Yes. Everyone gets cancer. In fact, if you are reading this, then technically you have had, or will have cancer, some time today. Let me explain.


Cancer is a failure of the biological mechanisms that govern the normal lifecycle of cells in your body. For a range of reasons, the biological mechanisms that govern cell division, cell growth and cell death occasionally go wrong, resulting in cells growing and dividing uncontrollably. Cancerous cells may take over normal cells in surrounding tissue or detach, enter the bloodstream and spread to other parts of the body. Uncontrolled cancerous cell growth can cause other complications in the body, which can ultimately result in death.

There are various failures that can take place in the otherwise normal biological processes of cell lifecycle that can result in cancer. For example, a cell may receive an incorrect biological message from other cells telling it to multiply, a cell may not divide properly or a cell may fail to die as it was biologically programmed to do. The underlying causes of these failures is damage to cell DNA, which can in turn be caused by a wide range of factors including old age, random mutations, viral damage, the presence of particular chemicals, exposure to particular radiation energy etc.

Every minute, millions of cells in your body die and are replaced by new cells. This process goes wrong in a very, very small percentage of the time each and every day. However, in the vast majority of instances, the body’s own immune system or the cells’s own programming recognizes the failure and destroys the affected cell before cancer can take hold. In this respect, we all get cancer every day, but it is nothing to worry about because our bodies are capable of dealing with it.

Occasionally the body’s immune system fails to properly detect or manage these failures. For example, it may be that the form of cancer is such that the body does not recognize something has gone wrong; it may be that the damage is so widespread that the body’s immune system is overwhelmed or it may be that the body’s immune system is not working properly. When this happens, cancerous cells may take hold, resulting in a form of cancer disease.

So just to clarify, not everybody gets a cancerous disease, but everybody gets cancerous (or what are often referred to as pre-cancerous) damaged cells. Many people die from many other causes (including nothing more than old age) without experiencing a fully developed cancerous disease.

Minimizing exposure to things that have been associated with cancer, such as smoking, carcinogenic chemicals, excessive ultraviolet radiation, etc, can reduce your risk of developing a cancerous disease. Maintaining a healthy lifestyle through healthy eating, exercise, healthy levels of exposure to sunshine, good sleep patterns and stress reduction will give your body’s immune system the best chance of fighting off any cells that do go wrong and would otherwise threaten cancer.

[James Marshall, Accountant, analyst, hotelier, sci fi geek, philosopher.  Featured on Medical Daily; upvoted by Ricardo StrangMD, MSc., Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeon. Full member of Brazilian Society of Plastic Surgery. … and Alexey DanilovGraduated Krasnoyarsk State Medical Academy in 2005. 10 years in ortho surgery. This article is reprinted from Quora.]



Ray Schilling

Right now the limit of how old we can get is between 110 and 120 years. Occasionally you have outliers who turn a bit older. But the limiting factors are:

  1. Our energy organelles, the mitochondria are disappearing as we age. Each of our body cells has hundreds of these energy packages. If only 50 are leftover, our body energy is dwindling. The brain, the heart and the skeletal muscles have thousands of mitochondria in every cell. If half of these disappear, we fall asleep on a chair (senescent people do that) and we have a shuffled gait. Our heart may start failing, so congestive heart failure may sets in.
  2. Our DNA is stable most of our lives because we have repair mechanisms in place. But the older we get, the more mutations occur, as the repair mechanism ages. This can cause cancer. But we may also lose bits and pieces of our DNA and various body deficiencies start occurring.
  3. Our telomeres, the caps on each of our chromosomes are getting shorter, the older we get. This is no problem when we are younger. But as we age, the stem cells that normally have the longest telomeres are also starting to have shorter telomeres. Now this affects cell replacement. If you don’t replace the cells that are lacking you get organ deficiencies and organ failures. Many old people die because of heart failure, bone marrow failure (no blood cells, no immune cells), kidney failure, liver failure and dementia (brain failure).
  4. Until we will be able to address my concerns expressed under point 1 to 3 we will have problems extending our life expectancy limits.



“WE MIGHT NOT RECOVER”:  by Neil deGrasse Tyson

“WE MIGHT NOT RECOVER”: by Neil deGrasse Tyson

‘We might not recover’: Neil deGrasse Tyson gets emotional and sounds the alarm. All the alarms. –by Jen Hayden


Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson joined CNN’s Fareed Zakaria to discuss the massive, record-setting hurricanes that have been pummeling Texas, Florida and the Caribbean in recent weeks and he is sounding the alarm. All the climate change alarms, even wondering if we’ve reached the point now where we might not be able to recover.

