An Evolutionary Model of Cancer

In the past, I’ve wondered whether lung cancer might be a product of the radioactive fallout from nuclear bomb tests. After thinking a bit more about radioactivity last weekend, I got to wonder what happened when a speck of radioactive material, spitting alpha and beta particles in all directions, got lodged in human body tissue.

I’ve read several times that when, this happens, it invariably causes cancer, by (as seems to be believed) mutating cell DNA. But as I saw it, most likely what happens is that, rather than having their DNA mutated, cells near the source of radioactivity are simply killed. And this creates voids in the tissue, into which adjacent living cells can reproduce.

For it seems to me that if a cell is going to grow and divide, it needs to have the space to do so. So if a cell is completely surrounded by other cells, it can’t grow and divide. It’s only when a space adjacent to it appears – as when an adjacent cell is killed by radioactivity -, that it can grow and divide.

It also seemed reasonable for daughter cells to vary slightly from their parents, and have slightly different reproduction rates than their parent cells – if only because in human bodies some cells (e.g. skin or gut cells) reproduce more rapidly than those in other tissues. Equally, cancer cells – which started life as human cells – usually reproduce even more rapidly still.

tumourA

Using these simple rules, I  set about building a computer simulation model. In it I constructed a grid of 100 x 100 cells, all with the same reproduction time – 20 hours -. These cells could only grow and divide if there was an empty space next to them. And because there were no voids for them to grow into, initially no reproduction took place.

I then introduced a “radioactive source” in the middle of the grid, which randomly killed off cells around it, according to an inverse-square rule. At which point adjacent cells started to grow and divide. I sat back and watched what happened.

Initially (see 1 at right), a (white) void appeared around the radioactive source, with yellow cells – with roughly 20 hour reproduction times – all round it.

And then, after 15,000 hours, green cells – with 15 hour reproduction times – started appearing (2) in small numbers, mostly fairly near the central void. These gradually grew in numbers (3).

And then blue cells with 10 hour reproduction times began to appear, and gradually grew more numerous (4).

And then, after 37,000 hours, purple cells with 5 hour reproduction times appeared (5), and began to fill the central void (6). They were reproducing more rapidly than the radioactive source could kill them off.

Finally the fastest reproducing red cells appeared, with 1 hour reproduction times (7).

Thereafter the roughly circular patch of cells got slowly bigger and bigger, until it was nearly touching the edge of the cell grid after 56,000 hours (10).

After that, I tried several other runs, with very similar results.

Initially when I tried this, I gave daughter cells an equal chance of being faster or slower reproducing than their parent cell. But the faster growing cells came to predominate so rapidly that I instead arranged that daughter cells only had a 10% chance of being faster, a 40% chance of being the same, and a 50% chance of being slower reproducing than their parent cell. So the results shown are from a model that is quite heavily weighted in favour of slower-reproducing daughter cells. Despite this, the fastest-reproducing cells came to predominate.

In this manner I’d managed to simulate what very much looked like a cancer tumour made up of fast-reproducing cells. But these rapidly-reproducing cells had been generated by a process of natural selection that favoured the fast-reproducing cells that were (usually) quickest off the mark to fill an adjacent space.

But in some ways, the most important thing was for there to be voids into which cells could grow and divide. If there were no voids, growth and reproduction stopped dead. Just having fast-reproducing cancer cells wasn’t enough: there also need to paths (voids) down which such cells could propagate.

In this case, the radioactive source was continually creating voids, by killing off cells around it, mostly very close to it, but also to a lesser extent further away.

In a previous (very different) model, I argued that as people aged, their cells reproduced more and more slowly. And when this happens, dead cells are replaced more and more slowly from the surrounding tissue. And this would mean that in old people, there may often be lots of small voids throughout the body, which are ideal for fast-reproducing cancer cells to colonise. And so old people are perhaps more prone to cancer for this reason.

And if the tissues of old people are full of voids, then this may explain why they get smaller, with sunken cheeks, and get covered in wrinkles as their skin becomes wrapped around a shrinking body.

And if young people usually don’t get cancer, it’s probably because their cells are reproducing more rapidly, and quickly fill any voids that appear, and so cancer usually can’t get a grip.

If this is how cancer develops, then all that’s needed to trigger it is something that kills off cells in large enough numbers to create the voids into which cells can grow and divide more and more rapidly. It needn’t be radioactivity that does this. It might also happen when someone develops some wasting disease that kills off lots of body cells, without actually killing them. It might also come from physical injuries which leave unfilled voids in a body.

Equally, if a growing tumour exerts an outward force on tissues around it, this might sometimes rupture the tissue, and create cracks or splits along which cancer cells can propagate.

It might also be that, when something is described as “carcinogenic”, it’s simply something that will kill cells when left in contact with them for long enough. A pellet of cyanide (or any number of other compounds) placed in human tissue might have the same effect as a speck of radioactive material, as it gradually poisons cells around it.

Needless to say, it’s very unlikely that smoking or drinking or eating anything would kill off cells in sufficient numbers to create the necessary voids.

And this also suggests that current treatments of cancer – with radioactivity, for example – may be counterproductive, because while they may succeed in killing off cancerous tumours, they may as a result also leave voids into which cells may subsequently grow and divide, causing entirely new cancers.

Anyway, this was a very simple computer model (it only took an evening to write  it), but its results seemed promising enough to suggest further study/development.

About Frank Davis

smoker
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

63 Responses to An Evolutionary Model of Cancer

  1. Ed says:

    Why would there be “voids”?

    • Frank Davis says:

      I’m assuming that when a cell dies, it disintegrates, and is subsequently consumed by white blood cells. That would leave a void, although one filled with fluid.

      And as best I understand it, most cells are attached to adjacent cells. So a tissue will be very like a brick wall with the bricks attached to each other with mortar – so that killing a cell would be like knocking a brick out of a wall, leaving a void.

  2. Budvar says:

    Unless I’m being a bit dense, the flaw in your model is that cells are not immortal, and as they die surely a void is created as as the dead cells are absorbed by the body?
    Then as the cells die younger and younger, more “Voids” are created and the faster reproducing cells take over. Therefore a radioactive particle is not necessarily required to kill off surrounding tissue to create voids.

    That’s not to say your theory doesn’t have merit, as radioactivity could be a catalyst bringing this process along earlier in life.

    • Frank Davis says:

      I’m not supposing that any of the cells are immortal. I’m supposing that they can be killed by radiation from a radioactive source in or near a human body.

      And I am also assuming that when cells die (however they die) a void is left (see my answer to Ed’s comment above).

      And I agree that radioactivity isn’t the only way to kill off cells. As I wrote in the piece, it could be a lump of cyanide or something slowly releasing poison and killing cells around it.

      However I don’t entirely understand your comment. Are you suggesting that cells have natural lifetimes, and that they “get old” and then die? If so, I haven’t included that in my model. My cells will go on living until something kills them.

  3. Tom says:

    http://memolition.com/2013/10/16/time-lapse-map-of-every-nuclear-explosion-ever-on-earth/

    I am on cell with tiny keypad and will not be elaborate.

    Regarding radiation as cause for cancer and in my belief, anti-smoking industry an ongoing campaign to scapegoat tobacco while allowing the more potential cause of manmade radiation from nuclear bomb tests to escape all scrutiny and thus all governments among the nuclear powers and nuclear industry to avoid all legal and financial liability, the link above illustrates graphically and vividly the sheer grand number of nuclear bombs exploded over the same decades whilst tobacco was being scapegoated as a distraction from reality.

    And linked graphic illustration does not take into account major domestic electrical generation plants that collapsed and released radiation also, such as the accidents in Pennsylvania, USSR and more recently, Japan.

  4. Dirk Vleugels says:

    The Belgian newspaper LE SOIR writes that electronic cigarettes should not be sold outside pharmacies. They write that this is the conclusion of a report that experts have drawn up at the request of the Belgian Health Council, by way of an advice to Health Minister Laurette Onkelinx.

    The experts refer to the presence of toxic substances in unknown quantities that could have long-term safety effects. They also point to the large variety of products that may cause a problem with regard to labeling or dosage of nicotine.

    LE SOIR writes: According to the experts the e-cigarette may damage the mouth, throat or airways, moreover it is not proven that it really helps to stop smoking. Moreover, there is the risk of addiction. That risk would not be as great as with regular cigarettes yet it is realistic, because it involves the same operations as smoking tobacco. “More research is needed” the experts say.
    What bullshit!

  5. ijcd36 says:

    Here is another theory of cancer for what it is worth:

    If evolution takes place over millennia, then micro-evolutionary change must be possible from day to day. There must therefore be an additional functional system in the body for the control of microevolution. Cancer, with its disordered genetic mutation, can be seen as a disease of this micro-evolutionary system.
    When new species evolve they do so relatively quickly over geological time. The evolutionary process must presumably be able to speed up or slow down according to evolutionary requirements or opportunities. Presumably, there must be a mechanism for modulating the pace of evolution just as there is a mechanism for modulating the pace of the heart. Psychotropic substances circulating in the blood modulate the pace of the heart depending on whether the senses sense threat or security. Such substances would also keep the genes informed of the state of the environment and the presence or absence of a need to mutate and adapt.
    When one considers the contemporary social situation, people are living in greater physical security than ever before. They are well fed, housed, and clothed; they are totally secure. There is absolutely no genuine pressure to mutate. However, there is intense ideological confusion. For example, people talk of sexual equality when in fact the genders are complementary. This is placing enormous social pressure on women to compete with men. This in turn is causing husbands, partners, and children to feel neglected and insecure in a home environment that should in fact be more secure than at any time in history.
    Overall perception of the environment has therefore become confused. Confused and inappropriate signals for genetic mutation are thus likely to be sent to the micro-evolutionary system. If confused biochemical messages are received by the evolutionary system, then inappropriate genetic mutation i.e. malignant change is more likely to take place.

    • Frank Davis says:

      Your approach to medicine seems to be very holistic. Everything affects everything else. Which is probably true.

    • beobrigitte says:

      When one considers the contemporary social situation, people are living in greater physical security than ever before. They are well fed, housed, and clothed; they are totally secure. There is absolutely no genuine pressure to mutate.

      Genetic mutations occur as a means of adaptation (even if it takes several generations to achieve this goal). The best example is Thalassaemia.

      However, there is intense ideological confusion. For example, people talk of sexual equality when in fact the genders are complementary.

      If the genders are complementary, they ARE EQUAL. Some male (and some female) members of society do appear to have a problem with this concept.

      This is placing enormous social pressure on women to compete with men.

      Where you see “a woman competing with men” I see people being up against each other in work life. The mobbing culture ensures that no real friendships are possible to be formed. But competitions is what is being drip fed to youngsters…

      This in turn is causing husbands, partners, and children to feel neglected and insecure in a home environment that should in fact be more secure than at any time in history.

      Home life IS more secure than at any time in history. Nowadays it is financially impossible for one of the parents to stay at home, so both parents HAVE to hold down jobs in order to provide a roof over their and their offspring’s head and something to eat.
      Ironically, the home environment isn’t comfortable when both parents get home from work and it is the woman who is expected to do the household chores and look after the offspring as well whilst the husband is going out for a pint with his mates. After all, he had a hard day in work… He does not miss his partner and children then, does he?

  6. Andi says:

    I may well be wrong but I always pictured cells as being ‘squishy’, and if that is the case why would you need a void in order for cells to divide? surely they would create their own space by simply pushing nearby cells out of the way. Take for example a boil or abscess, pus grows, by cell division, and pushes/stretches the surrounding skin until eventually the skin bursts. The pus cells just push the skin cells out of the way. Would cancerous cells not do the same?

    • Frank Davis says:

      In my response to Ed above, I compared tissues to bricks cemented together. But I could equally have described them as heaps of pillows or balloons. There would still need to be voids into which new pillows/balloons can be pushed.

      In my simple model, I treated cells like bricks. But I think that, as you suggest, cells probably do exert pressure on each other, more or less as if they were inflated ballooons. And inflating a balloon in a pile of balloons is probably much easier near the top of the pile, when there are only a few balloons pressing down from above. Deep inside the pile, it’s probably very difficult.

    • beobrigitte says:

      The pus cells just push the skin cells out of the way. Would cancerous cells not do the same?

      They do.
      (See further down)

  7. harleyrider1978 says:

    Poll we need to hit…………..
    http://nj1015.com/liberty-van-kentucky-grandma-makes-nj-appearance-poll/

    LIberty Van Kentucky Grandma Makes NJ Appearance [POLL]

    This is Lynda my friend up the road from me about 40 miles…………..Lets kick their Nazi asses!

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Lynda Farley · Retired at Self

      Liberty Van is an ART car, and now has 389,670 miles on it. In about 10 days, it will be 8 years since I started that project. It won a Free Speech Trophy at the Houston Art Car Parade in 2011. It is no different than any other panel van (see just about any Fed. Ex or UPS truck), not to mention all the 18 wheelers on the road. It also has a rear view camera. If Liberty Van is not Freedom of Speech, we have no such thing. Also, this is my art, and I will fight to the death for that. I LOVE to drive, and especially love to drive THAT (also her ‘sister’, Freedom Van – see both at http://www.libertyvan.com). I enjoy the trips I get to take for an ‘excuse’ like someone harassing me with a really stoopid ticket. This is not the stoopidest one I’ve fought (and WON : ). PA and WV have been busting me for ‘Christmas’ lights, also won one for BOOKS on my dashboard in DC a few months ago. The books were a King James Bible, and my autographed copy of Rand Paul’s Government Bullying. Officer didn’t show up for that one, if I were her I would have been too embarassed.

      Reply · Like

      · Follow Post · 12 minutes ago

      .

      Earl Leo Nelson Jr. · Top Commenter · Bensalem High School

      While it might look like SHIT, If she can see out of it right window, left window and front window, she can see the mirrors on right and left therefore its not obstructed. As for the rear view window, how do you see out of a van with no rear window? I rest my case.

      Reply · 5 · Unlike

      · Follow Post · 8 hours ago

      .

      Joe King · Top Commenter · Brick Township, New Jersey

      She forgot something on her car, Toilet paper cause that looks like shit.

      Reply · 1 · Like

      · Follow Post · 15 hours ago

      John Davidson · Top Commenter · Canadore College

      The whitehouse could use a flushing and some wipe. But hey you likely voted for it.

      Reply · Like

      · 2 seconds ago

      .

      .

      Lou DeGeorge · Top Commenter · Middletown, New Jersey

      she wasted over $1,000 maybe 2 for a ticket ?

      Reply · 1 · Like

      · Follow Post · 3 hours ago

      John Davidson · Top Commenter · Canadore College

      She made the news,in political corners that’s worth about a million in advertising and I would say that’s a small investment she made to get her voice heard……………..

      Reply · Like

      · 2 seconds ago

      .

      .

      Chris Peterpaul · Service Director at United Business Systems

      I didn’t know Walmart sold vans

      Reply · 1 · Like

      · Follow Post · about an hour ago

      John Davidson · Top Commenter · Canadore College

      KidsRus also carrys watercolors and crayons perhaps your skills will improve with time to that of Lyndas. We can hope.

      Reply · Like

      · 2 seconds ago

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        Lynda made the CHINESE news too!

        http://www.worldjournal.com/…/article-她往返5000哩-只為-抗議56…

        她往返5000哩 只為…抗議56元罰單 -…
        http://www.worldjournal.com
        肯塔基州一名婦女去年因座車貼滿政治標語,在新澤西州收到「阻礙視線」的罰單,此後的一年多裡,為抗議這張56元的罰單,捍衛自己發聲的權利,62歲的她駕著近十年車齡的廂型車,不斷往返於肯州和新州,為了這張罰單出庭辯護,車程已達5000多哩,皇天不負苦心人,法官3日撤銷這張罰單。 福斯新聞報導,來自艾蒙頓(Edmonton)的琳達‧法利(Lynda Farley)去年在紐約參加完九一一紀念儀式後,駕駛著2004年份的日產(Nissan)「Quest」回家。但經過新州時,她吃到一張「阻礙遮擋」的罰單。 這輛被她稱為「自由之車」的廂型車貼滿了帶有「反對歐巴馬」的政治標語和支持禁菸的標誌。車上唯一空閒的地方…
        .

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          5000 mile round trip just for her protest 56 yuan ticket …

          Compile Centres / Integrated 4 (Xinhua)

          December 05, 2013 06:00 AM | 0 views | 0 0 評論 | 2 2 推薦 | 電郵給朋友 | 打印

          康州62歲婦人法利在她稱為「自由之車」的廂型車上貼滿政治標語,擋風玻璃邊緣還以花束裝飾,被新州警察開了張「妨礙視線」的罰單。(美聯社)

          Connecticut 62-year-old woman Farley political slogans plastered on her called “freedom train” the van, the windshield edge also decorated with bouquets, is the new state police opened sheets “obstruct the line of sight” of the ticket. (Associated Press)

          A woman in Kentucky last year’s car plastered with political slogans, receive a “line of sight obstruction” of the ticket in New Jersey, more than a year thereafter, to protest this 56 yuan ticket, defend the rights of their own sound, the 62-year-old She drove the car for nearly a decade-old van constantly to and from New York state and is willing to, in order to appear in court to defend this ticket, the journey has reached more than 5,000 miles, hard work does, the judge on the 3rd revoke this ticket .
          Fox News reported from Ammon Dayton (Edmonton) ‧ Linda Farley (Lynda Farley) finished last year in New York to attend a ceremony to commemorate the 911, driving a 2004 year Nissan (Nissan) “Quest” home. But after New York when she eat a “blocking obstacle” ticket.

          Read more: World News Network – North America Chinese News, Chinese Information – her 5000 mile round trip to protest the 56 yuan ticket only

    • smokingscot says:

      Done. As of 18.10 hrs NYC time. The miserable ones had the upper hand. 53% say it’s a hazard.

  8. garyk30 says:

    “I’ve wondered whether lung cancer might be a product of the radioactive fallout from nuclear bomb tests.”

    Not in the USA.
    Most tests took place in the SW USA, mostly in New Mexico.

    Most of the states with the lowest total cancer mortality are in the SW.
    They are Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, and California.

    The outlier is Nevada which is in the middle of the rankings.

    http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/cancer-death-rate-per-100000/

    • garyk30 says:

      The states with the highest cancer mortality are Kentucky, Mississippi, and West Virginia.
      All well East of the test areas.

      These states do have the highest percentages of the population below the poverty level.
      There is a much closer association there.
      For what it is worth.
      http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/ranks/rank34.html

      • garyk30 says:

        Oddly enough, or not, the states with the lowest cancer mortality rates tend to have fewer people living in poverty.

