the refuge
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Replies:
[>
Re: Help The Breast Cancer site -- tg, 18:27:53 03/07/06 Tue [1]
NO
Here's the website
http://www.thebreastcancersite.com
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[>
Re: Help The Breast Cancer site -- amadaun, 18:57:16 03/07/06 Tue [1]
Ok, I know you are just trying to help out, but I have a problem supporting the use of mammograms.
Ionizing radiation causes cancer. Mammograms are ionizing radiation. See my problem?
There is no safe dose of radiation. And breast tissue is very sensitive to even tiny amounts of radiation.
Problem two, is that mammograms aren't a reliable diagnositic tool for women under 50. I believe there is a new ultrasound method becoming available, which may be safer.
Breast cancer Societies would be better off telling women how to prevent breast cancer, by avoiding pesticides, hormones and other carcingens.
Also, Iodine deficiency may well be a cause of breast cancer. Iodine supplementation is extremely helpful in fibrocystic breast disease, and could be useful in treating or preventing breast cancer. If only they would look at it..............
""Rosalie Bertell-one of the world's most respected authorities on the dangers of radiation-says one rad increases breast cancer risk one percent and is the equivalent of one year's natural aging. "If a woman has yearly mammograms from age 55 to age 75, she will receive a minimum of 20 rads of radiation. For comparison, women who survived the atomic bomb blasts in Hiroshima or Nagasaki absorbed 35 rads. Though one large dose of radiation can be more harmful than many small doses, it is important to remember that damage from radiation is cumulative."""
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[>
Re: Help The Breast Cancer site -- tg, 19:58:00 03/07/06 Tue [1]
Here's the thing, how many woman find out they have a lump in their breast with a mammogram? It sometimes isn't always detected but, most of the time it is. I can understand where you are saying "Breast cancer Societies would be better off telling women how to prevent breast cancer, by avoiding pesticides, hormones and other carcingens" but when did staying healthy prevent anyone from cancer? It never has, there are healthy people out there who are doing what you say and they are also excersing and eating well and they still get (breast) cancer. When I hear people say don't get a mammogram or give yourself a self-exam because it doesn't work, I say your wrong and it has worked. Most woman who get the disease are in there 30's.
Also this is a free mammogram to woman who can't afford it, this is the only thing they are recieving, it's just a click. If you don't want to that's fine.
I also think you are biased towards that kind of medical treatment, and you know that most people who get cancer are treated with radiation and chemotherapy, so it may be your perogative to avoid that thing but, it's not thiers.
I guess you don't have a microwave in your home, that has radiation.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[>
Re: Help The Breast Cancer site -- amadaun, 18:00:42 03/08/06 Wed [1]
**When I hear people say don't get a mammogram or give yourself a self-exam because it doesn't work, I say your wrong and it has worked. Most woman who get the disease are in there 30's**
But giving a mammogram to a woman in her thirties is unlikely to help- because young women have denser breast tissue, and the mammogram can't be accurately interpreted by the doctor. In fact, you could have cancer, and the doctor may well miss it. You would be better off with a self examination, [which I did not at any time say was ineffective.]And you would have saved yourself the exposure to the radiation, which as we all know, causes cancer.
**** but when did staying healthy prevent anyone from cancer***
So you think that smoking a pack of cigarettes a day would not contribute to the cancer risk?
Good health is your best bet to avoid any type of disease. Just eating well and exercising is not enough. There is so much more to health than that.
****Also this is a free mammogram to woman who can't afford it****
So because the women are poor, they should be given a substandard, possibly dangerous procedure? Then, those of us who are more wealthy, can feel better and say that we have helped them?
****I also think you are biased towards that kind of medical treatment...***
No, I'm biased against it. I'm biased against any kind of treatment which does not benefit the people it is being given to, and which enables people to sit back and forget about the many ways in which disease can be prevented.
Prevention is always better than cure.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[>
Re: Help The Breast Cancer site -- tg, 18:15:48 03/08/06 Wed [1]
All I'm saying is there is nothing that has been proven to prevent cancer. Someone who smokes probably has a higher chance of developing a lung disease and someone who has never smoked in their life has also gotten cancer. (?)
****Also this is a free mammogram to woman who can't afford it****
So because the women are poor, they should be given a substandard, possibly dangerous procedure? Then, those of us who are more wealthy, can feel better and say that we have helped them?
Well, for one I'm Canadian so when it comes to health coverage I got it and I've gotten a mammogram. I also know there may be something better than a mammogram down the road but, I live in the here and now and it's not considered sub-standard. You consider it that but, the medical world doesn't.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[>
Re: Help The Breast Cancer site -- amadaun, 19:04:52 03/08/06 Wed [1]
***I also know there may be something better than a mammogram down the road but, I live in the here and now and it's not considered sub-standard.****
Its not down the road, its here already. Thermography,-computerized heat mapping, and Electrical Impedance Imaging are two new techniques.
