English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

"Children who live in affluent areas are more likely to develop leukaemia and other childhood cancers, scientists have claimed.
In the largest ever study of its kind, experts found that children from well-off families have a greater chance of developing diseases such as cancer of the blood, bone and organ tumours. "

The article is here:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html?in_article_id=396621&in_page_id=1774

Is this nature getting it's own back on all those squeeky clean types?

2006-07-23 00:45:30 · 8 answers · asked by Part Time Cynic 7 in Social Science Other - Social Science

What do antibacterial wipes have to do with interbreeding???

And i suppose if you are famous it don't matter if you can't spell!

2006-07-23 00:57:08 · update #1

8 answers

Good article and good question . It could well be, UMMM

2006-07-23 00:47:31 · answer #1 · answered by brogdenuk 7 · 0 0

It's true that kids don't play in the dirt and soil like they used to, and that they are innoculated against childhood diseases, but you have to consider that those adults who get the cancers and tumours might have died in infancy from childhood diseases and infections. Those adults only died from cancer because they survived longer than they would have done in the past. It is even possible that they are genetically pre-disposed to develop these things because they have a lower natural resistance to disease. On the other hand, the widespread and uncontrolled use of antibiotics, especially in the animal feeds, to which bacteria have now become resistant cannot be a good thing.

These results were part of a huge study which also disproved that childhood leukiamia is a result of living near nuclear power stations and other facilities (with the exceptions of Dounreay and Sellafield - which obviously have some serious problems and should be avoided like the plague!)

I don't know if they looked into mobile phone masts, but the radiation from mobile phones to children's heads is hundreds of times greater than that from masts.

2006-07-23 07:56:37 · answer #2 · answered by ? 6 · 0 0

I cant see the logic in this scientific statement! I Have read so many reports in all my years of newspaper reading about the theories of why diseases occur, a while back it was thought and reported that leukaemia's and childhood cancers were more prevalent in certain pockets of the country where there were telephone masts and electric substations. I have always followed the belief that disease is no respecter of social class and this latest report to me, just means that a group of bods have been spending their time and tax payers money to come up with a reason that serves no real purpose. What are they recommending then, that the affluent give away their money and houses etc to reduce the risk of childhood cancers in their off spring? This seems to be adding more pressure to an already pressured segment of society, the segment that wants to work hard to provide for their family and to give them a comfortable life, doesn't make sense to me, surely these scientists would be far better off looking for the real causes that can be avoided, treatments that are more effective and genetic research to eradicate genetic predispositions to certain illnesses and cancers

2006-07-23 07:56:22 · answer #3 · answered by SunnyDays 5 · 0 0

It has been pretty much established that very young children who are just getting to the rug-rat stage are actually better off in an environment that is not so squeaky clean. It seems they need exposure to germs to help build their resistance to things and actually have less common sickesses later on if they get to wallow around in dirt early on.

Homes where the parents are paranoid about keeping everything spotless, vacuuming 20 times a day, washing the floors and counters all the time, leaving their shoes outside, are really doing a disservice by not allowing the kid to get exposure to germs and bacteria. These kids who live in a pristine, white-glove clean place are much more likely to come down with all sorts of diseases.

2006-07-23 07:53:09 · answer #4 · answered by Kokopelli 7 · 0 0

A clean house is the sign of an inactive mind.

Dull women have immaculate houses.

Housework is evil and must be stopped.


These are my mother's mantras - I was brought up in a home where dusting was what you did only when visitors came over, and dirt was good. I am super healthy and now follow these mantras myself in my own home - which is why it took me 3 months to replace my vacuum cleaner when it broke.

2006-07-23 07:50:48 · answer #5 · answered by MRSA+ 3 · 0 0

The Royal families in days of old were a sickly bunch according to history.
It was suggested it was because of interbreeding!!
'nuf said??

2006-07-23 07:50:29 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

A dirty bairn is a healthy bairn ...............very old Scottish saying.

children eat dirt and survive,they build up a resistance. bacteria mutate all the time we must let our bodies use their own defense.there is a place for anti bacterial wipes in food preparation places and hospitals but neurotic mums should avoid them.

2006-07-23 07:55:10 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

yes but all children can be famous and claver by practesing

2006-07-23 07:53:24 · answer #8 · answered by Mohamed H 1 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers