Obama to be told dirt is cancerous

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Pengwuino
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the potential health risks associated with environmental factors contributing to cancer, specifically focusing on radon exposure and the implications of cell phone usage. Participants explore the scientific consensus on these issues, the relevance of sources, and the impact of medical imaging on cancer risk.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that while lifestyle choices contribute significantly to cancer cases, pollution and medical imaging also play a role, with one member highlighting that the burden of environmentally induced cancer may be underestimated.
  • Concerns are raised about the risks of cell phone usage, with some participants labeling these concerns as "crackpottery" and questioning the validity of the claims made by a two-person panel advising caution.
  • Questions are posed regarding the nature of radon contamination, with one participant clarifying that radon is a natural gas produced from uranium decay, while also discussing the man-made aspects of housing that exacerbate exposure risks.
  • There is a discussion about the prudence of scaring the public regarding medical procedures involving radiation exposure, particularly in children, with calls for more careful consideration of the risks associated with such imaging techniques.
  • Another participant emphasizes the distinction between radon as a cancer-causing agent and the broader implications of "dirt" causing cancer, arguing that radon is a gas and not typically classified as a component of dirt.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the validity of the claims regarding cell phones and cancer, with some dismissing them as unfounded while others seek more information. The discussion on radon exposure appears to have more clarity, but there is still contention regarding the implications of its presence in homes and the risks of medical imaging.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the need for clarity in the discussion, particularly regarding the sources of information and the scientific consensus on the issues raised. There is an acknowledgment of the complexity surrounding the risks associated with both radon and medical imaging.

Pengwuino
Gold Member
Messages
5,112
Reaction score
20
Although as many as two-thirds of cancer cases are caused by lifestyle choices like smoking, poor diet and lack of exercise, the panel said many avoidable cancers were also caused by pollution, radon from the soil and medical imaging scans.

Since so little is known about the possible risks of cell phones, people would be prudent to wear headsets and make calls quickly, the two members of the panel advised.

..."For example, its conclusion that 'the true burden of environmentally (pollution) induced cancer has been grossly underestimated' does not represent scientific consensus. Rather, it reflects one side of a scientific debate that has continued for almost 30 years."

A new way of viewing the cancer debate or ... crackpottery?
 
Biology news on Phys.org
Source?
 
I'm not really clear on what your question is. The title of the thread refers to radon, which is a quite mainstream issue. The cell phone thing is crackpottery combined with a misunderstanding of the concept of risk analysis.

Neither of these issues is "new" and I'm not sure what debate you are referring to.

And the source most certainly is relevant. Not just so we know who'se words we're reading but also so we can read the rest of the article and get more context and explanations. Your OP was so vague it is tough to know what the heck you're talking about without reading the article!
 
Last edited:
russ_watters said:
And the source most certainly is relevant. Not just so we know who'se words we're reading but also so we can read the rest of the article and get more context and explanations. Your OP was so vague it is tough to know what the heck you're talking about without reading the article!

I was joking around :biggrin: . I certainly am interested in seeing what peoples opinions are on this though. A two person panel that reports directly to the President who seem to believe that cell phones cause cancer? What exactly is the science behind radon contamination in soil? That is, is it naturally occurring or is it man-made? Is it prudent to scare people into thinking twice about getting medical procedures that require some form of exposure to radiation? Sounds a little over the top to me...
 
Pengwuino said:
What exactly is the science behind radon contamination in soil? That is, is it naturally occurring or is it man-made?
Uranium makes Radon, Radon is a particularly effective way of causing lung cancer.
The source is natural.
The problem - people living in airtight boxes built on granite - is man made.
The solution is also easy, fitting a $10 ventilation fan in your basement is a lot more cost effective than campaigns to ban second hand smoke that give you 1:30,000 increased chance of lung cancer.

Is it prudent to scare people into thinking twice about getting medical procedures that require some form of exposure to radiation? Sounds a little over the top to me...
Doctors need to start thinking about the risk of CAT scans (equal to 200-300 regular x-rays) before automatically ordering them just as a CYA exercise or because the insurance is paying for them.
Especially in children, ordering a head CT for every kid that fell off a skateboard 'just in case' isn't risk free.
 
Last edited:
It's important to note that radon is a gas produced from the decay of naturally occurring uranium. So, while it comes from soil, it is not typically thought of as a component of dirt. So, saying radon causes cancer (which it does) is not the same as saying dirt causes cancer.

Because radon is a radioactive gas, it is particularly effective at causing lung cancer.