Surely anything that doesn't cause the very problem it seeks to prevent, would be a better option.
****Someone who smokes probably has a higher chance of developing a lung disease and someone who has never smoked in their life has also gotten cancer****
Some people who don't smoke get lung cancer. Christopher Reeve's wife apparently never smoked, but died recently from lung cancer.But how can we know what other substances she may have been exposed to, that could have caused this cancer? Also, she was probably under incredible stress looking after him for all those years, and stress is a major cause of illness.
I am surprised that you can discount health status as an aid to prevent cancer. Just go to the National Cancer Institutes website and read about what they say are risk factors for cancer. Carcinogens in food, pesticide exposure,stress,radiation, hormones,viruses- and these guys are only telling you half the story.
I suppose that if you think there is no way to prevent cancer, then you can just pretend its some kind of lottery, where a random person 'hits the jackpot'.
I like to think there is a choice, and to actively strive to avoid practices which encourage cancer.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[>
Re: Help The Breast Cancer site -- taurus, 20:54:10 03/08/06 Wed [1]
For fukk sake my baby pressed esc on me and I lost everything, I'll try and remember.
amadaun wrote:
I suppose that if you think there is no way to prevent cancer, then you can just pretend its some kind of lottery, where a random person 'hits the jackpot'.
~~~ I think you can TRY and prevent cancer but, it doesn't work. .Exhaust fumes from cars can cause cancer, but how do I stop being exposed to it. I think most cancers are hereditary.
You mentioned Dana Reeves who never smoked and died of lung cancer, well her mother died of cancer also. Everyone has stress in there lives and I saw how positive she was so I'm sure it didn't help. How about Linda McCartney she was an enviromentalist, a vegan and an equestrian. She seems like a good candidate of someone who wouldn't get cancer, but she did and her mother too died of cancer. George Harrison smoked and he died of lung cancer.
I think if I had breast cancer in my body, I would want it detected. That's why I give my boobs a feel for lumps and go for mammograms. There are tests and treatments that radiation is used but, it saves lives and is used safely. I can understand you not wanting to do that, radiation scares people.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[>
Re: Help The Breast Cancer site -- tg, 20:58:07 03/08/06 Wed [1]
OK what I wrote had some spelling errors and such. It was kinda thrown together, because I wanted to get as much of it before it was erased. LOL
sorry.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[>
Re: Help The Breast Cancer site -- tg, 21:15:05 03/08/06 Wed [1]
Sorry one more thing.
When I heard about Dana Reeves, the thing that came to mind, was not the stress fator. It was like so many people who look after a sick loved one, they don't look after themselves. When she was sick she probably didn't go to the doctor or she wasn't concerned about her needs. It happens all the time.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[>
Re: Help The Breast Cancer site -- 23, 09:46:59 03/09/06 Thu [1]
TG, you can't honestly be trying to maintain the position that cancer isn't preventable some of the time, can you?
I don't think it ALWAYS is (I feel genetics plays a strong role), but there are many circumstances that can be directly traced to preventable causes.
Hell, look at mouth cancer rates among the general population vs. those who chew tobacco.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[>
Re: Help The Breast Cancer site -- tg, 09:56:32 03/09/06 Thu [1]
How we are effected by our genetics and hereditary diseases is how we are effected as a whole. You can try and prevent yourself from getting cancer, because you know your genetics, but it doesn't always happen. For example Diabetes runs in my family, so would be better for me to start giving myself a healthy diabetic kind of diet now, before I develop diabetes, instaed of waiting for that outcome, that doesn't mean that I won't develop it.
Smokers are not just likely to get cancer, they can get any type of lung disease, like cancer or emphasema etc. Just because you smoke doesn't mean your getting cancer is guaranteed. If it runs in your family however, your chances are higher.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[>
Re: Help The Breast Cancer site -- tg, 10:07:41 03/09/06 Thu [1]
So I'm just wondering did anyone click on the site?
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[>
Re: Help The Breast Cancer site -- 23, 10:13:49 03/09/06 Thu [1]
Of course they aren't always preventable. Life is a gamble in many respects. But it doesn't hurt to move the odds in your favor.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[>
Re: Help The Breast Cancer site -- tg, 10:39:44 03/09/06 Thu [1]
So why do kids get cancer then? What have they done in their short existence to get that? What did there mother do during gestation to prevent cancer? I think we can both agree it's somewhat of a gamble in life.
