<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Four Riders of the Modern Apocalypse</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.isegoria.net/2012/09/four-riders-of-the-modern-apocalypse/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.isegoria.net/2012/09/four-riders-of-the-modern-apocalypse/</link>
	<description>From the ancient Greek for equality in freedom of speech; an eclectic mix of thoughts, large and small</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2026 21:58:02 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.6.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Boonton</title>
		<link>https://www.isegoria.net/2012/09/four-riders-of-the-modern-apocalypse/comment-page-1/#comment-586948</link>
		<dc:creator>Boonton</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Sep 2012 16:27:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.isegoria.net/?p=30011#comment-586948</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[1.  DDT almost certainly does cause cancer.  The logic presented that it doesn&#039;t because cancer incidence and mortality have fallen over 20 years is highly faulty.  Cancer has many causes, quite a few unknown, so just because cancer incidence might faul during a time period hardly means that a substance used in that period has nothing to do with cancer.   It is possible, though, to reasonably suspect something of causing cancer even if the very expensive and rigerous studies to absolutely prove it have not been done.  For example, substances that cause genetic mutation in cells are highly likely to increase one&#039;s risk of cancer.  

2.  Cancer incidence has not fallen even when you adjust for age.  Look at this &lt;a href=&quot;http://yosemite.epa.gov/ochp/ochpweb.nsf/content/childhood_cancer.htm&quot;&gt;age adjusted graph&lt;/a&gt; of childhood cancer.

While mortality has fallen slightly, incidence has increased.

Likewise &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.elsevierimages.com/image/24397.htm&quot;&gt;this chart&lt;/a&gt; shows common cancer incidence for men and women (again age adjusted).

Except for lung and colon cancer in men, most cancers seem to have seen incidence increase or stay flat.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>1.  DDT almost certainly does cause cancer.  The logic presented that it doesn&#8217;t because cancer incidence and mortality have fallen over 20 years is highly faulty.  Cancer has many causes, quite a few unknown, so just because cancer incidence might faul during a time period hardly means that a substance used in that period has nothing to do with cancer.   It is possible, though, to reasonably suspect something of causing cancer even if the very expensive and rigerous studies to absolutely prove it have not been done.  For example, substances that cause genetic mutation in cells are highly likely to increase one&#8217;s risk of cancer.  </p>
<p>2.  Cancer incidence has not fallen even when you adjust for age.  Look at this <a href="http://yosemite.epa.gov/ochp/ochpweb.nsf/content/childhood_cancer.htm">age adjusted graph</a> of childhood cancer.</p>
<p>While mortality has fallen slightly, incidence has increased.</p>
<p>Likewise <a href="http://www.elsevierimages.com/image/24397.htm">this chart</a> shows common cancer incidence for men and women (again age adjusted).</p>
<p>Except for lung and colon cancer in men, most cancers seem to have seen incidence increase or stay flat.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
