Life In 19x19

Warning: do not get your medical advice from a Go forum.

Uberdude wrote:Warning: do not get your medical advice from a Go forum.

I would also add, do not give medical advice in a go forum. My previous post, at least the part preceded by "warning" was, of course, tongue-in-cheek, in response to Herman. There is nothing wrong with people discussing their own preferences, even expressing them strongly, because that give others something to think about. But flat out statements such as some in this thread are misplaced.

Would be interesting to see what the united doctors online have to say about the micro chinese fuseki.

"I've tried it, it doesn't work. Too prone to invasions"
- "That's because you abuse it: it's flawless when used properly."
"Micro Chinese opening is a scam by the Chinese"
- "Actually it's a fuseki, not an opening"
"Fuseki is just Japanese for opening"
- "If so, then why would the CHinese call their micro variation a fuseki. These are archenemies!"
"Not in Go they aren't. I heard the Japanese are far behind these days"
- "Not at all. They have a guy Iyama Yuta, he has the highest earnings in the world"
"That's because the Japanese newspapers are rich. But the Chinese and the Koreans are stronger"
- "Do they play go in Korea? They play baduk, not go"
(...)

DrStraw wrote:Also, don't support any organization which claims to be doing medical research to find a cure for various diseases such as cancer, diabetes, etc.

Well, diabetes is a different kind of disease than cancer. And you and I are old enough to remember when a diagnosis of cancer meant a life expectancy of fewer than 5 more years, except for certain cancers. And we are old enough to know a number of people who are cancer survivors. Myself included. Where would we be without prior research?

Bill Spight wrote:

DrStraw wrote:Also, don't support any organization which claims to be doing medical research to find a cure for various diseases such as cancer, diabetes, etc.

Well, diabetes is a different kind of disease than cancer. And you and I are old enough to remember when a diagnosis of cancer meant a life expectancy of fewer than 5 more years, except for certain cancers. And we are old enough to know a number of people who are cancer survivors. Myself included. Where would we be without prior research?

You miss my point. Most cancers are environmental: the incidence was much lower a hundred years ago. If more money was put into cleaning up the environmental factors and teaching people how to avoid them then there would be far fewer people dying of cancer. I would like to see these organizations devote a significant percentage to prevention and education instead of treatment. Don't do away with the treatment research, or course, but don't make that the only use of resources.

It is kind of like when HMOs first came on the scene. They were supposed to be health maintenance organizations, but they soon morphed into regular treatment organizations.

DrStraw wrote:You miss my point. Most cancers are environmental: the incidence was much lower a hundred years ago. If more money was put into cleaning up the environmental factors and teaching people how to avoid them then there would be far fewer people dying of cancer.

As far as cancer being less prevalent, there are a few things that argue against this:

First, when cancer was seen as a death sentence, it was much more heavily stigmatized, and people didn't discuss it as cancer. It was often perceived as contagious, and people could and did lose jobs and otherwise suffer ostracizing for it. Edit: Apparently I forgot to add that this stigma could have easily lead to under-reporting cancer deaths as such.

Second, life expectancy has increased greatly over the past century, and cancer risk increases with age. When people are dropping dead of, say, heart-attacks or tuberculosis in their 40s, you don't know if they would have ended up with colon cancer in their 60s.

Finally, with large-scale nuclear weapons testing in the mid 20th century, there was widespread exposure to carcinogens that we may still be experiencing the effects of today. Certainly I know wines can be dated to pre and post nuclear era based on the presence of now-widespread radioactive elements that were distributed through the environment by nuclear tests. While the current level of exposure for people is quite low, it's certainly not as low as it was previously. However, you can't clean something that's now evenly distributed around the globe and being constantly circulated by the environment.

DrStraw wrote:... Most cancers are environmental: the incidence was much lower a hundred years ago. If more money was put into cleaning up the environmental factors and teaching people how to avoid them then there would be far fewer people dying of cancer. I would like to see these organizations devote a significant percentage to prevention and education instead of treatment. Don't do away with the treatment research, or course, but don't make that the only use of resources.

It is kind of like when HMOs first came on the scene. They were supposed to be health maintenance organizations, but they soon morphed into regular treatment organizations.

I disagree. The incidence of cancer was lower 100 years ago because of a much lower life expectancy. The incidence for most cancers is strongly increasing with age. In other words, nowadays many people live long enough to get cancer. If you really want to do any useful comparison, then you have to compare age cohorts. Even if you do so that might be skewed: 100 years ago, it was much more likely for everyone to die at a young age(because of other causes, like bacterial infections in the pre-antibiotics era).

BTW: Do you have a relilable source for the statement "Most cancers are environmental"?
If so, please let me know.

skydyr wrote:Finally, with large-scale nuclear weapons testing in the mid 20th century, there was widespread exposure to carcinogens that we may still be experiencing the effects of today. Certainly I know wines can be dated to pre and post nuclear era based on the presence of now-widespread radioactive elements that were distributed through the environment by nuclear tests. While the current level of exposure for people is quite low, it's certainly not as low as it was previously. However, you can't clean something that's now evenly distributed around the globe and being constantly circulated by the environment.

Re: life expectancy, what you said. Was about to comment about it and you were faster.

IIRC, wine can also be dated using Krakatoa/Hekla other volcanoes, since they also changed environent significantly.

Interesting side note: Strong winters following a ---Hekla--- Laki eruption in 1783 meant reduced crops all over Europe. Which increased (already high) peasant unrest, you guess how it all followed.

DrStraw wrote:

Bill Spight wrote:

DrStraw wrote:Also, don't support any organization which claims to be doing medical research to find a cure for various diseases such as cancer, diabetes, etc.

