Study results show increase of mortality due to colon cancer in Spain

Download PDF Copy

Jan 18 2010

There are stark geographical contrasts in the incidence of colon cancer worldwide. The new study analyses the causes of these disparities, starting with Spanish trends between 1951 and 2006 in terms of certain changes in consumption (tobacco, alcohol, red and processed meat, fish, vegetables...) and also behaviour (physical exercise, sedentary lifestyles-).

The results, published in the European Journal of Cancer Prevention, show that mortality due to colon cancer increased between 1951 and 2000 in both sexes. The positive finding is that between 2000 and 2006 the number of deaths stabilised in men and decreased in women.

"Through the second half of the twentieth century many industrialised countries saw reductions in incidence and mortality rates and, in some cases, countries who previously experienced rates as high as Spain now have lower levels. The most striking phenomenon is the unstoppable increase in the incidence in men and women", Luis Mar-a B-jar, main author of the study and researcher at the University of Seville, explains to SINC.

Colon cancer has the second-highest incidence and mortality rate of any tumour in Spain, behind lung cancer for men and breast cancer for women. In 2006, 13,101 people died from colon cancer in Spain, constituting 12.9% of the total deaths from cancer in that year.

What is behind these differences?

Several exposure factors associated with behaviour can explain these trends, primarily the consumption of tobacco and alcohol. "In Spain, per capita consumption of cigarettes in the period 1960-2006 shows a substantial increase until the end of the '80s, followed by a significant reduction in subsequent years, with consumption stabilising from the late '90s", states B-jar.

"As in many other countries, the price of cigarettes in relation to income has determined consumption. However, regional and state governments have been inexplicably backward when it comes to implementing legislative measures to increase taxes on tobacco", remarks the expert.

Scientific evidence gathered from an extensive number of epidemiological studies shows that smoking increases the risk of developing colorectal polyps and colon cancer. Today, the percentage of colon cancer in the population attributable to tobacco use is between 12 and 21%.

Moreover, alcohol consumption increased until the early '80s, then gradually declined. Data available in Spain show that the prevalence of considerable consumption of alcohol in the period 1951-2006 was greater among men.

The authors do point out, however, that Spain has one of the lowest average relative alcohol prices in Eastern Europe, and consumption levels have remained among the highest in the world in recent decades.

"The risk relationship between alcohol consumption and colon cancer is obvious in men and women, with a dose-effect ratio, especially where consumption exceeds 30 g/day", explain the experts. According to the study, the percentage of colon cancer in the population caused by alcohol consumption is 0.9% in women and 5% in men.

"There is an urgent need in Spain to apply more decisive legislation and educational measures to counteract smoking, excessive alcohol consumption, consumption of red meat, sedentary lifestyles and the other factors analysed", concludes B-jar.

"The Government spends thousands of millions of Euros on treating chronic diseases, but promoting a healthier lifestyle would generate greater benefits", claims the research team.

Source: FECYT - Spanish Foundation for Science and Technology

Posted in: Medical Condition News

Tags: Alcohol, Breast Cancer, Cancer, Cancer Prevention, Chronic, Cigarette, Colon, Colon Cancer, Colorectal, Colorectal Cancer, Exercise, Fish, Lung Cancer, Lungs, Meat, Mortality, Research, Smoking, Technology, Tobacco, Vegetables

Comments (1)

Download PDF Copy

Comments

The joke of second hand smoke

harleyrider1978 says:

January 18, 2010 at 7:54 AM

SECOND HAND SMOKE IS A JOKE

Ask the anti-tobacco folks to tell you what truly is in second hand smoke...when it burns from the coal its oxygenated and everything is burned and turned into water vapor...thats right water...you ever burned leaves in the fall...know how the heavy smoke bellows off.......

Thats the organic material releasing the moisture in the leaves, the greener the leaves/organic material the more smoke thats made..thats why second hand smoke is classified as a class 3 irritant by osha and epa as of 2006........IN 1993  EPA decided to change the listing of shs to a carcinogen for political reasons ......because it contained a trace amount of 6 chemicals measured in picograms so small even sophisticated scientific equipment can hardly detect it.

If the same standards to make shs/ets a carcinogen were applied to a glass of tap water, certain foods and most other things in the natural environment they would also be carcinogens. The failure of the EPA to use the dose makes the poison chart in this political decision makes their entire claim a moot point.

