PDA

View Full Version : If everything is killing us, why do we live so long?


Hae-Yu
04-01-2006, 07:48 AM
This is so true. I gave up on all the health idiots a while ago when they said that "baked grain products" are carcinogens.
reposted from the telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2006/03/31/ccjeff31.xml&menuId=242&sSheet=/money/2006/03/31/ixcoms.html)

If everything is killing us, why do we live so long?
By Jeff Randall (Filed: 31/03/2006)

Is it me, or are we becoming two nations, a society where what occurs in one half of the country bears no relation to events in the other?

I'm talking not about the divide identified by Disraeli - that between rich and poor. Nor do I mean the gap between north and south, or even black and white. No, the contrast to which I refer is starker than that.

It's the split between Negative Britain, in which we appear to be under relentless attack from an increasing list of death-inducing ailments and Positive Britain, where life expectancy is rising at such a rapid rate that the pension system is on the brink of collapse.

Flick through the daily papers' news pages and it's difficult to avoid the conclusion that everything is killing us. But then turn to the personal finance sections and it seems that our pension funds are skint because nobody is dying.

How can this be? Are we dropping like flies or living for ever? Such questions nag away at me, after I spotted a feature in yesterday's Financial Times under the headline "Dangers of a good night's sleep".

Jeepers! Now even having a kip is a cause for concern.

Every day, it seems, new warnings of a looming health disaster emerge in Negative Britain. The scale of imperilment is truly spectacular.

Mass obesity, rampant anorexia, drug addiction, drug shortages, NHS super bugs, junk food, salt poisoning, sugar dependency, sexual diseases, sexual impotence.

Chronic stress, passive smoking, alcohol abuse, carbohydrate overload, the Atkins diet; too few vitamins, vitamin pollution, fruit deficiency, factory farming.

Insomnia, night starvation, vicious sun beds, mobile phones that fry our brains, carcinogenic wrinkle creams, E numbers and, according to Mary Creagh, MP for Wakefield, killer domestic baths with no thermostats.

Wow! Call me paranoid but living in this half of

the country feels like a stroll through a minefield in hobnail boots. I'm still in shock after reading on the internet that "Cheese is the Devil's Plaything".

It's a wonder that anyone makes it through to lunch.

I'd be tempted to stay in bed all day were it not for the risk of… too much sleep. Moving to Baghdad is probably a safer option, but I'm told that the beer there is not so good.

No wonder that UK health ministers have spent more than £50m on management consultants in the past six years. Dealing with all this must be giving Patricia Hewittless a headache.

That's Negative Britain for you. Now, hold my hand and we'll cross over to Positive Britain. It's a journey of only a few inches: the gap between your ears. There you go.

You're now in a very different place.

It's a happy scene, where far from being wiped out by avian flu, those on the back nine of life are heading for a golden age of independent activity, well past the biblical target of three score years and 10. Grey Power is on the march.

In 1900, the average life expectancy of a newborn British male was 56 years. By 2000, it had risen to 76 years. For women, it was even higher, 80 years. And since the turn of the millennium, life expectancy for both sexes in Positive Britain has improved further still.

Despite the range of illnesses, real and imaginary, in Negative Britain, about which public-safety warriors constantly remind us, the over-fifties in Positive Britain have never felt quite so fortified.

So why does one side have so many scares, when the other is in such good shape? The answer is, I suspect, a conspiracy, an unwitting alliance of private enterprise, lobby groups, a credulous media and a nanny state.

The next time you hear a story on BBC news or read a headline that claims, "Braeburn shock: thousands at risk from apple shortage", check out the source. The report invariably goes something like this:

"A new study today reveals that insufficient consumption of apples is creating possible dietary problems across the country. An investigation by the Kent Apple Growers' Collective shows that…"

You get the picture. Business groups, with a vested interest, commission research which reveals - surprise, surprise - that if we only bought more of what they're selling, we'd all be better off. Desperate news editors buy into "the crisis" and, the next thing you know, a pandemic of Apple Deprivation is sweeping the nation.

Another source of bogus fears is local councils, motivated either by crackpot political correctness or a genuine worry about being sued by ambulance-chasing lawyers.

Only this week, we learnt of the Yew Tree Danger Alert. No, I'm not making it up. A row of yew trees, next to a children's playground in Bristol, was pulled up in case the kids poisoned themselves by eating the leaves.

It's amazing. On one hand, nutritionists tell us that we need a government programme of food education because too many children won't eat salads, on the other a risk-assessment officer is warning that our kids are in danger of stuffing themselves with toxic foliage.

Try to imagine the conversation: "No burgers, chips and fizzy pop for me tonight, Mum, I've just tucked into a large portion of belladonna and toadstool mix". I don't think so.