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          Gary prevailing winds is what makes the difference. In the military during NBC warfare training I ran the dosemeter/Geiger counter and the way it works after a blast is measuring wind currents to fallout rates in 8 hour intervals. Most of the stuff landed in the eastern U.S. after each test not necessarily in the blast zone itself and it also mattered how high the blast reached as to fallout areas to which it would travel. Heavier particles closer to the blast and lighter particles carried around the globe for weeks slowly making there way to the ground.

          The folks most ingested with particles were those in the 1940s- 1962 era………….Meaning any cancers caused related to age would be showing up thru the 1970s to today…….If it holds as a pattern we should see rates decrease in the next 3 decades. I would think.

      • Frank Davis says:

        They’re also (from memory) the states with the highest rainfall. My idea was that more radioactive dust in the atmosphere would have been washed out there, downwind of test sites.

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309055962

          Mortality of Veteran Participants in the CROSSROADS Nuclear Test

          Medical Follow-up Agency

          INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE by

          J. Christopher Johnson

          Susan Thaul

          William F. Page

          Harriet Crawford with oversight from the

          Institute of Medicine

          Committee on the CROSSROADS Nuclear Test

          NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS
          Washington, D.C.
          1996

        • garyk30 says:

          Not trying to start an arguement; but, states such as Ohio,Missouri, Georgia, and Indiana are just as far East and have lower cancer mortality rates.

          Anyway, there are too many things I do not know.
          Such as:
          1.Are heavier particles more deadly than the lighter ones?
          2. How much radioactivity does it take to cause mutation?
          3. Since all breathe and are exposed to the dust, should not all get cancer?
          The worst cancer death rate is only 2/1,000 per year.
          4. Why does the state’s poverty rate seem to make a difference?
          5. Since most atomic tests were underground, does that make a difference?
          6. Why is it that the more I look into stuff, the more there are un-answered questions?

          Screw it, time to get on the outside of some decent wine!!!

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          Your right Gary there are to many variables………… And it would seem none have any connection at all to the other. Rich get Cancer too…………….But then theres less rich than there are poor so of course the poor show up with more cancer.

        • beobrigitte says:

          6. Why is it that the more I look into stuff, the more there are un-answered questions?

          Welcome to the club!!

  9. harleyrider1978 says:

    The result from the UK,NEW ZEALAND Australian AND American cacer cross studies concluded almost no diference in cancer rates of those exposed……… However in the bikini atoll study increased Lukemias were found………

  10. harleyrider1978 says:

    Now I had dug in and read about this theory that radioactive tobacco particles created hot spots in the lungs of smokers, Its simply that a theory and they go onto to say that small doses hlp kill cancer while high doses can cause it………..Wish I still had the article but that was a few years back and 2 computers ago!

  11. harleyrider1978 says:

    China Has Doubled Tobacco Production Since The Signing Of A World Health Organization Agreement To Curb Tobacco

    http://www.ibtimes.com/china-has-doubled-tobacco-production-signing-world-health-organization-agreement-curb-tobacco

    • beobrigitte says:

      …Tobacco production is a lucrative business in China. The industry paid a total of 864.9 billion yuan ($141.9 billion) in taxes in 2012 and handed 716.7 billion yuan to the state treasury, the equivalent of 8 percent of the national tax income…

      Tobacco production is a BUSINESS. Businesses contribute to the state and with that to the welfare of it’s people. It’s a pity our government hasn’t quite made that link. Lab/Lib/Con just throws taxpayer’s cash to tobacco control shills and wonders why people are fed up to the back teeth.

  12. beobrigitte says:

    Frank, you could not have a more complex theme for the day??

    I try to keep my reply short, I promise!

    Many factors are involved and regulate “normal” cell growth along with cell death; our cells divide and reproduce quite a number of times in our life time.
    In order to keep a balance of the number of cells “required” signals are sent from dying cells to induce cell division in adherent cells. What you desribe as “void” is actually dying cells sending these signals.
    All cells in our body have a limited number of times they can divide into exact copies of the “original”. As we grow older, this reproduction becomes a little “dodgy” and little “mistakes” begin to show. (An overall effect can been seen by looking in a mirror – I most certainly don’t remember looking like this 30 years ago!) This has been ascribed to with each division shortening telomeres and little “mistakes” in DNA replication.
    Eventually all this leads to multiple organ failure and even cancer (which old people tend to outlive) and we simply die of old age.

