Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Do you think these thoughts about UK kids health issues apply to other countries?
GaleHawkins
Posts: 8,159 Member
in Debate Club
telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/09/03/modern-life-is-killing-our-children-cancer-rate-in-young-people/
Old people dying is kind of normal but I find it painful when kids have growing health issues like this.
Old people dying is kind of normal but I find it painful when kids have growing health issues like this.
0
Replies
-
This statement from the article:
"Modern life is killing children with the number of youngsters diagnosed with cancer rising 40 per cent in the past 16 years because of air pollution, pesticides, poor diets and radiation, scientists have warned."
I have a problem with this; plus the rise of ADHD and Autism - there's an elephant in the room that no one seems to ever address - and I'm not sure parents would answer honestly anyway:
How many parents of children afflicted with these maladies, used recreational (or heavier) drugs??? How many people have damaged chromosomes from ingesting who-knows-what? How many children are affected by something their parents did in their youth??? I'm not saying that environmental factors aren't a cause - but when generations since the 60's have used various concoctions - NONE of them regulated by any kind of testing - we really have no clue what might be causing our children to be less than 100% healthy.6 -
This statement from the article:
"Modern life is killing children with the number of youngsters diagnosed with cancer rising 40 per cent in the past 16 years because of air pollution, pesticides, poor diets and radiation, scientists have warned."
I have a problem with this; plus the rise of ADHD and Autism - there's an elephant in the room that no one seems to ever address - and I'm not sure parents would answer honestly anyway:
How many parents of children afflicted with these maladies, used recreational (or heavier) drugs??? How many people have damaged chromosomes from ingesting who-knows-what? How many children are affected by something their parents did in their youth??? I'm not saying that environmental factors aren't a cause - but when generations since the 60's have used various concoctions - NONE of them regulated by any kind of testing - we really have no clue what might be causing our children to be less than 100% healthy.
Very insightful post!
Numbers 14:18 - Iniquities of the fathers are visited upon their children to the third and fourth generations.2 -
No, because a very quick google search shows me that the quoted "researcher" Denis Henshaw is known as a quack, and pretty much every researcher except him thinks that the increase is due to better detection and early treatment.
I mean, he claims that part of the increase in childhood cancer rates over the last 20 years is due to people using more lights at night and disrupting their circadian rhythms. In the UK. I'm just an ignorant American, but I'm pretty sure that electric light reached all of the UK much more than 20 years ago. It must be true, because I saw it on Downton Abbey.15 -
Did you even evaluate the information in this article? Or just copied the link because you can? Power lines, hair dryers, lights? Causing cancer in children? Come on, get real!7
-
To be fair to Gale, I'm a little surprised at the Telegraph posting such crap. That level of writing is usually Daily Mail territory.3
-
You should vet your sources.
Btw cell phones don't cause cancer either3 -
How many parents of children afflicted with these maladies, used recreational (or heavier) drugs??? How many people have damaged chromosomes from ingesting who-knows-what? How many children are affected by something their parents did in their youth??? I'm not saying that environmental factors aren't a cause - but when generations since the 60's have used various concoctions - NONE of them regulated by any kind of testing - we really have no clue what might be causing our children to be less than 100% healthy.
Not just drug use, there is a HUGE range of environmental factors that cause changes in offspring, not just in the DNA coding but also epigenetically (DNA structure).
Also, as so often happens in these comparisons, any changes in screening and diagnostic criteria are ignored.
As with so many other diseases, we have become much better at finding cancer, and much more aware of the importance of looking for it, in the past 40 or so years. It's quite possible that a number of children who today are diagnosed with cancer would just have been considered 'sickly' 50 years ago.4 -
How many parents of children afflicted with these maladies, used recreational (or heavier) drugs??? How many people have damaged chromosomes from ingesting who-knows-what? How many children are affected by something their parents did in their youth??? I'm not saying that environmental factors aren't a cause - but when generations since the 60's have used various concoctions - NONE of them regulated by any kind of testing - we really have no clue what might be causing our children to be less than 100% healthy.
Not just drug use, there is a HUGE range of environmental factors that cause changes in offspring, not just in the DNA coding but also epigenetically (DNA structure).
Also, as so often happens in these comparisons, any changes in screening and diagnostic criteria are ignored.
As with so many other diseases, we have become much better at finding cancer, and much more aware of the importance of looking for it, in the past 40 or so years. It's quite possible that a number of children who today are diagnosed with cancer would just have been considered 'sickly' 50 years ago.
Good point about epigenetics. This is a new area of interest of mine that was never covered in graduate school. It seems to be a huge factor in our health.0 -
I can't wait to see tomorrows daily mailish debate
Smh
3 -
I wonder if they took into account that there are more children in the UK than ever so there may be more reports of children with cancer. Probably more children getting colds too.1
-
As someone who has chemical sensitivities I know substances in our environment will cause problems. Here in the UK there is an on going debate to reduce the emissions from diesel vehicles. Reading the numbers of cancers are rising is disturbing particularly because one child being affected is one two many.
