Thursday, March 31, 2011

Cancer rates 1900 to 2000 and beyond

I was interested in cancer rates from 1900 until the present and this is part of what I found. I was trying to see if radiation from nuclear weapons and nuclear power plants increased cancer rates but if I am to believe the following rates it had more to do with two other factors. First when people lived longer (past 40 to 60) they got more cancer from living longer. For example, many less people died from senile dementia or Alzheimers before 1950 because most people died before age 60. 2nd it appears increased cancer rates appear to be caused more by processed foods than any other single cause. If I follow this logic fast foods should greatly increase cancers over the next 20 to 50 years as people who have eaten it all their lives get into their 70s to 90s and above. Begin quotes:
100 years of cancer history

from an email I received:

I just read that scientists worldwide will be looking for
genetic mutations (i.e.: DNA "mistakes") associated with

What a waste of time and money. We already have the
answer to 99% of cancer. It's all in what we put in our
mouths, which creates a toxic environment for cancer to
grow and thrive. Simple.

If you doubt what I'm saying, take a quick look at the
last 100 years of US history:

The year 1900: Cancer caused only 3 out 100 deaths in the
US. Breast cancer was basically unheard of.

- Food manufacturers began developing "better living
through chemistry" products like artificial sweeteners
(saccharin), taste additives (MSG), partially hydrogenated
vegetable shortening and margarine.

- Refined white sugar (acid and fat on a spoon) replaced
molasses as the leading sweetener in the American diet.

1911: A grain-milling process was discovered that strips
away the germ and outer layers of wheat grain (where the
nutrients are). The result: Nutrient-poor, acid-creating
white bread and refined white flour.

1921: General Mills invented a character named Betty
Crocker to convince Americans to eat more processed foods
(and increase the company's stock value).

1935: Only one case of cancer had been reported in the
last 50 years by the Inuit (Eskimo) people of Alaska and
Canada. After they began eating processed foods, their
cancer rate exploded until it equaled that of the US by the

1938: From now until 1990, the avera ge male sperm count
will drop by nearly half, and testicular cancer will triple.

1949: After being unheard of 49 years ago, the breast
cancer rate is now 58 out of every 100,000 women.

1950: From now to the year 2000, the overall cancer rate
will go up 55%. (Lung cancer due to smoking is only 1/4 of
that.) Breast and colon cancer will go up 60%, brain
cancer 80% and childhood cancer will increase 20%.

1970: Americans spend $6 billion on fast food. By 2001,
that will skyrocket to $110 billion.

1971: The US Congress declares its "War on Cancer" which
has done virtually nothing to stop the growing rates of
cancer in the US in the next 30+ years.

- The US Department of Agriculture wrote "An Evaluation of
Research in the US on Human Nutrition; Report No. 2,
Benefits From Nutrition Research" which blamed the lack of
nutrients in the American diet for most major health
problems. That report was banned from public view for 21
years, reportedly at the insistence of the processed food

1973: From now to 1991, prostate cancer will go up 126%.

1982: Teenage boys drink twice as much milk as soda. By
2002, they will be drinking twice as much soda as milk.

1990: From now to 2005, over 120,000 new processed foods
will be developed to join the 320,000 processed foods
already on the store shelves.

2000: Cancer is now the cause of 20 out of 100 of all
deaths in the US, compared to just 3 out of 100 in 1900.

2001: Americans spend $110 billion a year on fast food.
Every single day, 1 out of 4 Americans eats at least one
meal in a fast food restaurant.

2005: Breast cancer, which was extremely rare back in
1900 and only affected 58 out of 100,000 women in 1949, now
strikes 1 in 3 women in the US. That means that in just 55
short years, it has gone up 568 times what it was. Scary.
Must be a virus, huh? Or our DNA has changed a lot, huh?
Momma Mia...

History speaks for itself. If you want to be alive into
your golden years and stay pain and disease-free, stay the
hell away from processed foods of any kind. That includes
boxed, bagged, canned or jarred foods, fast food, soda and
bottled sweetened drinks.

Jack La Lanne (who is 93, but looks about 70) has an easy
rule. Here it is: "If man made it, don't eat it."
johnnymk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2008, 05:25 PM   #2
Picture of the Day Guru

zippyjuan's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Sunny San Diego
Posts: 8,756
Some cancers take many years to develop and people in 1900 did not live long enough for some of them to develop. Also cancer was not as easy to diagnose as it is today so many "natural causes" deaths may have in fact been due to cancers.

It is true that we are exposed to many more chemicals which have been linked to cancer than were around in 1900. Life expectancy in 1900 was 50 years. Now it is into the 70's and 80's with many more living to 90's or even 100's.