It’s a sobering interview that all should see. The full interview an transcript are below. The time to act is right now.ZAKARIA: So what role did climate change play in the ferocious strength of hurricane Irma and the intense flooding caused by Irma and Harvey? Well, on Monday, U.S. Homeland Security adviser refused to say whether climate change had been a factor or Irma’s strength at all. The head of the EPA, Scott Pruitt, has told CNN in advance of Irma’s landfall that it was insensitive to talk about climate change right now. How should we think about an event like this and the broader issue of science and public policy?

To help me understand the impact of all of this, Neil deGrasse Tyson joins me. He is, of course, the author of the best-seller Astrophysics for People in a Hurry and much, much more. Neil, you’re not a climate scientist but you’re a very distinguished scientist and astrophysicist. What do you think about when people say, look, this is not settled science, there are still questions about Einstein’s theories that led to nuclear fission but we still know that there are nuclear power plants do operate and they do provide electricity.

TYSON: There are people who have cultural, political, religious economic philosophies that they then invoke when they want to cherry pick one scientific result or another. You can find a scientific paper that says practically anything and the press, which I count you as part of, will sometimes find a single paper and say “Here’s a new truth.” But an emergent scientific truth, for it to become an objective truth, a truth that is true whether or not you believe it, it requires more than one scientific paper. It requires a whole system of people’s research all leaning in the same direction, all pointing to the same consequences. That’s what we have with climate change as induced by human conduct. This is a known correspondence. If you want to find the 3 percent of the papers or the 1 percent of the papers that conflicted with this and build policy on that, that is simply irresponsible. How else do you establish a scientific truth if not by looking at the consensus of scientific experiments and scientific observations. Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican president, signed into law in 1863–a year when he had important things to be thinking about–he signed into law the National Academy of Sciences. Because he knew that science mattered and should matter in governance.

ZAKARIA: And you know we build our cities on the basis of science. When we fall ill, we don’t go to the local witch doctor, we go to a doctor even though all of that science is still–there are advances going to be made, none of it is settled in the sense that–

TYSON: Well, you know what is settled? Settled science is the science that has come out of large bodies of research that all agree. When you see scientists arguing–and I said if you think scientists want to always agree with one another, you’ve never been to a scientific conference because people are duking it out. But what are they fighting over?


Not the settled science that’s been in the books. We’re fighting over the bleeding edge of what is not yet known and that is the natural course of science. If you as a journalist want to eavesdrop on that meeting, you’ll think scientists don’t know anything about anything but it’s the body of knowledge that accumulated over the decades that precedes this that becomes the canon that if you’re going to base policy and legislation on, that’s what you should be thinking about.

ZAKARIA: So you would say this is a moment to listen to climate scientists?

TYSON: I can’t even picture–how many rain drops was that? Fifty inches of rain in Houston. This is a shot across the bow. A hurricane the width of Florida going up the center of Florida. These are shots across our bow. What will it take for people to recognize that a community of scientists are learning objective truths about the natural world and that you can benefit from knowing about it? Even news reports on this channel talked about the fact that we have fewer deaths per hurricane. Why? Because you now know weeks in advance. We have models that have drawn trajectories of hurricanes. In decades gone by it was like there’s hurricane there. I don’t know, should I stay? Should I go? You stay and you die. So to cherry pick science is an odd thing for a scientist to observe and I didn’t grow up in a country where that was a common phenomenon. We went to the moon and people knew science and technology fed those discoveries. And the day two politicians are arguing about whether science is true, it means nothing gets done, nothing. It’s the beginning of the end of an informed democracy, as I’ve said many times. What I’d rather happen is you recognize what is scientifically truth then you have your political debate. So in the case of energy policy, whatever, you don’t ask is the science right, you ask should we have carbon credits tariffs.

TYSON: …Right. The longer we delay, the more–I worry we might not be able to recover from this because our greatest cities are on the oceans and water’s edges historically for commerce and transportation and as storms kick in, as water levels rise they are the first to go and we don’t have a system, we don’t have a civilization with the capacity to pick up a city and move it inland 20 miles. This is happening faster than our ability to respond. That could have huge economic consequences.

ZAKARIA: On that sobering note, Neil deGrasse Tyson, always a pleasure. We are in a hurry to read the book.

[The above interview was transcribed and first published in DAILY KOS, September 09, 2017 by Jen Hayden. It is reprinted in Columnist With a View because it is extremely important information for everyone. It was re-blogged by DAILY KOS SOCIAL, and it is reprinted with the permission of DAILY KOS.]