Here in the UK the NHS is severely restricted in interventions it can provide for the majority of our population. The principal area that concerns me is there only being one treatment for hypothyroidism, that is t4 and there is no hypoallergenic version available. This is because NICE which sets out the financial viability of any treatment does not recognise the extent our endocrine system can be affected by our environment.
The endocrine system is designed to remove the byproducts of our existence from our bodies to prevent the build up of toxins of any origin. The endocrine system is supposed to work in a unified way. Sometimes one gland can work disproportionately putting unreasonable pressure on the others in the network. The first gland often to fail in this situation is, you know this one, The thyroid gland. What few realise is that there are 300 possible symptoms of thyroid insult, cf, me, fm, allergies, ibs, diabetes, idiopathic joint pain. Testing in the UK only really permits tsh and t4 testing which will never give a good overview of the cause of the problems unless you can be referred to a good hospital. The thyroid is involved in digestion, elimination, respiration, mental health, heart health and more. Never forget the thyroid is also responsible for the reproduction of all our cells and is heavily involved in the reproduction of us as a species.
The cornerstone of many health problems is the lack of t3 the active form of thyroid hormones. This lack can come about by the simple lack of iodine and other minerals and vitamins in the diet. It can be hard to achieve the 150 mcg of iodine required every day by a healthy person. 30 in a 100 ml of milk, 24 in a medium egg, 70 in 100 g of cod but only 3 or 4 in 100 g of some green vegetables. Young women are told they must be thin. To achieve this they are told they must not consume more than 1200 calories a day. For a person who has a thyroid problem living on a restricted intake doubles the problems if you have a compromised thyroid. Women are more likely to have a thyroid condition than a man. You may think this is going down a side road.
Increasingly parents through epigenitics are passing on the potential for endocrine/thyroid problems these are now able to be seen in genetic tests, some of these which are potential issues are addressable by diet and supplements which were our medical profession able to follow this up could help many and over a life time cost little.
T3 is referenced as the brain hormone, it is also called the spark of life, or even the cell battery. In many people a deficiency in this hormone is never suspected though the consequences can be grave. In order for this powerful hormone to be produced we need, as I said before the iodine, minerals like selenium, zinc and more not to mention vitamins, for there to be no problems of conversion which in some causes the hormone to be useless making it the reverse form. As if that is not bad enough some have problems which prevent the cell receiving the very spark which makes life good. T3 like many other hormones requires fat to make it, not all fat is bad, I have learned we can not life well on a fat free diet.
Here in the UK doctors will proclaim a verdict of depression when t3 the brain hormone is what should be tested for and would probably assist those with anorexia and bulimia. I have read low t3 has been found in those on the autistic spectrum too. Problems in the menstrual cycle very often are caused by low t3 yet the pill is usually advised for regulation and this can dis-regulate that system even more. You may be asking how would all this help the children.
By providing them with healthy parents and healthy grandparents it will help them become healthy persons too. They will probably be able to better cope with the insults on their lungs and endocrine systems our modern environment is throwing at us. Back in the 1950's here in the UK after the "Clean Air Act" was introduced the air quality improved and early deaths from bronchitis and pneumonia reduced for a long time. Now we have other chemicals to remove from our environment.
My information has been gleaned from many many free view accredited medical research papers, STTM, Thyroid UK and many other places. Thank you for the opportunity to paint this sorry picture.2 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »How many parents of children afflicted with these maladies, used recreational (or heavier) drugs??? How many people have damaged chromosomes from ingesting who-knows-what? How many children are affected by something their parents did in their youth??? I'm not saying that environmental factors aren't a cause - but when generations since the 60's have used various concoctions - NONE of them regulated by any kind of testing - we really have no clue what might be causing our children to be less than 100% healthy.
Not just drug use, there is a HUGE range of environmental factors that cause changes in offspring, not just in the DNA coding but also epigenetically (DNA structure).
Also, as so often happens in these comparisons, any changes in screening and diagnostic criteria are ignored.
As with so many other diseases, we have become much better at finding cancer, and much more aware of the importance of looking for it, in the past 40 or so years. It's quite possible that a number of children who today are diagnosed with cancer would just have been considered 'sickly' 50 years ago.
Good point about epigenetics. This is a new area of interest of mine that was never covered in graduate school. It seems to be a huge factor in our health.
Was graduate school in the 80s this poor quality that they didn't teach you to critically question/analyze the resources used?4 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »How many parents of children afflicted with these maladies, used recreational (or heavier) drugs??? How many people have damaged chromosomes from ingesting who-knows-what? How many children are affected by something their parents did in their youth??? I'm not saying that environmental factors aren't a cause - but when generations since the 60's have used various concoctions - NONE of them regulated by any kind of testing - we really have no clue what might be causing our children to be less than 100% healthy.