You should still try to eat as fresh and varied a diet as you can and avoid sodas, coffee, simple sugars, etc and get fresh air and exercise. Despite the report on cancer, people are living longer.
LIFE EXPECTANCY: (1999) In 1900, the life expectancy was 47 years of age. Only one person in 25 had then survived to age 60. Women lived shorter lives due to childbirth.

In the 1990s, the population growth rate for senior males is outstripping that of senior females, according to Census Bureau data. The male population over the age of 65 increased 11% between 1990 and 1996, while the female population increased 7.5%. During the same time period, the number of men in the age group over 85 rose 27 %, compared with 24 % for women. The ratio of women to men in the age group over 85 narrowed from 3.1:1.9 to 3.1:1.95. Women still dominate the population over 65, but the gap is beginning to narrow. In 1990, women accounted for 60 % of the population over 65; by 1996 that share had declined to 59 %, a notable change in a population of this size over this short period. The increasing number of men in the seniors' housing market could affect developers significantly, particularly in the amenities sought. An increased availability of health care for older Americans through the emergence of Medicare is cited as one factor in the increasing longevity of men, as is a decline in cigarette smoking among older males. (Housing the Elderly Report, April 1998)

OLD- AND GETTING OLDER: (1999) World Population: The global average for life expectancy had increased from 45 to 63 years from the1950's. However, 10% of the population is elderly- over 60 years of age. By 2050, it will increase to 20%.

The majority of people 60 and older, 55%, are women.

Among those 80 or older, 65 percent are women. Japanese women now have a life expectancy of 83, highest in the world. Nine million of the 43 million Americans 60 and older live alone and 80% are women.

Striking differences exist between regions with the elderly: one of five Europeans, for example, is 60 or older, compared to one of 20 Africans. By 2020, 46 percent of women 80 and older will live in Asia.

The American Association for Retired Persons said the Internet has been a boon to the elderly, with 47 percent of all online consumers over 50 and seniors more likely to contact family and others in the cyberspace community, thus reducing any feelings of isolation.

WOMEN AND LIFETIME: (1999) Why women live longer: a doctor at Ball State University indicated that "flexibility, resiliency and connections protect women against early death while men are more often wiped out by their own rigidity, aggression and denial of feelings." The life expectancy for men is now 72 years of age while women live in average of 78.8 years. Men smoke more cigarettes and consume more alcohol. They are three times is likely as women to die from accidents and four times more likely to be homicide victims. And as I a stated previously, white men have the higher suicide rates in the country once they get older than age 65. Many of these men have been insulated from the real world due to their positions of power in a corporation. However, once they retire, there entire powerbase may be gone (if there really ever was one). And they cannot boss their wives around since they have tended to develop more independency as they have gotten older.

In 1900, life expectancy for men was 49.7 years and for women 50.9 years. But by the middle of the century, men could now be expected to live to 65.6 years of age and 71.7 years for women. The increase for women, according to Dr. Crose, was due to women getting into holistic health and balancing their lives while men stayed in the "same old macho" roles. She also noted that while women do suffer more ailments and depression earlier in life, they use such adversity's to build into strength that they use later in life. A most interesting comment was the fact that women tend to be interested in more things and have a variety of emotions where men tend to express only two emotions: they are either fine or mad.

Gail Sheehy also commented about the difficulties of men as they get older. While men chuckle about menopause for women, it appears that men are "much more uncertain about the threat of aging than women. And the basis seems to be the threat of losing their potency in all the areas of their lives."

She noted that men should take a long vacation to review their lives and what they would like to change in the second half of life.

LONGEVITY: (Met Life 1999) "In 1997 life expectancy for all persons combined rose to a new record high of 76.4 years. Additionally, average future lifetime for newborn girls and boys also established new peaks-79.3 years and 73.4 years, respectively. For girls the 1997 value surpassed the previous high of 79.1 years recorded in 1992 and 1996 while for boys new peaks have been consecutively recorded since 1994. Last year's longevity enhancements among men were larger than those for women-continuing the trend of the past few years.

Newborn girls could still anticipate living 5.9 years longer than boys-the gap was 6.0 years in 1996 and 7.0 years in 1989-91. Current projections indicate that the disparity between the genders in average future lifetime may decline to 4.6 years by the year 2050. Also worthy of note is the apparent narrowing of the gap in longevity by race. In 1996 newborn white boys could expect to outlive nonwhite newborn boys by 5.0 years compared with 5.7 years in 1989-91; among girls the disparity diminished from 4.1 years in 1989-91 to 3.6 years in 1996."

LIVING LONGER- (1999) In ancient Greece, for example, life expectancy at birth was 20. When the Declaration of Independence was signed, life expectancy was still just 23; the median age was 16. Even as recently as 1900, most Americans died by age 47. In 1870, only 2.5% of all Americans made it to age 65. By 1990, that percentage had increased five-fold to 12.7%. Today, 31 million people are over 65 -- and the figures continue to grow, bolstered by advances in medicine and


Anonymous said...

This is a very concise way of showing how processed food is at the root of many cancers. Some might argue that if it really was the case then 'surely the government would do something'. Well, they are. They're bending over to food company lobbyists, allowing anything to go into 'food' and now taking it a stage further, making it illegal to grow your own (see USA & soon NZ).

Anonymous said...

This certainly does an excellent job of pointing out the fact that the cancer rate exploded over the last 100 years but makes a somewhat lesser assumption that it must be caused by "processed" food while completely dismissing or ignoring the fact that this same time frame also saw the birth of the Nuclear Age and throughout these years people were exposed to large amounts of radiation without any regard to safety for which we are still paying the price today and will continue to do so for generations to come! The huge increase in the rate of cancer and other such genetic deformities can be attributed to the long-term effects of radiation which directly correlates to this same time frame.

It wasn't until 1946 that scientists even figured out that radiation causes mutations and genetic damage. So for the first 50-years people stood in front of open x-ray machines and drank radioactive solutions without any regard for health or the environment. There were even machines in shoe stores that measured your shoe size using x-rays. And it took another 2-decades before the government faced up to this fact by finally banning atmospheric testing in 1963. Plus where all this radioactive waste was dumped over all these years is anyone's guess?

Accordingly, most food grown today still contains small amounts of radioactive fallout some more than others which certainly means you are what you eat as food is the vehicle through which all deadly toxic compounds are transmitted and accumulate in the body. If someone accepts the presence of "pesticides" in the food supply then they also must include radioactive fallout from the decades of weapons tests which is everywhere and only increased by meltdowns such as Chernobyl and Fukushima all of which still persists to this day in the air, water and soil around the planet. So next time you eat that hamburger, you also need to account for how many "Sunshine units" it contains!

Anonymous said...

One of the biggest changes from 1900 to present is the ingestion of sugar and refined carbohydrate. A drastic change in diet occurred in the 20th century, spurred by government dietary guidelines.

Sherry said...

In the late 50's to the early 60's the Unites States and Russia participated in high altitude nuclear detonations.

Sherry said...

In the late 50s to early 60s the United States and Russia participated in high altitude nuclear detonation.

Joe Neubarth said...

I have looked and looked and can not find any scientific research that proves that processed foods cause cancer. IF you know of such a study, please post it. Years ago I asked the ACS to show me where there were studies that proved that Chemicals cause cancer in the absence of background radiation. They told me that was impossible. There was no study ever done like that. So, I believe that most cancers are caused by radiation.

intuitivefred888 said...

One of the things I have read about a lot is the Character of Betty Crocker was used first to sell people on products using White Flour. White flour has all the natural food value mostly refined right out of it. So, it was sort of like selling candy to babies at first with no real food value at all. I firmly believe if someone wanted to they could grind up cardboard, add sugar and maybe salt call it "heaven" or something and make a fortune which is really sad because it would be sort of like right now when bakeries add Sawdust as filler to breads or plastic to some cheeses for filler. So, why not just take dirt and add sugar after powdering it and sell it to people? Whether it causes cancer or not there is no real food value to any of it. To me this is the real point of all this.

intuitivefred888 said...

So, if people are callous enough to sell non-foods to people as foods then if it did cause cancer why is anyone at all surprised?

Anonymous said...

Some viruses cause cancer. The simian vacuolating virus 40 or simian virus 40 from the polio vaccine which causes brain, bones and other cancers.

Joe Neubarth said...

I was looking at the data on obesity and Cancer. Obesity does not cause an increase in cancer even though the American Cancer Society says it does. There is a direct correlation between increased body mass and the propensity to get certain cancers, but that correlation is there only because of the increase in the body itself. In other words, if there is MORE OF YOU there are more radioactive rays that strike your body and can cause cancer. The more strikes by radiation them chances of cancer.

Arjunane Denature said...

I read few articles on this site and I think that your web blog is real interesting and Power to the People of excellent information.

Ben Gillott said...

Life expectancy of acient Greeks was 20, really? I think you'll find both historical facts and common sense would disagree.
Alexander the Great was considered to have died very young at just 33 years old. Also if most adults died around 20 how would they have ever finished building Athens? By the time someone may have a child at say 16 the parents would be dead at 20 leaving the 4 year old or younger kids to look after themselves.
From this, I'm not sure ANY of your figures here can be trusted.

Anonymous said...

I am not an expert of any sorts I'm studying for my BCOM but I do try to apply logic to stuff, I only skimmed the article but a fact popped out about growth rates in men over 65, this is more likely because the population hitting 65 now didn't fight in the world wars. This would mangle statistics.