    Cancer. This is just THE word of use for lobbyists in order to scare nitwit politicians (such as Bliar) into introducing rather costly laws.
    Cancer is not a SINGLE illness to begin with. Some types of cancers are caused by a multitude of factors stimulation cell growth rate in excess to cell death rate. Other cancers are caused by a multitude of factors stimulation cell death rate in excess to cell growth rate which in turn leads to these dying cells sending signals to adjacent cells to divide, so, what you see in either case is a lot of cells that should not be there.
    A very sensitive part of cell growth is the DNA replication. Usually errors are “spotted” and the DNA repair machine kicks in.
    Theoretically speaking it is quite hard to get cancer; a multitude of factors need to be just “right”.

    Just using one KNOWN (and conveniently ignored) cause of cancers: micro-organisms have a few advantages to humans; e.g. virae can use the human host’s “replication tools” by simply injecting their DNA into the human cell. This DNA has no problem getting into the nucleus (size matters!) where it the integrates into the human host cell DNA and begins to reproduce little virae. The cell will die, but with this integrated viral DNA it sends scrambled signals to adjacent cells if the DNA repair machinery has not spotted the error and “deleted” it.

    There is NEVER ONE SINGLE CAUSE for ANY type of cancer.

    • Frank Davis says:

      In order to keep a balance of the number of cells “required” signals are sent from dying cells to induce cell division in adherent cells. What you desribe as “void” is actually dying cells sending these signals.

      Does a dying cell need to “signal”? And why should it signal? And since there will be several adjacent cells, which one gets to take its place?

      As we grow older, this reproduction becomes a little “dodgy” and little “mistakes” begin to show. (An overall effect can been seen by looking in a mirror

      But there might not be any genetic mistakes at all. It might be, as I suggest in my essay, that cells in tissues have died and not been replaced by slow-dividing adjacent cells. This would create the appearance of ageing, with sunken cheeks, wrinkled skin, etc.

      • beobrigitte says:

        Does a dying cell need to “signal”? And why should it signal?

        A dying cell sneds out more than one signal; it needs replacing. Our body looks after No. 1 first – itself.

        And since there will be several adjacent cells, which one gets to take its place?
        You would would assume that all adjacent cells are at the exactly same stage of their life span. This is not the case. The cell which is ready for division (cells have a limited life span) will do so.

        But there might not be any genetic mistakes at all. It might be, as I suggest in my essay, that cells in tissues have died and not been replaced by slow-dividing adjacent cells.
        This = rate of cell death exceeds rate of cell “production”. Dying cells do send out signals for replacement. Some of these signals also kick in the DNA repair mechanism to be on “standby” for the repair of DNA damage.

        This would create the appearance of ageing, with sunken cheeks, wrinkled skin, etc.
        Unfortunately this is due to the natural “aging process” in which the cell death = cell replacement slows down. The whole system starts to wobble a little, not only at the intra-cellular level.

        There is the whole system involved; your DNA might well be “perfect”, yet you still might experience “impaired” DNA replication.

  13. beobrigitte says:

    Off topic:

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/nelson-mandela-dead-live-updates-2895110

    Hands up, WHO does not remember watching “Live Aid” in 1985, singing along to “Free Nelson Mandela”?
    The guy was in prison for murder, so I started to ask people (no internet then) about him. He never admitted or denied the charge but he didn’t take the “offers” made to him to get out of prison.
    Back then I never thought I could possibly be on the receiving end of apartheit. But that is EXACTLY what tobacco control is doing to us smokers. Excluding us from society, being a second/third class citizen who can easily be refused medical treatment. When are they seggregate us into ghettos?

  14. harleyrider1978 says:

    USA TODAY

    ‪#‎TBT‬: 80 years ago today, the 21st Amendment was ratified, marking the end of Prohibition. Cheers!

    (Photo: Library of Congress via AFP/Getty Images: http://usat.ly/1cdupOa)

  15. harleyrider1978 says:

    Canada
    More deaths…

    ‘We’ve had enough:’ Shipyard workers protest treatment after co-worker commits suicide

    November 29, 2013
    By Haley Ryan, Metro Halifax

    Workers at the Halifax Shipyard walked off the job on Thursday.

    Update: Bullying not a factor in shipyard employee suicide, says Irving president

    Nearly 200 workers at the Irving Shipyard walked off the job Thursday morning after employees said resentment “boiled over” when they learned a co-worker had killed himself following a suspension, and what they say was months of harassment by management.

    A shipyard worker who preferred not to give his name said he “almost cried right on the spot” when he heard of Peter MacKenzie’s death, who he said he worked with for 25 years.

    “He was singled out and harassed in many regards,” said the man. “We’ve had enough and it’s as simple as that … it boiled over.”

    Workers left their jobs around 7:30 a.m., lining both sides of Barrington Street at the bottom of Devonshire Avenue and crossing the street each time the lights changed.

    U nion president Cliff Pickrem said MacKenzie was suspended for 30 days due to poor workmanship on his scaffolding Tuesday, but later heard an engineer say the work was “quite up to standard.”

