Sign in to follow this  
Shado

Cancer in Canada !! - Reason Why

Recommended Posts

Shado

I'm new here in Canada and the biggest shock I got so far is the amount of Cancer deaths in Canada. Every month I hear about few more cancer deaths. 

I thought the air is good here, not sure about the water (as I'm in Nova Scotia) and I heard the water has lot of metal. Is it true?

So I keep asking Canadian friends around the reason why there are lot of Cancer here. I didn't get any clear reason why. Nobody knows why really. Because I heard about a cancer death where they used only Organic food, always from their farm etc. Still they got cancer. So is it really food, water, air, sun or something else? Just curious to know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
corwes

What are the stats or is it a , remember the hits and forget the misses?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shado
12 minutes ago, corwes said:

What are the stats or is it a , remember the hits and forget the misses?

 

If you just Google "leading cause of death in Canada" you will get the statistics.

Here are few links

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/82-625-x/2014001/article/11896-eng.htm

As per this below 2 out of 5 will develop Cancer

https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/corporate/publications/chief-public-health-officer-reports-state-public-health-canada/2016-health-status-canadians/page-16-how-are-we-unhealthy-cancer.html

Are we ignorant of these?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
corwes

Canada is up there with the other developed countries, but by far not the worst. The causes are, smoking , diet , lifestyle and genetics, same as the rest.

Canada is now highly anti smoking but it was not always that way.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health-and-fitness/health/five-maps-that-put-cancers-global-spread-into-focus/article16679285/

So my point is , it is not the geographical location of Canada that put you at risk but lifestyle.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shado

The above list of cancer cases I heard of locally here, all of them are non-smokers. So I was wondering what else could be the reason. As few people who claimed to be on organic diet also got. 

No body told me about water, until I met a doctor here, who pointed out that water in NS has lot of metal, which is bad for cancer. Any other reason that one can think of?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lizelle
Posted (edited)

Ah, the joys of statistics.  Never believe statistics.  There is a saying - "There are lies, damned lies and statistics" :) 

Here is the balance to that report:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/second-opinion-june-24-1.4174913

Canada by no means deserves their clean and green image.  They spray herbicides and fungicides in the forest, for crying out loud.  Plus, if the dandelions in Halifax are anywhere as pervasive as in Alberta, people are spraying glyphosate on most of their lawns (the easiest way to get rid of weeds is actually to change the soil biology from bacterial dominated to fungal dominated - then the weeds will die all by themselves, since they are not getting any of their preferred form of Nitrogen)

I think some places you need to be careful with the water.  I know a friend of mine lived in Yellowknife for a few years, and apparently there is some metal in the water there too.  

When you read through this report - https://www.townofyarmouth.ca/208-englobe-groundwater-and-surface-water-quality-report-1/file.html - is says (on page 13):

"In general, elevated aluminium, iron and manganese concentrations are natural in groundwater and surface water in Nova Scotia as a result of our natural soil and geology..."

 

The Maritimes (exluding PEI - which is the sixth highest) have the highest rate of cancer in the country: (https://www.msn.com/en-ca/health/medical/the-canadian-provinces-with-the-highest-rate-of-cancer/ss-BBso0Vw#image=14)

Newfoundland and Labrador - Estimated new cancer rate: 435.8 per 100,000 (highest risk in the country) Estimated cancer deaths: 180.9 per 100,000 

New Brunswick - Estimated new cancer rate: 426.6 per 100,000 (second highest) Estimated cancer deaths: 150.2 per 100,000 

Nova Scotia - Estimated new cancer rate: 420.6 per 100,000 (third highest) Estimated cancer deaths: 168.5 per 100,000 

By contrast:

Yukon - Estimated new cancer rate: 340.1 per 100,000 people (lowest risk) Estimated cancer deaths: 237.4 per 100,000 people

Alberta - Estimated new cancer rate: 365.7 per 100,000 (second lowest) Estimated cancer deaths: 139.4 per 100,000 

 

There you see the interesting bit about statistics again.  Although Yukon has the lowest new cancer rate, they have the second biggest chance of dying if they get cancer (only Nunavut is higher).  I will hazard a guess that the quality of care that you get is lower.

If you are worried about the water, get a filter that will filter out heavy metals (next time I am buying a water filter, it will be one of these - https://www.berkeyfilters.com)

 

Edited by Lizelle
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lizelle

Plus, I think the push for earlier and earlier screenings have skewed our perception and data on cancer.

Many cancers are extremely slow growing, and, had you not detected it, you would've died from something else with it never having bothered you (can't for the life of me remember the reference now).

So, now we screen you, you detect this teeny cancerous growth.  We cut it out, and then blast you with either radiation or chemotherapy to be sure that we killed all the cancerous cells.  Only problem is, the treatments themselves are carcinogenic.  