However osha still maintains shs/ets as an irritant only and maintains the dose makes the poison position.......as osha is in charge of indoor air quality its decisions are based on science not political agendas as epa's is. We can see this is true after a federal judge threw out the epa's study on shs as junk science..What OSHA should be doing is applying the general duty clause and set indoor standards where limits of safe levels are set. But dog gone it,thats why OSHA didnt set a standard because there was just nothing in shs/ets that could be deemed harmful to humans. So it was left as it was a simple class 3 irritant.

Wednesday, March 12, 2008 British Medical Journal & WHO conclude secondhand smoke "health hazard" claims are greatly exaggerated The BMJ published report at:

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7398/1057

concludes that "The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer are considerably weaker than generally believed." What makes this study so significant is that it took place over a 39 year period, and studied the results of non-smokers who lived with smokers.....

meaning these non-smokers were exposed to secondhand smoke up to 24 hours per day; 365 days per year for 39 years. And there was still no relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality. In light of the damage to business, jobs, and the economy from smoking bans the BMJ report should be revisited by lawmakers as a reference tool and justification to repeal the now unnecessary and very damaging smoking ban laws. Also significant is the World Health Organization (WHO) study:

Passive smoking doesn't cause cancer-official By Victoria Macdonald, Health Correspondent " The results are consistent with their being no additional risk for a person living or working with a smoker and could be consistent with passive smoke having a protective effect against lung cancer. The summary, seen by The Telegraph, also states: 'There was no association between lung cancer risk and ETS exposure during childhood.' " And if lawmakers need additional real world data to further highlight the need to eliminate these onerous and arbitrary laws, air quality testing by Johns Hopkins University proves that secondhand smoke is up to 25,000 times SAFER than occupational (OSHA) workplace regulations.

The Chemistry of Secondary Smoke About 94% of secondary smoke is composed of water vapor and ordinary air with a slight excess of carbon dioxide. Another 3 % is carbon monoxide. The last 3 % contains the rest of the 4,000 or so chemicals supposedly to be found in smoke… but found, obviously, in very small quantities if at all.This is because most of the assumed chemicals have never actually been found in secondhand smoke. (1989 Report of the Surgeon General p. 80). Most of these chemicals can only be found in quantities measured in nanograms, picograms and femtograms. Many cannot even be detected in these amounts: their presence is simply theorized rather than measured. To bring those quantities into a real world perspective, take a saltshaker and shake out a few grains of salt. A single grain of that salt will weigh in the ballpark of 100 million picograms! (Allen Blackman. Chemistry Magazine 10/08/01). - (Excerpted from "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains" with permission of the author.)

The Myth of the Smoking Ban ‘Miracle’ Restrictions on smoking around the world are claimed to have had a dramatic effect on heart attack rates. It's not true. www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/7451/

As for secondhand smoke in the air, OSHA has stated outright that: "Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)...It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded." -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec'y, OSHA, To Leroy J Pletten, PHD, July 8, 1997
-harleyrider1978

Heres what the smoke free groups did to try and prove a connection to heart disease and second hand smoke....

The "30 minute" experiments that the statement is based on have nothing at all to do with the exposures one might get on a park bench sitting next to a smoker or even with what one would normally get in any decently ventilated bar or restaurant.

The exposures in the supportive experiments involve smoke concentrations at levels of 400% to 2,000% as high as what used to be measured in the middle of the smoking sections of pressurized airplanes!! (Which used to be held up as one of the worst smoking environments.)

The experiments take nonsmokers who avoid smoke in all their daily home, social, and working life, force them to sign papers

acknowledging the "danger" they are about to be put in, and then sealing them in smoke-choked chambers that nonsmokers would run screaming from if they weren't being paid $100 to endure 30 minutes for science. . . . When the poor souls come stumbling out blood test measurement show small changes that could theoretically relate to heart disease.

The changes are like ones other experimenters find when they feed subjects a bowl of corn flakes and milk.... but in the kooky world of antismoking research those results get twisted into representing an unusual and deadly threat.

And remember: they only get those results in EXTREME conditions, nothing like normal restaurant/park or even decent bar/casino exposures. . . . The Antismokers today are lying just like Big Tobacco did back in the 1950s.
Antismoking extremism needs to be put to rest. Smoking is unhealthy like a lot of other things, but the smoke from burning smokers at the stake smells a lot worse than Newports. . . .

Cornflakes, White Bread Could Boost Heart Risk
'High-glycemic' carbs like these hamper blood vessel function, study shows.

THURSDAY, June 11 (HealthDay News) -- Eating a diet rich in carbohydrates that boost blood sugar levels -- foods such as cornflakes or white bread -- may hamper the functioning of your blood vessels and raise your risk of developing cardiovascular disease, a new study suggests.

www.healthfinder.gov/.../newsstory.aspx

0 0

Reply