And you'd lose that money to me just like always.
According to www.medicinenet.com
So, of those cancer risk factors listed, 7 of the 10 are environmental factors. If all things are equal, environmental factors appear to have a much higher chance of causing cancer than something like not being fit.
As far as environment having more of an affect on a person who isn't fit, well it is just common sense that a combination of any of those factors increase the likelyhood of developing cancer. But, judging by the list, it is much more likely to be a combination of environmental factors.
Also they listed all of the ones you mentioned at the bottom as a single factor (which I find really funny and now I laugh at you).
-420
[snapback]38212[/snapback]
Beg to differ.
That doesn't disccredit anything I said at all; all you just did was further prove my point.
I never said environmental factors didn't affect the chance of cancer. I said that some factors, which are right there on your list even, would attribute to it highly. So, I don't understand what you're arguing against, on that point, but that's what you do, I guess.
Now, that's a list of ten factors, out of every single factor one could possibly come up with, completely unrelated or otherwise, the factors I listed are huge in comparison to any not on the list. Each factor is 1/10 is what you're showing, and that makes every factor I listed, a high contributor.
Other substances... I'm sure drugs can be considered substances, and that's choosing poor health. Sure there are environmental substances that can easily contribute, but... I never recall saying there wasn't, or that they wouldn't have a big impact.
Old age leads to poor health, controllable or otherwise; I wasn't arguing what you could control, Xen was. Old age isn't exactly environmental anyway, it's health related.
Viruses and bacteria? If you have poor health, you're more likely to be affected by viruses and bacteria, therefore, more likely to get cancer. That's a pretty easy connection to make, even Xen made that observation.
The last factor is listed like three factors in one. You make it sound like this discredits what I said more because they aren't listed seperately, but I see it as furthering my point. Not sure where you're coming from on that one.
Also, hormones are very often directly impacted by a person's diet and health, as well as their emotions and stress levels. Of course hormones make a difference... their a big part of a person's health, especially in women.
Alcohol is an unhealthy choice.
Tobacco is an unhealthy choice.
Ionizing radiation, no shit. But how many people are living in places with such high amounts of that? This one is probably the most influential factor, but probably the least common cause in most cancer cases.
Sunlight? Ever hear of sunblock, or how about not sitting on the beach all of the time trying to get a tan? Amount of sunlight can easily be seen as a choice. Though there are cases where people of certain skin types are just affected by it more easily and it becomes a large factor even if they don't go out in the sun all the time. But, I never said environmental factors weren't a cause, huh?
If you read my last post better this time, you'll realize I wasn't disagreeing with environmental factors being a cause, but rather, how poor health is a cause, and how poor health will likely hasten the chance of cancer in any circumstances, even if it's only by minutes in a high radiation area for a long period or periods of time. Are you unsure that that's what I said? Allow me to quote:
someone who's obese and unhealthy having those "environmental factors" affect them faster, easier, and probably worse than someone who's healthy and in shape.