My cousin died of luekemia last year she was 23, her uncle died from the same when he was 25. I would say there is a direct link to genetics. I believe all that prevention that everyone is claiming is just a bunch of hogwash
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[>
Re: Help The Breast Cancer site -- 23, 10:58:40 03/09/06 Thu [1]
I definitely agree that there is a link to genetics. I've had two cousins die of cancer, one survive and one is currently undergoing treatment. I've lost two grandparents to it, an aunt and one aunt survive it. You don't need to convice me that there is a genetic link. You really don't. But whose to say what started this genetic link? Was a great-grandparent exposed to harmful pesticides? Was a distant relative exposed to massive amounts of radiation? Did someone way back in my family tree work closely with carcinogenic solvents? Yes, cancer runs in my family. But I can't say with any certainty why that's the case. It may be due to a PREVENTABLE environmental factor in the past.
But like I said above, simply look at the correlation between mouth cancer rates in those who chew tobacco. You can't deny that certain behaviours and environmental risks greatly increase your chances of getting cancer. There are life choices you can make to move the odds more in your favor. I can't see any way you can deny this.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[>
Re: Help The Breast Cancer site -- amadaun, 19:13:38 03/09/06 Thu [1]
I know that heredity is a popular theory to explain cancer that runs in families, especially since the mapping of the human genome - but what is it that you are inheriting?
In Matt Ridley's book, Genome, he reiterates several times - GENES ARE NOT THERE TO CAUSE DISEASES. Genes only relate to susceptibility.
For example,if your genetic makeup prevented you from assimilating vitamin B, but you ate a lot of food with vitamin B in it, and supplemented with pills, then you would overcome that susceptibility.
With cancer, tumour suppressor genes can become 'switched off' due to mutation. Mutations are caused by many different factors, but one of them is Radiation. Therefore the avoidance of radiation would seem to be prudent if you wish to avoid cancer.
To expose yourself to the very thing which causes cancer, in hope of detecting cancer, is somewhat irrational IMO.
And in answer to one of your early questions, no, I don't have a microwave. While microwave radiation is not a form of ionizing radiation, [it is similar to radio waves,] it is still unhealthy for you, and whats more, it makes your food taste like shit.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[>
Re: Help The Breast Cancer site -- taurus, 19:58:59 03/09/06 Thu [1]
amadaun wrote:"In Matt Ridley's book, Genome, he reiterates several times - GENES ARE NOT THERE TO CAUSE DISEASES. Genes only relate to susceptibility. "
I agree with that! If something runs in your family than you are more susceptible to it. yeah..
There are genes that we can carry that can cause our children to inherit a disease, like cystic fibrosis. Usually both parents have to carry the gene.
I still haven't heard of any proof that staying away from certain things prevents cancers. I've always looked at it as you can "try" but, it's not guaranteed.
Like I said before I can understand your stance on radiation in mammograms and that being the reason you wouldn't recieve one.
You know that radiation is usually the treatment that helps shrink cancer cells, so with all things in life there's the pros and cons.
too bad about your microwave stance. lol
I usually just use it to heat things up again.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[>
Re: Help The Breast Cancer site -- tg, 22:36:44 03/09/06 Thu [1]
Sheryl Crow was recently diagnosed with breast cancer which was discovered through a regularly scheduled mammogram. She's 44.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[>
Re: Help The Breast Cancer site -- taurus, 11:55:57 03/10/06 Fri [1]
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[>
Re: Help The Breast Cancer site -- amadaun, 18:08:24 03/12/06 Sun [1]
****I still haven't heard of any proof that staying away from certain things prevents cancers. I've always looked at it as you can "try" but, it's not guaranteed.****
That's right, there are no guarantees in life, except death.
But I can't understand why you wouldn't want to try?
Why the fatalistic attitude?
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[>
Re: Help The Breast Cancer site -- taurus, 18:38:34 03/12/06 Sun [1]
This thread was not about the PREVENTION of cancer it was about DETECTING it.
I'm not a fatalist I don't smoke, I try and eat well, I try and excercise, I try and keep a positive attitude, I breastfed. Is going to get a mammogram going to kill me, I don't think so. I would want to know if I had breastcancer. That ultra sound method you mentioned is not yet available, I'm sure when it is, people will start using that if it's proven to be safer and more effective.
Will I live to 100, I don't know. I would like to, but I'm not living like I'm going to die tommorrow either.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[>
Re: Help The Breast Cancer site -- amadaun, 19:04:33 03/12/06 Sun [1]
****This thread was not about the PREVENTION of cancer it was about DETECTING it.****
Yeah, I totally get that.
What I am saying, is the method they are using to detect cancer, is quite likely CAUSING the cancer.
And that it is unreliable at detecting cancer in women under 40. This is not something I am making up, just to annoy you.
In a Swedish study of 60,000 women, 70 percent of the detected tumors weren't tumors at all. In fact, 70 to 80 percent of all positive mammograms do not, upon biopsy, show any presence of cancer.
According to Russell L. Blaylock, MD, one estimate is that annual radiological breast exams increase the risk of breast cancer by two percent a year. So over 10 years the risk will have increased 20 percent.
These are the sad facts.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
Feedback: 