    In a statement, Irving said “It is not appropriate to speak about details regarding individual employees.”

    Halifax RCMP spokesman Cpl. Scott MacRae said they received a suicide call for a home in Eastern Passage on Wednesday at 2:30 p.m. and found a 58-year-old man dead.

    Metro reached out to the victim’s family, who preferred not to comment.

    Tyler Stewart, 29, was among many who said the company has become much harsher and more disciplinary in the last year and half since Irving won the national shipbuilding contract and new management came in.

    “A lot of the older gentlemen, they’re trying to almost make them retire …they want to make their lives miserable,” Stewart said. “Unfortunately it has to come to this to make a better situation.”

    Earlier in the day, Adam Herse, a third-generation shipyard worker, said MacKenzie had spent 35 years on the job.

    “They harassed him, they were after him,” Herse said as a light rain fell down on the workers. “The man couldn’t even have a cigarette without them getting in his business.”

    Herse said he was prepared to stay there as long as it took for management to change the way he said workers are being treated.

    “For his wife, I’ll stay here the rest of the year,” he said, in reference to MacKenzie. “We have to shed light on what goes on behind that fence.”

    Pickrem and national u nion rep Rick Rose came from negotiations just before noon and said Irving’s president was flying to Halifax. They told the crowd management understood their frustration, but were asking everyone to continue working.

    Many shouted “no way” and left the property, saying they would return Friday. Some went inside.

    “We’re going to have conversations we haven’t had for quite some time to reset things, and make sure everybody feels confident that we can do the work we need to do,” said Rose.

    Irving spokesperson Deborah Page said in a statement they are “working extremely hard to create a positive, effective and productive work environment at Halifax Shipyard – and for that we need employees to be at work, and the u nion and company to work together.”

    “Our thoughts and hearts go out to Peter’s family and friends, and to all here at the shipyard who worked with him,” a statement released Thursday from Irving read.
    Read

    Stabbing victim, 25, attacked over cigarettes -AB
    Ben Gelinas, The Edmonton Journal
    Published: Tuesday, November 11
    EDMONTON – Family have identified Andrew Stephen Frang as the city’s latest homicide victim, the second man stabbed to death in unrelated weekend fights.
    Frang, 25, was stabbed after he and his girlfriend refused to give cigarettes to two strangers who approached them on 118th Avenue near 124th Street, Frang’s father said.
    While walking to the Inglewood Royal Pizza just after midnight Sunday, the couple was confronted by two men, Douglas Frang said.
    The men asked for cigarettes. The couple refused, and the men attacked Frang, his father said.
    “One of them punched him and threw him on the ground, and then a fight started, and another one came around and stabbed him.”
    When police arrived, Frang was bleeding on the steps outside the Liquor Time corner store. The two men had run off. The weapon was gone.
    Frang was taken to the Royal Alexandra Hospital, where he was pronounced dead.
    Police think the attack was random.
    “He was happy and he was full of life,” Douglas Frang said. “It’s just devastating to lose him.”
    His son worked odd jobs but mainly installed garage doors. He had many friends and a large family.
    “There are so many memories,” Douglas Frang said. “We had good times and we had bad times, but more good than anything.”
    Police hope surveillance cameras positioned in the neighbourhood may have caught the attack or the aftermath. They are still looking for the attackers.
    One was described as thin, about five-foot-six and 16 to 20 years old. The second man looked a older and a little taller, police said.
    An autopsy will be conducted. Frang was the 28th person murdered in Edmonton this year.
    The city’s 27th homicide victim Quentin Edward L’hirondelle was stabbed and bled to death Saturday morning after a fight at a downtown party, an autopsy confirmed Monday.
    Police said at least 10 people were at the party when a fight broke out around 8 a.m in a third-floor suite of an apartment building at 10617 107th Street. A number of people were taken to hospital.
    L’hirondelle, 22, knew the two men charged in connection with his death, police said.
    Justin Malcolm Sutherland, 21, has been charged with second-degree murder. Jimmy Billy Crow Shoe, 22, was charged with aggravated assault and assault with a weapon.
    Police continue to investigate.

  16. harleyrider1978 says:

    Well worth reading for this single portion

    “He added that the city’s measures to ban smoking from outdoor public areas under Mayor Michael Bloomberg were more about public acceptance of smoking than science.
    “Those second set of measures were more about sociology and denormalizing than they were hard medical science,” Gennaro said on “Squawk on the Street.” “We thought it was important to make sure smoking was completely denormalized.”

    http://www.cnbc.com/id/101247181

  17. mikef317 says:

    FD quote: “It might also happen when someone develops some wasting disease that kills off lots of body cells, without actually killing them.”

