is cancer genetic?

Answer 1

Cancer is when a cell divides without control, but there are genes in the DNA that regulate when that cell should divide. By default, the cell is always ready to split - the genes stop the division until the time is right (like a traffic light that has a really long red light and a short green light). A simple example:

Let's say I have two traffic light genes that control when my cells divide; one comes from my mother and one comes from my father. What if the copy passed to me by my father doesn't work? I don't get cancer because I still have one good copy of the traffic light gene from my mother. The cell is still under control.

As time goes by and I grow older, there is a chance that something from the environment (carcinegans) could mess up the one working copy I have left. If that happens, the cell starts to divide without control and the doctor tells me I have cancer.

In reality there are a lot of gene interactions that influence cell division, but I hope this helps. Basically, the genetic aspect of cancer is how well the traffic light genes you inherited work, how those genes react to environment pressure, and how your other cells react if there is a problem.

Answer 2

Not the kind you get form a Chernobyl nuclear meltdown incident or a Hiroshima and Nagasaki after blast radioactive particle fallout. These are rare and unusual events and should not be considered genetic cause. But, the more often you fly in high altitude airplanes. Like pilots and stewardesses. The more you are exposed to X-Rays and higher doses of all of the radiation on the Electromagnetic spectrum. This may be the cause of more mutations at the genetic level. Causing cancer. When you fly with the family. Then,you are all exposed equally and if one parent develops a cancer and one offspring develops a cancer form the same family. Who are exposed to the same cancer causing stimuli. It looks like it's genetic. Even though it may not be. Had the family never been exposed. They may never had gotten cancers. Compared to had only one of the members of the family been exposed to the cancer causing stimuli. But, if other families are exposed to the same cancer causing stimuli and never develop cancers. Then, their genetics are more cancer resistant in the first place to the same stimuli and it can then be said.That genetics plays a role. But, only if there is exposure to a cancer causing stimuli in the first place can we know that.

Answer 3

That's not really a clear question, thus there are 2 answers.
Cancer is genetic in that is it the result of an accumulation of mutations in your DNA which can be completely random.
There is a genetically inheritable component that renders people more susceptible to mutations.

Answer 4

Fewer than 10% of all maximum cancers situations, all sorts, are hereditary. maximum cancers clinically determined after the age of fifty is even a lot less likely to be hereditary. you do not inherit a ordinary tendency to get maximum cancers and there is no ordinary 'maximum cancers gene'. 2 relatives individuals, unrelated to one yet another, having had maximum cancers does no longer boost you danger. an indication that maximum cancers would nicely be hereditary interior a relatives is at the same time as various individuals of an identical area of that relatives have had an identical type of maximum cancers, somewhat if some advanced it at a youthful than favourite age. this isn't the case on your household and there is no reason to think that you're at more beneficial danger of any type of maximum cancers. both my mum and dad had maximum cancers; so did 2 of my grandparents and my mom's sister, brother and nephew. No individuals of my instantaneous or relatives unit have ever been considered at more beneficial danger of any of the cancers that they had. Of my mum and dad' 6 toddlers, now elderly from late 40s to early 60s, only I have had maximum cancers and mine too changed into non-hereditary and unrelated to theirs. you've been given some extremely severe incorrect information in some solutions right here. The 'innovations' snoopysfan's uncle surpassed on to him is a hoax digital mail that has been extensively circulated and keeps to do the rounds specially situations. Johns Hopkins have denied that it got here from them. Breast maximum cancers isn't any extra likely to be hereditary than the different type of maximum cancers; this fantasy is repeated each and anytime a question is requested about hereditary maximum cancers. in reality only 5 - 10% of all breast maximum cancers situations are hereditary. And the position maximum cancers (breast or the different variety) IS hereditary, there is no progression of it 'skipping generations' - it somewhat is yet another fantasy

Answer 5

Cancer is not genetic in that is directly passed on, (like hemophilia) but people with a history of cancer in their family are said to be morer predisposed to contract cancer.

Answer 6

Yes in most cases it is but it depends on the cancer. If your parents had cancer you do have a greater risk for cancer later in life.

Answer 7

In some cases it can be. My maternal grand-father's brothers and sisters all passed away from some sort of cancer. He had 9 brothers and sisters. My mother has had three biopsies in the past 2 years. All three have turned out to be benign.

Answer 8

there is a genetic component, but not all with the predisposition get cancer ( i think it's like 20% of those do)

Answer 9

no as the cancer leads to abnormal somatic cell division

Answer 10

check with the American cancer society, they can answer any question you have.