Not just drug use, there is a HUGE range of environmental factors that cause changes in offspring, not just in the DNA coding but also epigenetically (DNA structure).
Also, as so often happens in these comparisons, any changes in screening and diagnostic criteria are ignored.
As with so many other diseases, we have become much better at finding cancer, and much more aware of the importance of looking for it, in the past 40 or so years. It's quite possible that a number of children who today are diagnosed with cancer would just have been considered 'sickly' 50 years ago.
Good point about epigenetics. This is a new area of interest of mine that was never covered in graduate school. It seems to be a huge factor in our health.
Was graduate school in the 80s this poor quality that they didn't teach you to critically question/analyze the resources used?
You mean you can't trust a paper that's been in circulation since 1855?3 -
This statement from the article:
"Modern life is killing children with the number of youngsters diagnosed with cancer rising 40 per cent in the past 16 years because of air pollution, pesticides, poor diets and radiation, scientists have warned."
I have a problem with this; plus the rise of ADHD and Autism - there's an elephant in the room that no one seems to ever address - and I'm not sure parents would answer honestly anyway:
How many parents of children afflicted with these maladies, used recreational (or heavier) drugs??? How many people have damaged chromosomes from ingesting who-knows-what? How many children are affected by something their parents did in their youth??? I'm not saying that environmental factors aren't a cause - but when generations since the 60's have used various concoctions - NONE of them regulated by any kind of testing - we really have no clue what might be causing our children to be less than 100% healthy.
I have 2 kids with ASD and didn't ingest anything knows what, if you don't mind. Turns out it runs in my family but previous generations"afflicted" with it were left to struggle and led lonely, dysfunctional adult lives.
You just stay in your nice little sceptical bubble where these things don't affect you, though eh?1 -
Common sense. There is more pollution (light, air, magnetic...), more processing of foods, more digital technology... All can contribute to an unhealthy life. Quality sleep, nutrient rich diet and exercise in fresh air is a good start to a healthy life. Now if we can just dodge the magnetic fields, populate the earth less, consume less...0
-
nutmegoreo wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »How many parents of children afflicted with these maladies, used recreational (or heavier) drugs??? How many people have damaged chromosomes from ingesting who-knows-what? How many children are affected by something their parents did in their youth??? I'm not saying that environmental factors aren't a cause - but when generations since the 60's have used various concoctions - NONE of them regulated by any kind of testing - we really have no clue what might be causing our children to be less than 100% healthy.
Not just drug use, there is a HUGE range of environmental factors that cause changes in offspring, not just in the DNA coding but also epigenetically (DNA structure).
Also, as so often happens in these comparisons, any changes in screening and diagnostic criteria are ignored.
As with so many other diseases, we have become much better at finding cancer, and much more aware of the importance of looking for it, in the past 40 or so years. It's quite possible that a number of children who today are diagnosed with cancer would just have been considered 'sickly' 50 years ago.
Good point about epigenetics. This is a new area of interest of mine that was never covered in graduate school. It seems to be a huge factor in our health.
Was graduate school in the 80s this poor quality that they didn't teach you to critically question/analyze the resources used?
You mean you can't trust a paper that's been in circulation since 1855?
I think the drive for revenue tends to lead to sensationalism and journalistic interpretation and extension of studies and findings which are actually beyond the scope of the studies themselves. Along with complicating factors such as changes in screening and diagnostic evaluative criteria and the lack of a peer review process and scrutiny of published works makes these sources less reliable. Of course all studies require some interpretation and there are flaws and bias which influence much of what is studied and published. Age of source is hardly the most reliable criteria on which to base reliability of information. I suspect you know all of this though
3 -
singingflutelady wrote: »You should vet your sources.
Btw cell phones don't cause cancer either
Are you sure?1 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »How many parents of children afflicted with these maladies, used recreational (or heavier) drugs??? How many people have damaged chromosomes from ingesting who-knows-what? How many children are affected by something their parents did in their youth??? I'm not saying that environmental factors aren't a cause - but when generations since the 60's have used various concoctions - NONE of them regulated by any kind of testing - we really have no clue what might be causing our children to be less than 100% healthy.
Not just drug use, there is a HUGE range of environmental factors that cause changes in offspring, not just in the DNA coding but also epigenetically (DNA structure).
Also, as so often happens in these comparisons, any changes in screening and diagnostic criteria are ignored.
As with so many other diseases, we have become much better at finding cancer, and much more aware of the importance of looking for it, in the past 40 or so years. It's quite possible that a number of children who today are diagnosed with cancer would just have been considered 'sickly' 50 years ago.
Good point about epigenetics. This is a new area of interest of mine that was never covered in graduate school. It seems to be a huge factor in our health.
