Over 40% of cancers due to lifestyle. (read what causes it)

John McEnroe would know exactly what to say at this point ....

Are you for real? Hilarious post.

Really? I thought it was called media influence.

First of all, if they have found the 'supposed' cause, then surely logic proves that the cure should easily follow? However there has not been a guarantee of that.

Also, it is strangley ironic how the so called 'causes' of cancer are all items that can be more heavily taxed, despite already being shockingly high! Conincidence? I think not.

If this comes out as being the cure, it just gives another excuse to tax things. With our already high debt that the country is in, our idiotic government seems to find taxing things that you can easily manipulate the minds of others to find negative makes it more plausible.

Nowadays nothing is based on pure science. If you want to look at science look at small, very independent scientists. They normally are less influenced in their judgements.

What do you mean am I for real? Linda McCartney for one was a vegetarian who didn't drink alcohol or smoke. She is just one example of this, there are many others.

Its easy to come back at me saying "are you for real?", if you want to reply to me at least write something of some thought.

Also, I must add in. I am a healthy eater and do not drink or smoke. So I am not a biased opinion.

I think people need to remember that there are many different types of cancer, and all have a myriad of different causes.

The article hasn't specified which cancers are being spoken about. For example, some cancers are caused purely by genetics (famailial adenomatous poyposis), whereas others are mostly environmental (small cell lung carcinoma is rare in those who don't smoke).

The fruit and vegetable bit is important in terms of colorectal cancer - yes yes, the anti-oxidant stuff as well but thats largely insignificant here. Colorectal cancer depends not only on genetics, but also on diet (processed meats are notorius for releasing oxygen radicals on cooking, but so is all meat). What happens is people inherit gene making them susceptible to colorectal cancer, and then by eating 'unhealthily' further cause a mutation in another gene which causes this cancer (search for 'two-hit hypothesis' if you want to read more).

Now where this fruit and veg comes in: fruit and vegetables contain a lot of fibre, and that is why they prevent colorectal cancer. Why you ask? Because, the faeces can be stored in the colon and rectum for days, and the dangerous chemicals cause damage to cells here, causing them to divide uncontrollably and form a cancer. Fibre means bowel movements are more often and faeces spend less time stored, and therefore less time in contact with cells that could be harmed.

So in short, yes eating healthily, exercising and not smoking can be greatly beneficial in preventing certain cancers (especially if you are genetically pre-disposed to a certain kind), but there are others which you have no control over.

Lol, your post is a joke.

I don't smoke or drink and im not fat i also have a good diet so im not getting any cancer EVER.

I don't smoke or drink and im not fat i also have a good diet so im not getting any cancer EVER.

"lol"? Really? I thought you had to be a certain age to come on this website.

And to be honest your name says something about you, because you do have no future if you believe everything the government tells you.

Cancer is a combination of genetics and environment. Sometimes even living a healthy lifestyle will not save you.

What do you mean am I for real? Linda McCartney for one was a vegetarian who didn't drink alcohol or smoke. She is just one example of this, there are many others.

Its easy to come back at me saying "are you for real?", if you want to reply to me at least write something of some thought.

Also, I must add in. I am a healthy eater and do not drink or smoke. So I am not a biased opinion.

Well obviously!

Thats what this whole argument is about.

Its a mixture of different things and no one knows the cause because its not a specific thing, whereas they are trying to pinpoint the blame on specific items.

Its a mixture of different things and no one knows the cause because its not a specific thing, whereas they are trying to pinpoint the blame on specific items.

What has the got to do with the government? It's from what I learned in biology classes, medical school and my own research.

Does the government also tax sun beds, sun bathing, aflatoxin, asbestos...?

She was a vegetarian meaning her iron ,b12 ,folic acid and many other vitamins were low because she didn't eat meat.

You need to get your facts right about Linda McCartney .

This is my point. They are specifically saying that if you have a poor diet, smoke or drink you are going to get cancer. You have just stated other factors that cause cancer. My point is why are they highlighting three things they are trying to get rid off and heavily tax? Its common sense what they are trying to do.

When the budget comes you will see.

What in the ****. This post made me derp so hard that I herped.

For some cancers, the causes are known. Specific chemicals or specific pathogens or specific genes - or a combination.

There is no argument. Most of this thread is people spouting pseudoscience and bull****.