> In 1903, Pierre Curie, after observing burns on his arm left by the chunk of radium that he tied to it for 10 hours, concluded that he had discovered a cure for cancer.
That's some uneasy irony.
That's some uneasy irony.
Pierre Curie died 1906, Marie lived till 1934: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Curie "Although her many decades of exposure to radiation caused chronic illnesses (including near blindness due to cataracts) and ultimately her death, she never really acknowledged the health risks of radiation exposure."
All that doesn't diminish the significance of her work.
The kind of science that isn't on the frontpage today [0] is driven by facts, empirical analysis, and of course theoretical postulation. I, for one, am glad that we can recognize scientists for their contributions to humanity, not taking away from their work by citing curious personal beliefs (as we see here).
So, bravo acqq, just wanted to elaborate my thoughts on your comment :)
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Therapy/radiati...
Chemotherapy has extremely nasty side effects, so it's not unreasonable for radiation to be the first line of defense even when radiation is guaranteed (or near-guaranteed) to cause severe problems later on. Looking at the common side effects again, I'd take chemotherapy before infertility, but a lifetime of chronic diarrhea might well be better than going through chemo.
I also note that that page says "in general, the lifetime risk of a second cancer is highest in people treated for cancer as children or adolescents", which is definitely in harmony with the idea that radiation therapy looks better and better the less time you expect to live after getting it.
I'd be happy to unphrase my upper comment, but it seems I can't. :/
Another explanation for why survivors of childhood cancer would have a high rate of recurrence is that they were prone to getting cancer in the first place, and they carry that tendency into adulthood.
Don't take this as an expert opinion, but I lean slightly against that idea. For example, the linked fact sheet notes that young girls who are treated in the chest for hodgkin's lymphoma (one of the rare types of cancers that young people get) have an elevated lifetime risk of ordinary breast cancer. That's less of a "recurrence" and more of a "second cancer".
Relatedly, the types of cancer that young people get, and that old people get, aren't all that similar.
My point was that it's another explanation that has to be considered. It doesn't mean the explanation you proposed could not be valid.
Well one potential explanation is that any treatment you get during childhood usually carries a higher risk than on adults. I haven't seen data suggesting that radiation treatment in adults increase the risks of cancer, and by the way radiation is now extensively used in many diagnostic tools and it is generally accepted that low dose of radiations are harmless or even beneficial (while the media keeps screaming that any level of radiation causes cancer, which is nonsensical).