Is Cancer Industrial?
Finding only one case of the disease in the investigation of hundreds of Egyptian mummies, with few references to cancer in literary evidence, proves that cancer was extremely rare in antiquity. The disease rate has risen massively since the Industrial Revolution, in particular childhood cancer — proving that the rise is not simply due to people living longer. … The virtual absence of malignancies in mummies must be interpreted as indicating their rarity in antiquity, indicating that cancer causing factors are limited to societies affected by modern industrialization”. … Hundreds of mummies from all areas of the world have been examined and there are still only two publications showing microscopic confirmation of cancer. (more; HT Kurzweil)
That is from a press release; journal article quotes below. A very thought provoking result, though it would help if, for comparison, they estimated what fraction of modern bones and mummies show evidence of cancer. It doesn’t fit very well with the observation that natural plant chemicals seem to cause more cancer than artificial chemicals. So I remain confused. Those quotes:
Cancer still causes 165,000 deaths every year and is second only to cardiovascular disease as a cause of death. … Evidence of cancer in animal fossils, non-human primates and early humans is scarce. Scientific literature has provided a few dozen, mostly disputed, examples in animal fossils. …
Greece. Several authors wrote about cancer (from the fifth century bce to 1300 ce) … The evidence suggests that the Greeks were the first to identify cancer as a specific disease. …
Palaeopathology … In studies of thousands of bones that represent the fossil record of Neanderthal man in Europe, the Stetten II skull bone from Stetten, Germany, (c.35,000 years bp) provides the only example of a lesion (new bone form) that might be related to a neoplasm. …
Tens of thousands of [ancient] skeletons have been examined but only a few diagnoses of possible and/or probable malignancies — based on gross appearance and occasional X-ray scans showing defects in or masses on bones — have been made. Gray specifically noted the total absence of any radiological evidence of malignancy in his survey of 133 mummies. …
The average lifespan of the wealthier classes was between 40 and 50 years, and a lower age-at-death of between 25 and 30 years is shown in palaeopathological studies of non-elite groups. … Many individuals did live to a sufficiently advanced age to develop other degenerative diseases, such as atherosclerosis, Paget’s disease of bone and arthritis. …
Why are ancient tumours rare? … In modern populations, tumours arising in bone primarily affect the young, so a similar pattern would be expected in ancient populations. … Another explanation for the rarity of tumours in ancient remains is that tumours might not be well preserved; however, experimental studies show that mummification preserves the features of malignancy. ..
We propose that the minimal diagnostic evidence for cancer in ancient remains indicates the rarity of the disease in antiquity. Carcinogenic environmental factors have been linked to up to 75% of human cancers, and the rarity of cancer in anti quity suggests that such factors are limited to societies that are affected by modern lifestyle issues such as tobacco use and pollution resulting from industrialization. (more)
Added 20Oct: Karl points us to an article saying “Wild animals die of cancer at about the same rate [as humans today]” and that animal cancer rates have been increasing lately.
Completely wrong. Tobacco has been in use for far longer than the rampant spread of lung cancer. Cigarettes comprised of tobacco grown from radioactive soil has resulted in high rates of lung cancer, but not the plant itself. Weed is far more carcinogenic than is tobacco, and even when grown indoors. So, why is that? Hemp is so old a habit as to have produced specific receptor sites in our brains over the course of our evolution--yet no early causality between hemp and cancer...We once ate the drug. But think this through, and look at the evidence. Industry is indeed the culprit. And don't blame tobacco; that is a phony ruse, and as a smoke am sick of this scapegoating.
The title,industrial, is needlessly specific and politicized.It implies that if not for industry there might be little cancer.
It would be better to ask,is cancer environmental? This would allow agents such as fresh air( containing oxidants such as oxygen), and sunshine ( which can cause melanoma and other skin cancers) to be included as carcinogens.
Really,to be brief,there is an idea out there that we can extrapolate epidemiological studies in a strong way to practically eliminate cancer. Just like we found that lung cancer was caused by smoking tobacco, and there are other strong epidemiological studies for some other rarer cancers we can possibly apply the epidemiology approach to explain and prevent most cancer. Thus you will read about a hundred times a year that" studies show" that this or that "might" reduce various cancers. You may read that the mythical Eastern Slobovians have practically no colon cancer,as they eat a diet largely of oregano. Soon your health food store is selling concentrated oregano tablets. What is not said is that they have may have a high level of some other cancer,such as liver cancer,thought to due to maternal transfer of hepatitis virus or die at an average age of 50 due to their harsh life on the Asian steeps. The point is that there are numerous types of bias in epidemiological and all other medical studies .
Actually cancer has been an ever present threat. Long lived animals such as humans have numerous robust defenses against cancer,which must have evolved oi pre-industrial times. If they did evolve in pre-indsustrial times,the general idea that cancer is the result of industry doesn't seem strong. However specific examples such a vinyl chloride and liver sarcoma or asbestos and mesothelioma will be found. So progress will be made not by talking about cancer in general,but by studying individual cancers. This will take take an industry.