me about soya. From what I have read on it, modified soya is not good, pure soya as in tofu, edamame beans, are fine in moderate amounts. I will not go back to eating meat and dairy as would probably throw up and being vegan is like my religion in some ways. However I have learned from this that all the processed soya is not good so will try to eat more purer foods, and just stick to the basics of the vegan diet - i.e rice, pulses, vegetables and fruit which are all good. Just the same as I wouldn't expect a smoker to immediately give up if they had breast cancer. I agree with you Beesie about not stopping what you enjoy, I never knew there was a problem with green beans and white wine but again neither of these things are harmful in moderate amounts so why shouldn't you enjoy them? You could give them up and still get breast cancer, I might still get a re-occurence in the future despite having knocked the processed soya on the head. My husband is a typical example of the sort of person who eats and drinks whatever he likes - he loves meat (especially red), beer, smoking, cream cakes you name it! He lives on frozen burgers and chicken (having looked at the ingredients) most of these have soya proteins in too as fillers. The list of chemicals on some of these packets is mind boggling Yet touch wood he is fine.

    The thing with soya and breast cancer is it has not been proven either way to help or harm the jury is out. It is interesting what you say about the stress olivia as 5 years ago my dad had prostate cancer (he is ok now) and my beloved cat died suddenly

  • xtine
    xtine Member Posts: 131
    edited November 2011

    When I was diagnosed, my surgeon remarked that they were seeing more and more young women diagnosed each year. I scoffed that it was because of early and overdetection, and she replied that many cases were advanced BC.



    I think the interesting question is why rates seem to be up for young women. It's not lifestyle: research shows that the factors like drinking and being overweight are more for post-menopausal, and so many of these women seem to be healthy and skinny. It could possibly be related to childbirth changes (I did IVF and had children in my mid thirties - late). But I've got to be suspicious of things like BPA and hormones in meat and dairy: stuff we were exposed to as kids but our grandparents were not.



    When I asked the same doctor what I could do to reduce risk (and should I stop drinking, take mega supplements), she replied that whatever caused my BC was something in the past: IVF or childhood X-rays or childhood chemical exposure. Her advice was to avoid plastics with food, eat local and organic, and otherwise not worry. I think that made sense.

  • bexybexy
    bexybexy Member Posts: 151
    edited November 2011

    yeah that is true and plastic can't be good for you in any case. I haven't had children and am 35 and have read not breastfeeding could of be a factor in me getting dcis as it had to do with my milk ducts not being protected but again I am not ready to have children yet and won't do so until I am lol. I know what you mean when I was in the breast services department my parents who were with me said how surprised they were to see so many young healthy women, although many of them were there to have their lumps checked out and a lot of them would of been benign. It's just strange how in Asia women who consume a lot of soya have lower incidences of BC yet here they say soya is not good to have too much, it's the processed junk soya that I see in everything certain ingredients seem to crop up time and time again. I once heard someone say if there are too many ingredients on something you are going to buy in the shop don't get it!

  • cycle-path
    cycle-path Member Posts: 1,502
    edited November 2011

    bexybexy, green beans and white wine are NOT bad for you. That was just an example I gave of a random combination that could give a person cancer. I might have said asparagus and orange juice, or pears and tomatoes, or living in a house with plaster walls. The point is that we just don't know what it is in our environment or lifestyles that may trigger a genetic predisposition.

  • cycle-path
    cycle-path Member Posts: 1,502
    edited November 2011

    "I often think it's funny how cancer is much more common today than say 50 years ago and try and figure out why."

    The leading cause of death in the US 50 years ago (1951) was heart disease, followed by cancer, followed by stroke. The leading cause of death in the US in 2009, the most recent year for which data is available, was heart disease, followed by cancer, followed by stroke.

    Cancer is no more "common" today than it was 50 years ago.

    Now, 100 years ago in the US the leading cause of death was pneumonia. Other than the very elderly or infirm, pneumonia doesn't kill too many people these days. The next most common was tuberculosis (which doesn't even occur very often in the US these days, to say nothing of fatalities); followed by diarrhea (which today only makes you WANT to die); followed by heart disease; followed by stroke (which is more preventable and survivable today); followed by nephritis (also rarely fatal these days); followed by accidents (we have better safety measures today in the workplace, automobiles, etc.); followed by cancer.

    So the order of things has remained pretty stable. Modern medicine has essentially wiped out the leading causes of death from 1900 -- pneumonia, tuberculosis, diarrhea, and nephritis; and medical advancements (in addition to reductions due to safety protocols) have made accidents more survivable. Heart disease, stroke, and cancer remain there and they've gone to the top of the list as others have disappeared.

    It's not that there's more cancer, it's that there's less of everything else. 

    http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/lead1900_98.pdf 

    http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm 

Categories