Chance of Cancer for Gentechnology Professionals

  • Thread starter Thread starter indoubt
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Cancer
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the potential cancer risks associated with working in the biotechnology field, particularly with hazardous substances like ethidium bromide (EtBr). Concerns are raised about the increased likelihood of cancer due to constant exposure to synthetic chemicals, especially in light of historical data linking certain products, such as high-estrogen contraceptives and deodorants, to cancer spikes. Participants express anxiety about the safety measures in place when handling these materials, acknowledging that even with precautions, accidents can happen. There's also a viewpoint that the rise in cancer rates may be attributed to longer life expectancies, as cancer is predominantly a disease of older age, suggesting that earlier generations may have died from other causes before cancer could develop. Overall, the conversation highlights the complex relationship between environmental factors, chemical exposure, and cancer incidence over time.
indoubt
Messages
28
Reaction score
0
has any of you thought what is the chance of getting cancer when you constantly work with hazardious components like EtBr in the gentechnology field? :confused: well, it is a little scary that the chance of dying of cancer would be more increased for people in this field. even if we are careful when working with these stuffs, but there is no guarantee for that. so so so...
 
Biology news on Phys.org
my question is did cancer come about once the industrial age was in full force? being that our bodies are constantly submitted to synthetic and artificial chemicals everyday, i would think that definitely raises our chances. for example, i once read that deodarants and oral contraceptives from the 70's (real high dosages of estrogen) were contributed directly to the spike in breast cancer in women.
 
well, it seems like the incident of cancer increased with time, maybe you are right about that...

but again when i work with EtBr etc then sometimes i forget being careful so i usually touch the gel maybe i also will end up with one of these cancers poor me!
 
I've heard it said that the increase in cancer was just due to the population surviving to greater ages. Cancer is very much a disease of old age, except in a genetically threatened minority. Old people in old times certainly did die of cancer, but something else usually got them first.
 
Chagas disease, long considered only a threat abroad, is established in California and the Southern U.S. According to articles in the Los Angeles Times, "Chagas disease, long considered only a threat abroad, is established in California and the Southern U.S.", and "Kissing bugs bring deadly disease to California". LA Times requires a subscription. Related article -...
I am reading Nicholas Wade's book A Troublesome Inheritance. Please let's not make this thread a critique about the merits or demerits of the book. This thread is my attempt to understanding the evidence that Natural Selection in the human genome was recent and regional. On Page 103 of A Troublesome Inheritance, Wade writes the following: "The regional nature of selection was first made evident in a genomewide scan undertaken by Jonathan Pritchard, a population geneticist at the...
Back
Top