• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cancer rare in ancient world evidence, thus it's man made?

Halfcentaur

Philosopher
Halfcentaur
Joined
Jun 10, 2010
Messages
6,620
From the University of Manchester:

http://www.manchester.ac.uk/aboutus/news/display/?id=6243


A friend given to all manner of health woo has posted this today on Facebook.
It claims due to the scarcity of tumors in Egyptian mummies and ancient records of Greece, as well as fossil evidence, as well as the fact bone cancer is so prevalent in children in the modern world in the face of the claim that shorter life spans accounted for the scarcity in ancient times, that cancer must be from man made factors.

Jumping the gun, are they?

Aren't many cancers caused from viruses? I wonder what man made technology could promote viral infection, they're claiming possibly burning and inhalation of various smoke.
 
There are more cancers because we're able to live for a long time with them. They don't tend to kill people before visible symptoms appear. And we know what cancer is, so we can actually diagnose it in people.

I think that's the biggest reason.
 
there's a heck of a lot more cancer now than in the past due to chemicals like PCB's -- fact!
 
Just a few points:

1. As noted by others, you don't find a lot of cancers in young people, and you didn't find a lot of old people in ancient Greece and Egypt. Cancers only became a problem when people stopped dying early of infectious disease.

2. Bone cancer in children and teenagers is very rare: 5 per million. I doubt there are 1000 mummies out there total, and most haven't even been examined for cancer. You would never expect to find a bone cancer if you only looked at only 1000 people today; you would have to look at over 500,000 people today to have a reasonable chance of finding even one with a bone tumor

3. Very few human cancers are associated with viruses. Most are a mix of genetic predisposition and spontaneous mutation. Yes, we have more man-made chemicals around today, some of which are carcinogens. But we also rely a lot less on open fires and moldy food then earlier in human existence.

4. In terms of the published study: mummies had most of their organs removed during the preparation process (look up coptic jars). I suspect if a mummy had a tumor, it might well have been thrown away. And what is left inside the mummy isn't easy to recognize in most cases.
 
meow said:
there's a heck of a lot more cancer now than in the past due to chemicals like PCB's -- fact!
Click to expand...

I think you intended to type: there's a heck of a lot more cancer (P<0.001) now than in the past....

Don't worry- happy to help!
 
Last edited:
As for ancient cultures not coming into contact with chemicals that might cause cancers in the long run...

Bear in mind that Mercury was considered a medicine, that lead was used in a LOT of cosmetics and as pointed out most people breathed more soot than we'd consider acceptable today.
 
Giordano said:
Just a few points:

1. As noted by others, you don't find a lot of cancers in young people, and you didn't find a lot of old people in ancient Greece and Egypt. Cancers only became a problem when people stopped dying early of infectious disease.

2. Bone cancer in children and teenagers is very rare: 5 per million. I doubt there are 1000 mummies out there total, and most haven't even been examined for cancer. You would never expect to find a bone cancer if you only looked at only 1000 people today; you would have to look at over 500,000 people today to have a reasonable chance of finding even one with a bone tumor

3. Very few human cancers are associated with viruses. Most are a mix of genetic predisposition and spontaneous mutation. Yes, we have more man-made chemicals around today, some of which are carcinogens. But we also rely a lot less on open fires and moldy food then earlier in human existence.

4. In terms of the published study: mummies had most of their organs removed during the preparation process (look up coptic jars). I suspect if a mummy had a tumor, it might well have been thrown away. And what is left inside the mummy isn't easy to recognize in most cases.
Click to expand...
Excellent points. Especially the mummies with tumors being discarded. And the rareness of bone cancer in children.

Lukraak_Sisser said:
As for ancient cultures not coming into contact with chemicals that might cause cancers in the long run...

Bear in mind that Mercury was considered a medicine, that lead was used in a LOT of cosmetics and as pointed out most people breathed more soot than we'd consider acceptable today.
Click to expand...

Indeed.
 
ehcks said:
There are more cancers because we're able to live for a long time with them. They don't tend to kill people before visible symptoms appear. And we know what cancer is, so we can actually diagnose it in people.

I think that's the biggest reason.
Click to expand...

This. A lot of malign tumours can be fairly silent until they methastazise (sp?), so in ancient times most of them would probably only be described as "wasting away".
Also, without modern medicine, most people wouldn't have the time to die from cancer.
 
UnrepentantSinner said:
Well, it is fair to say there's a lot more lung cancer now than in the past due to carcinogens in cigarette smoke - especially when one is talking about ancient civilizations.
Click to expand...

Even lung cancer is exceedingly rare *before* 40/45 year old.


Example UK :

http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/types/lung/incidence/

cases_crude_lung1_png.png


Most of the cancer as far as I know follow that curve.

Since the life expectancy until early 20th century was below 45, you would not expect any cancer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy

As many said above, both of those mixed together shows we should find cancer rarely in any old corpse we find. They did not have time to get cancer because they died young. So to all those accusing the modern life of "giving us cancer", well sure, have a short life, and I'll take the cancer risky long life.


/thread.
 
Here's the bit where they briefly address the lifespan question:

It has been suggested that the short life span of individuals in antiquity precluded the development of cancer. Although this statistical construct is true, individuals in ancient Egypt and Greece did live long enough to develop such diseases as atherosclerosis, Paget's disease of bone, and osteoporosis, and, in modern populations, bone tumours primarily affect the young.
Click to expand...
 
Wudang said:
I got as far as "There is nothing in the natural environment that can cause cancer." and stopped reading.
Click to expand...

:confused:

Interesting. If this evil modern world hadn't invented sunlight, we'd shiver happily in the dark since we at least wouldn't have those nasty skin cancers.
 
Many human diseases have jumped sheep (sorry) from domestic animals.
Some are a result of overcrowding.
Lots of our problems are man made in the sense that they probably wouldn't happen had we stayed hunter-gatherers.
But while some cancers are unquestionably caused by exposure to chemicals or radiation that are wholly man made, there was always radiation; there were always silicate dusts, fern spores and gene copying errors. Mutation is a major player in the variation that natural selection needs to work. Cancer may be the price.
 
Last edited:
Well, in a way, I suppose that the OP title is correct.

Mankind has learned to extend lifespan to the point where much more cancer can emerge and be detected.

But, somehow, that seems like a reasonable tradeoff.
 
I did some research on lifespan that I posted here some years ago but can't find it again but a rough summary is that if you managed to live to the age of 21 (and weren't dirt poor!) you'd stand a very good chance of living into your 70s and 80s, it was childhood deaths that really brought down the average lifespan in past days. So looking at the average (which usually means the mean) lifespan isn't that useful if you want to argue that we don't see many cancers because people didn't live long enough in the past to develop cancers.

Obviously many, many more people do now live to old age when compared with past times now that childhood is not so hazardous (in developed countries) so I agree that describing cancer as a "disease of old age" is a good rule of thumb.

ETA: Found a link to show what I was meaning:L http://apps.business.ualberta.ca/rfield/lifeexpectancy.htm
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom