Leukaemia linked to affluence

Thank you for the link, HumptyDumpty, it's very interesting. We lived in Thurso for a few years, forty years ago. I had a friend there who was born and bred near Seascale. She moved to Thurso later and subsequently died of leukaemia, though she was slightly older than the group mentioned. A child in my son's school class died of leukaemia within two weeks of it being diagnosed during that time, too. Only anecdotal, of course, but it makes you wonder.

There are other environmental factors such as famine which can switch on or off genes, before baby is even born.
www.nytimes.com/2018/01/31/science/dutch-famine-genes.html
It’s very complex but any research which helps understanding of disease is welcome.

A lot of scientists have also expressed the view that people are supposed to eat soil and by not doing so are missing out on vital microbes that we need.

Not big chunks of it but traces of soil on our food. Supermarket veg is bleached so the soil microbes never make it to our gut and the inorganic soil particles may also have had a role similar to fibre in our digestive systems.

janeainsworth summarizes the article well. It adds to the increasing evidence that too much hygiene in early life can increase risk of various medical conditions.

Some of the ads on TV are scaring people into thinking that surfaces like high chair trays need to be treated with antibacterial wipes or sprays. The aim is to sell more of these products.

Twins are not genetically identical.

The genes you start off with can be turned on or turned off by environmental factors including in utero, so by the time identical twins are born they are already no longer genetically identical. Variations in the womb including variations in how much nutrition each twin gets can alter the DNA.

Your environment, diet etc changes your genes.

Genetics loads the gun. Environment pulls the trigger.

I personally know of identical twins...pure genetic copies of each other, one of whom went blind due to inherited gene and the other, who carried the same gene, who has never had a problem with his eyes.
That's very interesting, Anja

Baby is eventually exposed to infection, but its unprimed immune system responds in an atypical way, triggering chronic inflammation.
Another theory is that all types, including that in adults, could be caused by a virus.

Surely all honourable research that helps to unlock the puzzle should be welcomed and not thought to be useless because it is more comfortable to accept an external cause, ie nuclear, that parents cannot control.

My thoughts are along the lines of there still being a link to an outside factor, eg nuclear, but that the parents themselves may have been subject to potential nuclear fall-out or other factors which may not affect either of them directly but could cause a mutation which would then cause a gene mutation at conception or in the womb.

Unless would-be parents are tested before conceiving a child, we won't know the answer to that.

It is a well-established fact that children, grandchildren and possibly great-grandchildren of veterans of the Christmas Island nuclear tests have been affected in some way - the proportion of birth defects is approximately 39% compared to 2.5% for the general population.
Unlike other countries, governments have consistently refused to give the 3,000 nuclear veterans and their families any compensation, or even any special recognition.
Indeed, the MoD has spent more than £4 million blocking legal claims brought by hundreds of nuclear veterans and their families.

These problems caused by nuclear fall-out have been passed down through the generations.

gonegirl if you read the article carefully, you’ll see that the sequence of events is
1. Mutation of a particular gene in the womb.
2. Baby not exposed to as many infective agents as in the past, for a variety of reasons, including super-clean homes. .
3. This results in the immune system not being properly triggered or primed.
4. Baby is eventually exposed to infection, but its unprimed immune system responds in an atypical way, triggering chronic inflammation.
5. The chronic inflammation releases cytokines into the bloodstream.
6. The cytokines can/may trigger a second mutation, which results in leukaemia.

Hope that helps.

HumptyDumpty Thanks for the link - very informative.

No extreme response here PECS. My reference to banning products was tongue in cheek.

janeA it says the initial accident takes place in the womb and then, if the immune system is not triggered by AN (just one apparently) infection in the first year of life, the child may go on to develop leukaemia. My point is most babies get some sort of infection before they are one. Mine did, anyway. Bit of a cough and a sniffle.The use of anti bac products has nothing to do with it.

I am sure there are many different triggers to the many different types of cancers. This particular research is looking at one type of cancer that had increased in some areas but not in others.
Surely all honourable research that helps to unlock the puzzle should be welcomed and not thought to be useless because it is more comfortable to accept an external cause, ie nuclear, that parents cannot control. I too believe that nuclear waste etc. is a contributor to the cause of some cancers. I am open to the idea of there being other causes too.

See

www.nature.com/articles/6605982

"Childhood leukaemia, nuclear sites, and population mixing"

Why is there always an extreme response to things!
No need to ban anything..I used Milton /Dettol solution to wipe surfaces when my DDs were little..changing mat, high chair etc. BUT not every 2 minutes! It took more effort rather than pulling an anti bac-wipe or using a ready mix spray..so it happened as part of a daily clean not each time a bit of food dripped! Also neighbours kids all came round and they all dribbled and snotted on each other and the toys which they all then sucked! I do not remember soaking toys in anti bac!

I thought the nuclear power station/leukaemia link was considered to be due to the power stations being located in remote areas. Local children had not previously been exposed to many bugs but the influx of new people to build and work at the power station brought in new germs which may have been implicated.

I don't understand why the second incident that triggers the disease is caused by the baby getting no infections in first year of life
gonegirl The way I read it was that a baby has to be exposed to some infections early in life in order to trigger the immune system into ‘normal’ function.
If that triggering doesn’t happen, because the child hasn’t been exposed to enough infections, the child is then more susceptible to the effects of the second incident (exposure to radiation, eating burnt food, mercury-amalgam fillings, aluminium-containing deodorants, or whatever is the Daily Mail’s current favourite cancer-causing scare).
I think what cancer research over the last 50 years has shown, since Sir Richard Doll first identified the role of cigarette smoking in the development of lung cancer, is that ‘cancer’ is in fact many different conditions brought on by a combination of factors, rather than having a single cause.

I think any research which puts another piece into the huge jigsaw is worthwhile. The problem is that sometimes it takes a long time before someone sees where a particular piece fits.

...mutually EXclusive! Blasted predictive text.

The two theories being discussed are not mutually conclusive. The new research talks about a mutation in a certain gene. We have two copies of every gene in our bodies. Which dominates or which can be suddenly ‘switched on’ but events such as background radiation, stress, diet, etc is very complicated.

I personally know of identical twins...pure genetic copies of each other, one of whom went blind due to inherited gene and the other, who carried the same gene, who has never had a problem with his eyes.

Should we be banning all anti bac products? I don't think so. Yet if he is right, that has to be done.

He does seem to give little or no credence to nuclear sources. Which I find hard to understand.

I don't understand why the second incident that triggers the disease is caused by the baby getting no infections in first year of life. (First incident happens in the womb). I would have thought all babies these days get a little infection of some sort. Don't believe mothers using anti bac products is at all to blame. Most infections are airborne or person to person.

I do not think that the research is ignoring any patterns.. just exploring why there was an increase of childhood cancer in some parts of the world and not others that could not be explained by alreafy known potential causes of this specific cancer.

It said "nuclear processing stations" not nuclear fallouts.

I thought that the links between nuclear fallout and cancers had been established -

Why then, are there clusters of such cancers in areas where there is a nuclear power station?

Clustering = a normal distribution pattern. It would not be normal for a distribution to be spread out equally every x houses everywhere.

Some clusters are near phone masts etc (to be expected in normal distribution patterns) some are not. Some times people read too much into a cluster