    In terms of relative risk for lung cancer, the highest risk is cigarettes. A close second might be a history of tuberculosis (i.e., having TB, being treated / cured, and then developing lung cancer compared to people who never had TB). The disease was once called “consumption” based on the symptom of weight loss.

    • Frank Davis says:

      Weight loss would be caused by if TB killed cells. Not sure if it does.

      • mikef317 says:

        Link below to Wikipedia (not a source I trust). See the Pathogenesis section; in particular the third paragraph’s reference to necrosis. I’d interpret this as saying that TB can kill at least some cells; how many looks like it’s open to question.

        Most of what I know about tuberculosis comes from La Boheme. I was thinking that weight loss equals loss (death) of cells. If a person weighs 150 pounds and drops to 125, how would you account for the weight loss? I might think diet – new cells not being created or old cells (e.g., stored body fat) being consumed due to lack of normal food intake. I would also think of illness – cells being destroyed by disease. But these are quick and dirty assumptions on my part. If I’m totally wrong, it won’t be the first time!

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

    • beobrigitte says:

      In terms of relative risk for lung cancer, the highest risk is cigarettes.

      RR for smoking to cause lung cancer = 1.2 and with that it is a negligable risk.

      A close second might be a history of tuberculosis (i.e., having TB, being treated / cured, and then developing lung cancer compared to people who never had TB). The disease was once called “consumption” based on the symptom of weight loss.

      http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/8856.php

      In October 2012, Dr. Mario Raviglione, Director of the WHO Stop TB Department, warned that the number of people becoming infected with MDT-TB (multi-drug-resistant) tuberculosis has risen considerably…
      …In March 2013 WHO, warned about a serious funding shortage. Dr. Margaret Chan, Director-General of WHO warned that without expanded treatment and funding, the global fight against TB will be seriously undermined.

      Perhaps the WHO department “Stop smoking” would care to donate?

      • mikef317 says:

        Beobrigitte:
        Relative risk of 1.2. Are you talking about secondhand smoke? I didn’t say it in my comment, but I was talking about primary smoking, with a commonly accepted RR value of at least 10.0. (10.0 is debatable, but I’d call it a large value. Agreed that 1.2 is not.)

        • beobrigitte says:

          Are you talking about secondhand smoke?
          True. My mistake, apologies!
          But then, PASSIVE-SMOKE-DAMAGE (with the RR of 1.2) was the tool used to lobby smoking bans.

          Actually, I just tried to find the RR for active smokers; I remembered something about an RR of 6.0 and statements that this was exaggerated.
          It looks like studies on active smokers were deemed unimportant; after all, the smoker “harms” only him-/herself which means smoking bans would not be considered by any government.

          I did find something, though, although it goes back quite a number of years:
          USWM smokers have a lifetime relative risk of dying from lung cancer of only 8 (not the 20 or more that is based on an annual death rate and therefore virtually useless).
          http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/editorials/vol-1/e1-4.htm

  18. mikef317 says:

    Beobrigitte:

    Re relative risk for active smokers. Typical of Tobacco Control “science” there is no real number; rather there is a series of numbers so you can pick whichever one you like.

    I picked a RR for active smoking of 10 based on the 1964 Surgeon General’s report. It is commonly used. (SG report pg 102, table 19, 10.8 mortality ratio.) Like all Tobacco Control numbers, however, it is bogus. It is based on 7 studies that roughly give 4 different values. (There is another table on pg 109 that lists the individual studies.) One study gives a RR of 5, four studies hover around 10, one study says 16, and the last 20. 10.8 is the average, but obviously there is a large (unexplained) variation when you look at the individual studies. Worse, there are other studies that have risks of less than 5 and more than 20. God only knows the true value. Certainly no one in Tobacco Control is interested in anything but big numbers.

    Try Burch: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/hms61f00 This is about the 1982 SG report. In particular, see pg 823, “Consistency of the association.”

    • beobrigitte says:

      Typical of Tobacco Control “science” there is no real number

      Thank you.

      You just cannot lobby smoking bans and smoker persecution if the smoker “harms” only him-/herself.

      And European/world wide NO MEMBER OF ANY POLITICAL PARTY has questioned this?

      As you “Josephine Average” with rather simple questions I worry about what is supposed to represent me, the law abiding citizen.

  19. Pingback: Revisiting the Fallout Hypothesis | Frank Davis

  20. Pingback: Redefining Health 2 | Frank Davis

  21. Pingback: Hot Smoke | Frank Davis

  22. Pingback: Sideways Glances | Frank Davis

  23. Pingback: The Secret of Perpetual Youth | Frank Davis

  24. Pingback: Please Label Everything As Carcinogenic | Frank Davis

  25. Pingback: Wave The Magic Wand | Frank Davis

  26. Pingback: From Enthusiasm To Zealotry | Frank Davis

  27. Pingback: Three Ideas | Frank Davis

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.