As a fully paid-up hypochondriac, I decided long ago that residing in Negative Britain wasn't for me.

It was simply too depressing.

So, sustained by the thought that if sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll are bad for us, why is Keith Richards still alive? I packed up my mental baggage and left for life on the other side.

Here, along with fellow members of the Saga generation, I look forward to confounding the actuaries and draining the pension system of its resources, way beyond the point where my contributions will have run out. Growing old disgracefully is a wonderful prospect.

Just as long as that deadly nightshade doesn't get me first.

Animal
04-01-2006, 07:16 PM
I couldn't agree more. I always say the samething, "if it's not one new study it's another". It's always something with "these people". One day Oranges are Gods greatest gift and then the next they are most cancer causing thing on the planet.

While I do agree that we can eat a little healthier sometimes or just make better choices on foods that are better for us I dont believe we should stop eating any particular thing just cause some interest group thinks so.

McTucket
04-02-2006, 12:33 AM
sometimes they are helpful though...

take smoking cigarettes for instance...

everyone in the "greatest' generation consumed the product and didnt think twice, maybe they thought it was good, or harmless...

more and more studies came out and showed the true nature of cigarette companies and their harmful products.

(this as im smoking a marb light)

Hae-Yu
04-04-2006, 08:00 PM
I agree and I don't agree on the smoking.

The greatest generation was also longer lived than any previous gen and they smoked at @60% in the 50'sand 60's. You'll most likely still make it to your 70's if you smoke.

On the other hand after 15 years of smoking on and off (12 y on, 2 off, .5 on, 1 off) I know what it does to my body. I'd say a significant portion of older people who have problems smoked regularly for many years and the research only showed what many people already suspected.

My grandmother - light smoker when she was younger (I think), but she died last year in her early 80s. Mostly due to improper medical care.

Take cholesterol. Forget about it. If your cholesterol is high at 230, you can eat like a rabbit and exercise for years, but you'll only change it a few points (as in 10-15 if you're lucky). Your liver produces more than anything you could possibly consume - it's genetics. Cholesterol only really becomes a problem when you smoke. Eat your eggs.

Most older people who have adult onset diabetes - smokers. My dad's one.

Take the sun - stay out of the sun (middle ages), the sun is good for you (60's, 70's) , stay out of the sun (80's 90's), get some sun (00s).

On the other hand taking 40,000 pills of X in 9 years will do some damage (http://www.guardian.co.uk/drugs/Story/0,,1746333,00.html?gusrc=rss).

Hooligan
04-04-2006, 10:41 PM
Just because you smoke doesn't mean you won't see old age. But if you smoked for a long period (or even a short period for some people) of time you're going to be showing the effects of it as you creep up in age. You will most likely have a more markedly decreased pulmonary capacity and or some kind of heart problems. You probably won't be able to walk up more than a flight of stairs at a time without stopping. You'll probably be on oxygen. Could you still suffer from these ailments even if you don't smoke absolutely. You're just far more likely to have these problems if you smoke.

McTucket
04-04-2006, 11:31 PM
you guys are also just focusing on lung related shit. when you smoke, your immune system cannot fight as well as a fully healthy one. for those smokers out there, you know when you get the flu, or some other sickness... and it takes longer for you to heal up if u smoke while sick? i for one am witness to this...

over time you body cannot fight as well against other things like canceretc... if ur a smoka.

Hooligan
04-05-2006, 01:57 AM
I focus on the lung shit because its what I do for a living. :biggrin:

3043
04-05-2006, 08:13 AM
Longevity isn't the issue. It's the quality of the longevity. That's what you should be focused on - not what's killing you. Terri Schiavo's body probably would have went on living for 30 more years.


You can mal-linger for many years with varying degrees of illness.


This topic is too complex for me to fully comment on - super busy these past two weeks. But I stand behind Hooli - he's on the right track...

Sckoarn
04-05-2006, 01:48 PM
Found this.

The average life expectancy of the cave man was about 16 years. In 500 BC the average life expectancy was about 20 years. In 400 AD it was 35 years. In 1900 it was 47 years. In 1930 it was 59 years. By 1975 it had advanced to about 71 years, and in 1989 it had advanced to 74 years for men and 78 years for women. Speculatively, by the year 2,010 it might be 100 years. During all of these times the Maximum Potential Lifespan remained at about 120 years, and has not increased.

Mankind is living longer than ever.

psychonaut13
04-05-2006, 04:02 PM
there is more and more evidence that what we think/feel about something contributes if not makes up entirely what something is/does.

reality is maliable.

McTucket
04-05-2006, 05:18 PM
il agree with that. its not 100% but your perception of things is a mitigating factor.


also, hooli, im not disagreeing with you, i think you have a point, its just that i think its more complex than just one explaination.