So, some random cell in you leg now turns cancerous because of the treatment for the previous cancer that was not bothering you at all.  You go through treatment but die from cancer anyway.  Had you not detected the first cancer you would've died from something else entirely.  Yet, you are listed as a cancer statistic (twice, probably)

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
corwes

Only two things in life are certain , you are going to pay taxes and you are going to die.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shado
2 hours ago, Lizelle said:

Ah, they joys of statistics.  Never believe statistics.  There is a saying - "There are lies, damned lies and statistics" :) 

Here is the balance to that report:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/second-opinion-june-24-1.4174913

Canada by no means deserves their clean and green image.  They spray herbicides and fungicides in the forest, for crying out loud.  Plus, if the dandelions in Halifax are anywhere as pervasive as in Alberta, people are spraying glyphosate on most of their lawns (the easiest way to get rid of weeds is actually to change the soil biology from bacterial dominated to fungal dominated - then the weeds will die all by themselves, since they are not getting any of their preferred form of Nitrogen)

I think some places you need to be careful with the water.  I know a friend of mine lived in Yellowknife for a few years, and apparently there is some metal in the water there too.  

When you read through this report - https://www.townofyarmouth.ca/208-englobe-groundwater-and-surface-water-quality-report-1/file.html - is says (on page 13):

"In general, elevated aluminium, iron and manganese concentrations are natural in groundwater and surface water in Nova Scotia as a result of our natural soil and geology..."

 

The Maritimes (exluding PEI - which is the sixth highest) have the highest rate of cancer in the country: (https://www.msn.com/en-ca/health/medical/the-canadian-provinces-with-the-highest-rate-of-cancer/ss-BBso0Vw#image=14)

Newfoundland and Labrador - Estimated new cancer rate: 435.8 per 100,000 (highest risk in the country) Estimated cancer deaths: 180.9 per 100,000 

New Brunswick - Estimated new cancer rate: 426.6 per 100,000 (second highest) Estimated cancer deaths: 150.2 per 100,000 

Nova Scotia - Estimated new cancer rate: 420.6 per 100,000 (third highest) Estimated cancer deaths: 168.5 per 100,000 

By contrast:

Yukon - Estimated new cancer rate: 340.1 per 100,000 people (lowest risk) Estimated cancer deaths: 237.4 per 100,000 people

Alberta - Estimated new cancer rate: 365.7 per 100,000 (second lowest) Estimated cancer deaths: 139.4 per 100,000 

 

There you see the interesting bit about statistics again.  Although Yukon has the lowest new cancer rate, they have the second biggest chance of dying if they get cancer (only Nunavut is higher).  I will hazard a guess that the quality of care that you get is lower.

If you are worried about the water, get a filter that will filter out heavy metals (next time I am buying a water filter, it will be one of these - https://www.berkeyfilters.com)

 

Good info. Thank you. I ordered Aquasana which is highly rated water filter in N. America. Not because I'm scared of metal. Just because I was so used to the taste of RO water filter in Africa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
elcycad

You've got to take stats with a pinch of common salt....lol.

canada is a first world country where stats are more than likely to be recorded and published more accurately than a developing nation like SA. This in turn might contribute to the perception that cancer is more prevalent in this country than developing nations. Think about all the people in developing nations that does not embrace western medicine so readily. They might be dying of cancer but no one ever knows this because they are too afraid to travel to urban communities where treatment is available. Furthermore, when they do decide to go in for treatment, they might be too advanced for timely intervention. This scenario also applies to urbanites that fear the worst of a cancer diagnosis. They stay away from centres of treatment and recording out of fear. 

Everthing in moderation is my personal mantra.

Additionally  , not all cancers are slow growing, and Low level radiation ( like the suns rays, or diagnostic X-rays) which can most likely be implicated as carcinogenic might do more damage than the powerful megavoltage beams associated with cancer treatment. 

In a block of tissue that's irradiated by high mega voltage ( millions of volts)  , all cells in said block will be killed. Healthy and unhealthy. The difference between heathy cells is that being healthy, they retain the memory to repair. Whereas diseased cells do not and as such they will not regerate.

In lower levels of radiation, such as kilo voltage( thousands of volts) and lower, the radiation will be caught in the cells DNA therefore interfering with the helix and causing it to mutate and become cancerous in certain instances. With this said, it's the lower levels of radiation not associated with the mega voltage treatment range that's more the culprits in cancer genesis. Yes, mega voltage treatments have been implicated in cancer genesis especially when the patient was treated at a young age and has grown up to be unfortunate enough to have a second primary disease directly or indirectly attributable to the treatment or the recipient of a metasases 

cancer is a multifactorial disease with no single causality.  There's just so many factors to consider , viral, hereditary, lifefesyle , diet, iatrogenitic, trauma, unknown....the list goes on. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jules

Cancer cause can be genetic and / or environmental (non genetic). If you inherit bad DNA and you eat and live clean you can still get cancer. Having said that, most of us don't have that risk. Most cancer cases are caused by diet and lifestyle.  

I follow a vegan diet 95% of the time - I eat one single small meat portion per week. The rest of the time I eat vegan. And I try to avoid processed food, sugar and GMO crop foods. The North American diet is filled with highly processed foods, cheap sugar, animal fat (laced with artificial growth hormone and meds), dairy (also laced with hormones) and GMO crop food. 

It's no coincidence that North America has ridiculous rates of cancer, heart disease for adults and various behavioural disorders with children. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shado
4 hours ago, Jules said:

Cancer cause can be genetic and / or environmental (non genetic). If you inherit bad DNA and you eat and live clean you can still get cancer. Having said that, most of us don't have that risk. Most cancer cases are caused by diet and lifestyle.  

I follow a vegan diet 95% of the time - I eat one single small meat portion per week. The rest of the time I eat vegan. And I try to avoid processed food, sugar and GMO crop foods. The North American diet is filled with highly processed foods, cheap sugar, animal fat (laced with artificial growth hormone and meds), dairy (also laced with hormones) and GMO crop food. 

It's no coincidence that North America has ridiculous rates of cancer, heart disease for adults and various behavioural disorders with children. 

Do you do vegan diet because it's safer than healthy meat (chicken and fish)? Why I'm asking is what we get in store are sprayed with chemicals and GMOs right? Is it any better than meat?

Agree with the processed food etc. And also I noticed there is lot of allergies among children in N. America.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jules

I eat primarily vegan because there is *some* evidence that there is a close causal relationship with all animal proteins and cancer. Dairy being the biggest culprit. Adult mammals are not designed to consume milk. Humans have a knack for continuing to consume milk decades after being weaned. And also sourcing the milk from another species. More and more people are connecting the link between dairy and cancer. So I avoid it - I consume dairy once or twice a year. 

Meat (especially high heat cooked like fried, roasted and grilled) is clearly linked with cancer and it is also linked to heart disease and other nasty things. So I significantly restrict my meat consumption. 

As for GMO fruit, veg and grains: yes it's bad for you and one should try to find the non-GMO variety but it is difficult. One can only do so much and its near impossible (and ridiculously expensive) to eat 100% healthy but I try my best. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shado

Good info and thank you.

Just wondering why meat is cancerous if cooked in high heat? Any idea? Is overcooked meat bad too? Because I always over cook OR pressure cook (quick), as I like the meat soft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lizelle

It is important to look at how the study was done, and what was done.  Plenty of these studies follow people around for 20 years.  Once a year they send people a survey and ask them about the food.  Now, quick, tell me how much (in g) meat you ate last week?  Now try to extrapolate that over a year.  They are notoriously unreliable.

Plus, meat is all meat - whether is is a McDonalds burger or a sausage with loads of crap in it, or a grass-fed piece of steak.  

This is the person I go to for properly researched info: https://deniseminger.com/2014/03/09/new-animal-protein-study/ (that is the post about the "animal protein is bad" studies)

She also did a great critique of the "China Study"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nettie
On 22/08/2017 at 8:50 AM, Shado said:

I'm new here in Canada and the biggest shock I got so far is the amount of Cancer deaths in Canada. Every month I hear about few more cancer deaths. 

I thought the air is good here, not sure about the water (as I'm in Nova Scotia) and I heard the water has lot of metal. Is it true?

So I keep asking Canadian friends around the reason why there are lot of Cancer here. I didn't get any clear reason why. Nobody knows why really. Because I heard about a cancer death where they used only Organic food, always from their farm etc. Still they got cancer. So is it really food, water, air, sun or something else? Just curious to know.

As the population grows older, there will be more evidence of chronic illnesses and also cancer.

I have also noticed that there's a lot of focus on cancer research, treatment programs etc etc in the news. I think they have nothing else to talk about, frankly. I am not concerned.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
elcycad

I fully agree with Lizelle and Nettie posts. Studies can be and are  manipulated to best suit the needs of the sponsor. On a documentary which I watched last night on TVO called , " cholesterol, the great bluff" it was interesting to note the outcomes of studies are 5x more likely to favour the sponsor.

The " China study" is another example of how studies can be manipulated. I'm glad you mentioned that Lizelle.

Vitamins is another thing that I refuse to " buy into" ....but again. That's my personal mantra. Not to mention how much money I save...hehe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
corwes

The China study however say that people should be more concerned about nutrition than pesticides or shall we ignore that one because it is statistics and statistics is unreliable. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
elcycad

Hehe...

There are 4 chickens and you and I are locked in a room together for a day. After all 4 chickens have been consumed, they'll conclude that I ate 50% and you ate 50%. What they won't know is you ate all 4.

.....lol

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
corwes

Yes, but only if it was hormone and antibiotic free chickens.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
elcycad

Hehe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this