Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Are we born to die young

  1. Nov 1, 2015 #1

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 1, 2015 #2

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

  4. Nov 1, 2015 #3

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    A quick search came up with this list of chemicals used in food.
    http://phys.org/news/2010-01-chemical-additives-food.html

    This just one on the list.

    BHA (BUTYLATED HYDROXYANISOLE) AND BHT (BUTYLATED HYDROXYTOLUENE)

    These antioxidants are similar but non-identical petroleum-derived chemicals added to oil-containing foods as a preservative and to delay rancidity. They are most commonly found in crackers, cereals, sausages, dried meats and other foods with added fats. The World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer considers BHA a possible human carcinogen



    Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2010-01-chemical-additives-food.html#jCp

    Now i can not even eat cereal.:mad:
     
  5. Nov 1, 2015 #4

    DaveC426913

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Is it? Or are we just eradicating all the things that used to kill us younger?

    Something has to kill us.
     
  6. Nov 1, 2015 #5

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    What things are you alluding to Dave?
     
  7. Nov 1, 2015 #6

    DaveC426913

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Well, mostly disease and infection, but also malnutrition, famine, exposure, childbirth, etc.

    As we lower the rates at which people die of specific things, we live longer and longer. Much longer than our DNA is evolved to handle. What's left is cancer.

    Think of a line of production cars over years that keeps getting improved everytime they find something wrong. Engines seizing? Improve engine maintenance. Axles breaking? Thicker axles.
    Eventually, cars will last longer and longer until there's something we just can't easily fix.

    "Chassis rusting out is on the rise!" they cry.
    Well, true, but only because cars are not breaking down due to seized engines or broken axles. All cars would have eventually stopped working if they lasted long enough, but they didn't last that long. That does not mean that rusting chassis are an recent epidemic.
     
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2015
  8. Nov 1, 2015 #7

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I agree that many life limiting causes are being eradicated, but why add others that take there place.,
     
  9. Nov 1, 2015 #8

    DaveC426913

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    They're not being added, they were always there.

    Every car had a chassis that was rusting slowly. It's just that most cars stopped working before that chassis rusted out. That doesn't mean rusting chassis are new.

    This is an never-ending cycle. 10 years ago, the thing that was killing us was sun exposure, we fixed that with sun block education. We live fractionally longer as a race.
     
  10. Nov 1, 2015 #9

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I think BHA (BUTYLATED HYDROXYANISOLE) AND BHT (BUTYLATED HYDROXYTOLUENE) was not there all the time along with many others. Dave.
     
  11. Nov 1, 2015 #10

    DaveC426913

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    :shrug:
    Neither were many toxins, such as automobile emissions, volatile plastics and chemicalized paints.

    Perhaps I am off-topic. Your opening post and title seem to be about dying young and cancer, it seems different than what you're talking about now - which seems to be about new chemicals.
     
  12. Nov 1, 2015 #11

    Jonathan Scott

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    This recent fuss about bacon etc. is very unhelpful. I've heard many times over the years that nitrates and nitrites can undergo reactions which form nitrosamines, which have been known to be carcinogenic for tens of years. The relevant reactions are promoted by very high heat but inhibited by vitamin C (which is now normally added along with the nitrates), and it seems that they probably occur only in the presence of certain "precursor" chemicals.

    As many vegetables contain just as much nitrates and nitrites, it seems that the main difference with bacon and similar is the cooking temperature. There is apparently a mild but statistically significant correlation between consumption of processed meats and colorectal cancer, which is the basis of the new WHO status as "carcinogenic" for processed meats. However, this isn't necessarily a causal link, and even if there is such a link it may well be that the presence of the "precursor" chemicals is more relevant than the consumption of processed meats, but statistics are not available for that.

    I am not an expert on the above, most of which was obtain from older news reports and recent Googling, but I'm hoping I don't need to be. I don't eat much bacon anyway, and I'm not keen on salty food, but I do like the odd ham sandwich.
     
  13. Nov 1, 2015 #12

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    May be you have a good analogy Dave, the rusting chassis is the body dying of cancer, it is just that the chassis is rusting prematurely.
     
  14. Nov 1, 2015 #13
    That anyway ultimate the death rate is 100%?
     
  15. Nov 1, 2015 #14
    I think this is the right answer.

    Because of food preservation and production enhancements, we are no longer dying as often of starvation and food poisoning.

    Increasing average life spans always means encountering new ailments that will be harder to solve.
     
  16. Nov 1, 2015 #15
    I was googling around recently after I read the new condemnation of bacon and ran into a whole separate justification for it, which is it's fat content. Dioxins(so called) accumulate in fat, and are carcinogenic. There have been incidents where pigs (and other animals) have been fed dioxin contaminated feed, and that concentration gets passed right into the person who eats the animal. It's advised to limit yourself to lean meat.
     
  17. Nov 1, 2015 #16
    The FDA has always been slow to act on proven dangers in food ingredients. The recent FDA ban on trans fats is a good example. Based on the scientific evidence ,the ban should have happened over twenty years ago.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ost-important-change-in-our-food-supply-ever/
     
  18. Nov 1, 2015 #17
    Zoobyshoe: What goes into animal food is sickening. For instance Beef cattle feed is allowed to have 20% chicken manure in it.

    http://extension.missouri.edu/p/G2077
     
  19. Nov 1, 2015 #18

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    But it isn't: life expectancies continue to rise.
    [edit]
    Indeed, the rate of increase should increase over the next few decades as smoker rates drop and lung cancer/emphysema rates drop.
     
  20. Nov 1, 2015 #19

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

  21. Nov 1, 2015 #20
    In general the poor have always got the short end of the stick. Poor food, poor living conditions, poor health care. more stress less choices, the worst life has to offer. What may be the playing field leveler is genetics since some people rich or poor live significantly longer than the the average. But life span is limited in any event because DNA is continually be degraded by replication errors eventually leaving the organism non viable.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Are we born to die young
  1. Odds of dying (Replies: 46)

  2. Death's died! (Replies: 11)

  3. The bees are dying! (Replies: 1)

  4. Born believer (Replies: 18)

Loading...