Was graduate school in the 80s this poor quality that they didn't teach you to critically question/analyze the resources used?
You mean you can't trust a paper that's been in circulation since 1855?
I think the drive for revenue tends to lead to sensationalism and journalistic interpretation and extension of studies and findings which are actually beyond the scope of the studies themselves. Along with complicating factors such as changes in screening and diagnostic evaluative criteria and the lack of a peer review process and scrutiny of published works makes these sources less reliable. Of course all studies require some interpretation and there are flaws and bias which influence much of what is studied and published. Age of source is hardly the most reliable criteria on which to base reliability of information. I suspect you know all of this though
1 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »How many parents of children afflicted with these maladies, used recreational (or heavier) drugs??? How many people have damaged chromosomes from ingesting who-knows-what? How many children are affected by something their parents did in their youth??? I'm not saying that environmental factors aren't a cause - but when generations since the 60's have used various concoctions - NONE of them regulated by any kind of testing - we really have no clue what might be causing our children to be less than 100% healthy.
Not just drug use, there is a HUGE range of environmental factors that cause changes in offspring, not just in the DNA coding but also epigenetically (DNA structure).
Also, as so often happens in these comparisons, any changes in screening and diagnostic criteria are ignored.
As with so many other diseases, we have become much better at finding cancer, and much more aware of the importance of looking for it, in the past 40 or so years. It's quite possible that a number of children who today are diagnosed with cancer would just have been considered 'sickly' 50 years ago.
Good point about epigenetics. This is a new area of interest of mine that was never covered in graduate school. It seems to be a huge factor in our health.
Was graduate school in the 80s this poor quality that they didn't teach you to critically question/analyze the resources used?
You mean you can't trust a paper that's been in circulation since 1855?
I think the drive for revenue tends to lead to sensationalism and journalistic interpretation and extension of studies and findings which are actually beyond the scope of the studies themselves. Along with complicating factors such as changes in screening and diagnostic evaluative criteria and the lack of a peer review process and scrutiny of published works makes these sources less reliable. Of course all studies require some interpretation and there are flaws and bias which influence much of what is studied and published. Age of source is hardly the most reliable criteria on which to base reliability of information. I suspect you know all of this though
:laugh: *babysloth* Google translator
Just because it's existed for a long time, doesn't mean it's reliable. In some cases the claims become increasingly extravagant in an attempt to remain relevant (not saying that's the case with this particular publisher, just that it happens).4 -
Or, to address the question another way - the quality of science reporting in UK newspapers is absolutely appalling, even including the "science" columns in some of the allegedly better papers.
A combination of- lack of scientific knowledge
- lack of critical thinking
- lack of critical and sceptical review of the source material and the background and credibility of the 'researcher'
- and pressure (or desire) to generate sensational headlines
The Daily Mail is infamously bad at this, but most of the others aren't much better.2 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »How many parents of children afflicted with these maladies, used recreational (or heavier) drugs??? How many people have damaged chromosomes from ingesting who-knows-what? How many children are affected by something their parents did in their youth??? I'm not saying that environmental factors aren't a cause - but when generations since the 60's have used various concoctions - NONE of them regulated by any kind of testing - we really have no clue what might be causing our children to be less than 100% healthy.
Not just drug use, there is a HUGE range of environmental factors that cause changes in offspring, not just in the DNA coding but also epigenetically (DNA structure).
Also, as so often happens in these comparisons, any changes in screening and diagnostic criteria are ignored.
As with so many other diseases, we have become much better at finding cancer, and much more aware of the importance of looking for it, in the past 40 or so years. It's quite possible that a number of children who today are diagnosed with cancer would just have been considered 'sickly' 50 years ago.
Good point about epigenetics. This is a new area of interest of mine that was never covered in graduate school. It seems to be a huge factor in our health.
Was graduate school in the 80s this poor quality that they didn't teach you to critically question/analyze the resources used?
You mean you can't trust a paper that's been in circulation since 1855?
I think the drive for revenue tends to lead to sensationalism and journalistic interpretation and extension of studies and findings which are actually beyond the scope of the studies themselves. Along with complicating factors such as changes in screening and diagnostic evaluative criteria and the lack of a peer review process and scrutiny of published works makes these sources less reliable. Of course all studies require some interpretation and there are flaws and bias which influence much of what is studied and published. Age of source is hardly the most reliable criteria on which to base reliability of information. I suspect you know all of this though
:laugh: *babysloth* Google translator
Just because it's existed for a long time, doesn't mean it's reliable. In some cases the claims become increasingly extravagant in an attempt to remain relevant (not saying that's the case with this particular publisher, just that it happens).
I know that. It's the Person Who Shall Not Be Named who uses it as a reference to troll people because he found the link while browsing for new troll material that doesn't care.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions