I've been thinking about this too.
I think because of the things that cause cancer (genetically) it could very well be more common and not as much an old person disease, although it probably still is much more common for old people.

To be honest I think that helping the environment could reduce our risk of cancer. Due to pesticides, plastics, flame retardants etc in many areas there is an accumulation of toxic substances up the food chain. They can affect you genetically and cause cancer. If we can find more biodegradable solutions and reduce our waste, maybe we can improve our own health as well as the earth's.

This is a good topic, I think that I'll write a blog post about it - after I publish the other one I've been writing about what cancer is.

Kristarella is absolutely right with what she says about the environment being the number one cause for cancer. Also due to that fact, cancer STILL is a disease of the elderly. In fact, cancer is a condition that in most cases is caused by an accumulation of effects on our body. So what about your statistics? I will explain...

First of all let me say there actually is a lot of money going into cancer research. There are whole institutes devoted to cancer research and much of this research is so basic, that it never really gains public attention. Much research is not directly focusing on finding a cure for cancer, most of it is done to gain knowledge required to fully understand cancer. Understanding is step number one that needs to be completed before you can develop a strategy to stop it from happening or persisting.

So why is cancer so difficult to understand and/or cure? Number one: cancer isn't one disease, it's many, many, many, many!!! Number two: cancer is not predictable.

The reason your statistics about children look so scary is because you faced an army of diseases with a select few specific diseases. HIV (the virus leading to AIDS) can cause cancer too by the way.

Let's take Cystic Fibrosis. This disease is caused by different possible mutations in a single gene, namely Cystic Fibrosis Transmembrane Conductance Regulator (CFTR). Said gene plays a major role in a few select tissues of our body, like the lungs and the digestive system, but is not required in most other tissues. Since this is an inherited disease which only manifests if both copies of the gene are mutated (recessive) it is very rare. We have two copies of every autosomal gene - one from our father and one from our mother - and only if both are "broken" do we see an effect, in this case Cystic Fibrosis. However, if one gene is healthy, the body can cope.

There are many different forms of cancer, but the cause is never as simple as inheriting a bad copy of a gene. Cancer can happen spontaneously and there are genetic predispositions, i.e. constellations that increase the risk of developing a certain form of cancer. Popular examples here are breast cancer or Leukemia, both affecting very young as well as "older" people.

The power of cancer lies in the fact that it only takes a single cell for the disease to develop. Now humans have around 100 trillion or 100,000,000,000,000 cells and it only takes one of them that is being "hurt" by for example radiation. So, a single cell in which a gene is disrupted that plays a role in stopping the cell from growing and dividing beyond its normal limits can cause cancer in any tissue of our body. Within very little time this cell will have become hundreds or thousands of cells. Then again it only takes a single cell that can detach from its "colony" and "travel" through the body, reattach at a different location and start growing and dividing once more. This is how metastases are formed.

Do you now understand your statistics a little better? Although I doubt the numbers (references please), I'm pretty sure that the numbers of children with cancer are not exploding. You failed to present numbers that show cancer today compared to a decade or two ago. And actually I'm sure even if you found these numbers, they would not be accurate. Today, diagnostics are just so much better than even just a decade ago and that's why we discover more and more details. Children today of course face much more stress and radiation and toxics than one or two or three hundred years ago. On the other hand, many life threatening conditions are no longer seen in western countries, such as diseases due to lack of nutrition. And don't forget that treatment of various diseases has taken a big step, for some as far as being able to cure them. Just take bacterial infections for example, which today can (too) easily be treated with antibiotics. Now even if the numbers of cancer are rising, the numbers of casualties to other causes are on a steep decline.

Nevertheless, you are right, there are developments in this world that are dangerous for life and in the end we return to what Kristarella said. The environment needs to be protected, we have to realize why we live (is the stress worth it?), we have to become aware of what we eat and return to organic food because all that other stuff simply is no good, no matter how comfy it is, even the (artificial) vitamins we swallow can be toxic, and we have to give our body the time it needs to rest, time to repair all the damage and restore its reservoires.

Enough said.

"we have to become aware of what we eat and return to organic food because all that other stuff simply is no good, no matter how comfy it is, even the (artificial) vitamins we swallow can be toxic"

That's a very definite statement that I wouldn't have automatically correlated with cancer and the environment.
Presumably your definition of organic food includes that it mustn't be genetically modified? I'm yet to be convinced of the danger of GM foods. They are extensively tested, more so sometimes than crops created by cross-breeding (where the recombinations of genes are random and not necessarily known).

There has been a lot of hype about GM crops and how they can damage the environment, which is just not proven. I saw a video c.2000 the other day where someone was saying Bt cotton fields were essentially little factories where every cell of the plant was producing toxins that were killing not only pest, but good insects too. That just isn't true, most Bt cotton strains produce the toxin in specific tissues and it's been found that fields with GM crops have more biodiversity than fields using insecticides (i.e. there's more species, the toxin is fairly specific for the pest species).

Anywho, I know you're not promoting pesticides either, I just don't know if there's real viability in fully organic crops.

As for the artificial vitamins, just from a molecular-common-sense perspective if the chemical structure is the same, it should have the same effect - perhaps the things that it's mixed with are not so good? Do you have references for what you're talking about? I've never heard of vitamins being an issue (except when you take too much of them, which is bad for any substance really).

@ T and @ Kris

I've got to say that both what you and kris have said is awesome but over my head and a little out of my league. Thanks for the input though.

@ T

I found the numbers from The Candlelight Foundation which is a national US affiliated non-profit organization that is tailored towards kids with cancer. They are a kid foundation which represents The National Dialogue on Cancer (co-chaired by former President George & Barbara Bush and Senator Diane Feinstein),National Cancer Advisory Board,National Coalition for Cancer Research, American Cancer Society (Children & Adolescent Cancer Advisory Group),Alliance for Childhood Cancer,International Confederation of Childhood Cancer Parent Organizations, FDA's pediatric subcommittee of Oncology Drug Advisory Committee and the FDA Cancer Drug Development Patient Consultant Program.

Whether the numbers are true, it is not for me to judge nor do I have the ability to disprove them. I do also believe that those stats are for the USA. I do take it for what it is, as no matter how you argue whether it is true or not, it is a killer disease and I'd rather be with them rather than argue the stats being wrong. Also, since they are affiliated with Federal Organizations, it's pretty hard to not believe them.

I did read your explaination and I do understand your explanation of cancer consisting of a multitude of diseases but that doesn't make the stats look less scary to me. Contracting cancer whether it is prostate, brain, lung, colon, breast etc.... is still cancer and may lead to death. For every person that dies out of cancer, is one too many for me. Why is it that only in 2005 after so many years that it overtook heart disease as the number 1 killer in the USA:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2005-01-19-...

"You failed to present numbers that show cancer today compared to a decade or two ago. And actually I’m sure even if you found these numbers, they would not be accurate."

Your statement doesn't give me a warm feeling too and how can you make such a bold statement to say that if I found the numbers it would not be accurate. No offense to you (and don't take this the wrong way) but I'd would take my chances in believing a US based national cancer affiliated organization as why would they lie and what would they gain from it. BTW: if you want to look at stats here is the official USA stats from 1930 to 2006. (http://www.cancer.org/docroot/STT/stt_0_2006.as...) There are a lot of stats in there and they are pretty overwhelming.

Bottom line is that this is not something to argue about on who is right or who is wrong or whether the stats are bogus -- it is a lose lose situation. We all have nothing to gain but all to lose as no matter how much technology and research we have done or how much advances in cancer research and technology there is, people are dying. AND MY friends are dying (or are in danger of dying) and many other's loved ones too ... that's one too many. Sorry but I do take this on a personal level. Forgive me if I seem a little touchy on this subject.

And I go back to the fact that I hear money being thrown about in all other areas and when it comes to cancer, no one really says much about it. I speak on the standpoint of here in America -- how it is there in Europe, Oceania, Asia... I don't know. I am sick of US politicians promising the world of everything else and not about this or other top killer diseases in the USA.

I don't mean to poop on your disappointment of the American awareness effort, but I don't think Tina meant they would lie (unless she's more sceptical than I thought!). Perhaps that it's difficult to be sure of statistics because detection and identification has been improved. What might look like an increase in cancer is actually an improvement of detection of cancer.
However, I wouldn't be surprised if cancer is increasing due to the toxins we've released into the environment and their accumulation in our bodies. The longer humans live, the longer they have to get genetic mutations and get cancer (thus it being an old person disease). On a broader scale, the longer we live in generations, the more chance some of those mutations might happen in germ-line cells that get passed on to children. If they don't become cancerous in one person, they might in their children.

@Kris
It certainly sounded like she was sceptical over the stats although it's hard to tell how someone really feels with just words and writing. that last part (that you wrote) is what i'm afraid off and hope it won't happen as cancer runs in both our families.

I wrote a long reply to this threat on Friday morning, didn't post it since I wanted to carefully re-read it and had my browser open with the reply waiting to be re-read and posted, when my hard drive suffered a head crash. No joke. As it is I'm reluctant to write it all again and will just make a few statements that no one should take personal, since that is not how they are meant.

1. Not accurate does not equal fake or lied. It's a fact of life that statistics become less and less accurate the more factors affect them.
The factors here are time, increased awareness of the disease of both patients and doctors, education of screening doctors (clearly changes over time), number of people screened, number of individuals per gender/race/class screened, number of screens in different areas, improved detection, improved treatment, and the method of evaluating the collected data over time, which in the case of the ACS has changed. And I'm sure I'm missing a few more marginal points here.

2. I looked at the statistics of the American Cancer Society and most types of cancer have been on a mild decline or steady since 1930. Only lung cancer has increased dramatically over the same time period. Child cancers were described as very rare, with leukemia being the most common kind.

3. Cancer research is top priority in all western countries. There is an endless amount of publications coming out every single month. However, most of that stuff is so basic that it never surfaces into popular media. For example, have you ever heard of TGF-beta? Currently, cancer treatment focuses on removing malignant cancer cells from the body, either via radiation therapy, antibodies or other approaches. Mind you, I'm not an expert in the medical field. Overall the molecular mechanisms leading to manifestation of cancer are not well understood. Publications in this field are not yet relevant for treating cancer, but they are very important milestones on the way to getting there.
Taken together, don't underestimate the amount of work and money that goes into cancer research all over the world.

4. Cancer is not an epidemic and should not be treated as such. There are other things that are important as well and many things are even more important.
Of course you are right, there is a lot of money going into pointless, unimportant stuff which should rather be spent somewhere else. But that's life, humans are subjective and while you worry about kids with cancer, politicians more readily worry about power and oil and stuff.

5. Cancer runs in EVERY family, albeit more or less severe.

6. Life kills.

period

If you're concerned about science in the US, maybe it's time to act now. Please read the following two articles which mention budgets for cancer research in the US and Europe and science in the US in general. They are taken from last week's edition of Nature...

Europeans forgo US labs - Stagnant budget makes American biomedicine less attractive: http://www.nature.com/news/2007/071024/full/449954b.html

Spending stalemate - As the battle over the US budget drags into autumn, the amount of money available for science is hostage to larger budget disputes. David Goldston explains:
http://www.nature.com/news/2007/071024/full/449962a.html