Well, diabetes is a different kind of disease than cancer. And you and I are old enough to remember when a diagnosis of cancer meant a life expectancy of fewer than 5 more years, except for certain cancers. And we are old enough to know a number of people who are cancer survivors. Myself included. Where would we be without prior research?

You miss my point. Most cancers are environmental: the incidence was much lower a hundred years ago. If more money was put into cleaning up the environmental factors and teaching people how to avoid them then there would be far fewer people dying of cancer. I would like to see these organizations devote a significant percentage to prevention and education instead of treatment. Don't do away with the treatment research, or course, but don't make that the only use of resources.

We pretty much agree. I remember in college finding out that you can induce skin cancers in mice by shaving them and rubbing their skin. It seems like almost any repeated injury can cause cancer. (It is true, as mentioned by hibbs below, that part of why we see more cancer these days is that people live longer, but that does not mean that most cancer is not environmental.)

It is kind of like when HMOs first came on the scene. They were supposed to be health maintenance organizations, but they soon morphed into regular treatment organizations.

Not entirely. I belong to Kaiser, and they certainly stress disease prevention and health maintenance.

hibbs wrote:The incidence of cancer was lower 100 years ago because of a much lower life expectancy. The incidence for most cancers is strongly increasing with age. In other words, nowadays many people live long enough to get cancer. If you really want to do any useful comparison, then you have to compare age cohorts. Even if you do so that might be skewed: 100 years ago, it was much more likely for everyone to die at a young age(because of other causes, like bacterial infections in the pre-antibiotics era).

Two things. First, the increase in life expectancy in advanced societies since the mid 19th century is mostly the result of keeping children alive. Only a few years have been added to life expectancy at age 20 since 1800, even though decades have been added to life expectancy at birth.

Second, there may well be a survivor effect. People who survived childhood 150 years ago may have been more robust and able to resist developing cancer. Whether cancer was environmentally caused or not. You see such an effect now in Hiroshima survivors. Those who are still alive have a greater life expectancy than others their age.

Bill Spight wrote:

hibbs wrote:The incidence of cancer was lower 100 years ago because of a much lower life expectancy. The incidence for most cancers is strongly increasing with age. In other words, nowadays many people live long enough to get cancer. If you really want to do any useful comparison, then you have to compare age cohorts. Even if you do so that might be skewed: 100 years ago, it was much more likely for everyone to die at a young age(because of other causes, like bacterial infections in the pre-antibiotics era).

Two things. First, the increase in life expectancy in advanced societies since the mid 19th century is mostly the result of keeping children alive. Only a few years have been added to life expectancy at age 20 since 1800, even though decades have been added to life expectancy at birth.

Second, there may well be a survivor effect. People who survived childhood 150 years ago may have been more robust and able to resist developing cancer. Whether cancer was environmentally caused or not. You see such an effect now in Hiroshima survivors. Those who are still alive have a greater life expectancy than others their age.

Just out of curiosity - can we tell the cancer rates from even earlier times? Like 1500 or 1200 or something?
Or was that a matter of diagnosing it which was missing? People just got belly-ache and died...

Phoenix wrote:Indeed. Neuroplasticity is the key to our survival, as the brain adapts to new circumstances and knowledge. I believe this is because it's all we have as far as evolutionary advantages go.

Perhaps a bit off-topic, but I was struck by this assertion. Is this really true? It's possibly our greatest advantage, but I don't think it's our only advantage. Off the top of my head I can think of at least the following advantages

Very dextrous hands, combined with tool usage
Walking upright, allowing access to many more environments
Incredible running endurance, allowing for successful hunting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endurance_ ... hypothesis
An extended middle age http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/evolution-has-given-humans-a-huge-advantage-over-most-other-animals-middle-age/2012/03/12/gIQAtVnccS_story.html

These are not all unique to humans, but they make for a hell of a package.

Regarding the current environmental impact on cancer and other diseases I just came across this link about problem foods banned in other countries but not in the USA.

http://eatlocalgrown.com/article/11944- ... foods.html

Bill Spight wrote:Two things. First, the increase in life expectancy in advanced societies since the mid 19th century is mostly the result of keeping children alive. Only a few years have been added to life expectancy at age 20 since 1800, even though decades have been added to life expectancy at birth.

From the numbers for Germany, there was an increase in life expectancy for 60 year olds of 2 1/2 to 3 years between 1990 and 2004 alone. The life expectancy for 80 year olds has increased by 1 1/2 years in the same period. That was only during 14 years. I took this data from this information from the Robert Koch Institut:
http://edoc.rki.de/documents/rki_fv/re2 ... 0GKUhU.pdf

So while it is true that keeping children alive has contributed most of anything to increased life expectancy at birth, it is also true that the life expectancy increases continuously for all ages.

DrStraw wrote:Regarding the current environmental impact on cancer and other diseases I just came across this link about problem foods banned in other countries but not in the USA.

http://eatlocalgrown.com/article/11944- ... foods.html

Really?.... I read the article and did find now evidence at all that would suggest that most cancers are environmental.

hibbs wrote:

DrStraw wrote:Regarding the current environmental impact on cancer and other diseases I just came across this link about problem foods banned in other countries but not in the USA.

http://eatlocalgrown.com/article/11944- ... foods.html

Really?.... I read the article and did find now evidence at all that would suggest that most cancers are environmental.

Where did I say the article attributed most cancers to environment? I merely said that it indicated that some environmental factor (foods) are banned in other countries because they are believed to cause health issues, some of those issues being cancer. It was one piece of the puzzle which coincidentally happened to come to my inbox while this discussion was ongoing.

But, if you wish to be an ostrich it is of no consequence to me. Although I would hate to lose a go player, even one I don't know personally.