What's in Steve?
Well, according to Bruce Sterling, effluent, mutagens and the byproducts of industry, among other things.
(Couldn't decide what to do with this.....
Steve: general tech -> GD
Steve's pancreas: real world -> AO
Toxic stuff that's killing us all: definitely real world -> AO
AO gets it.)
Full Text
So, questions....
Do you think Bruce OKed this with Fearless Leader?
Anybody know if environmental carcinogens really have been identified as the specific cause of neuroendocrinal pancreatic cancer?
If you live in Silicon Valley, how are you feeling?
Hands up if you want to be able to see all the toxins in and around you that are turning your plump, healthy cells into rapidly reproducing, rogue cancer cells as we speak? (Chester sits on hands.)
(Couldn't decide what to do with this.....
Steve: general tech -> GD
Steve's pancreas: real world -> AO
Toxic stuff that's killing us all: definitely real world -> AO
AO gets it.)
Quote:
This may sound a bit alarmist and theoretical, so let me phrase it to you in a way that holds your own feet to the fire. Steve Jobs is a pioneer of personal computing and the head of Pixar. Apple is the biggest vendor here. It's hard to get any more SIGGRAPH than Steve Jobs. Steve Jobs has neuroendocrinal pancreatic cancer. That's because, like everybody else in the world, like you and like me, Steve Jobs is carrying a load of carcinogens in his flesh. Silicon Valley, as an industrial clean-up site, is rather well known for its mutagens.
The disturbing substances that are in the body of this captain of your industry, they should not be in there. They are wasted resources, they are systemic inefficiencies, they are externalities. We need ways to keep these substances organized and contained, and, eventually, designed out of the production system entirely. Steve is sick for physical reasons, for metabolic reasons. We may not know the exact chains of cause and effect, but there is one; he's not sick because some dark angel blew on his dice wrong. He has effluent, byproducts of industry, inside his body.
It's painful. But we need to understand that our bloodstreams are our dumping grounds. So are our lungs and our livers. If we could visualize that, if we knew and could prove what had gone wrong inside of ourselves, if we could put a digital medical imaging screen on our bellies, our lungs and our livers, and make those invisible problems visible, then everything would become different. If that knowledge was attached to every object in our possession, the objects that were killing us would vanish quickly.
That wouldn't be easy to do. But in the year 2004 it is no longer unimaginable. It could be done.
This may sound a bit alarmist and theoretical, so let me phrase it to you in a way that holds your own feet to the fire. Steve Jobs is a pioneer of personal computing and the head of Pixar. Apple is the biggest vendor here. It's hard to get any more SIGGRAPH than Steve Jobs. Steve Jobs has neuroendocrinal pancreatic cancer. That's because, like everybody else in the world, like you and like me, Steve Jobs is carrying a load of carcinogens in his flesh. Silicon Valley, as an industrial clean-up site, is rather well known for its mutagens.
The disturbing substances that are in the body of this captain of your industry, they should not be in there. They are wasted resources, they are systemic inefficiencies, they are externalities. We need ways to keep these substances organized and contained, and, eventually, designed out of the production system entirely. Steve is sick for physical reasons, for metabolic reasons. We may not know the exact chains of cause and effect, but there is one; he's not sick because some dark angel blew on his dice wrong. He has effluent, byproducts of industry, inside his body.
It's painful. But we need to understand that our bloodstreams are our dumping grounds. So are our lungs and our livers. If we could visualize that, if we knew and could prove what had gone wrong inside of ourselves, if we could put a digital medical imaging screen on our bellies, our lungs and our livers, and make those invisible problems visible, then everything would become different. If that knowledge was attached to every object in our possession, the objects that were killing us would vanish quickly.
That wouldn't be easy to do. But in the year 2004 it is no longer unimaginable. It could be done.
Full Text
So, questions....
Do you think Bruce OKed this with Fearless Leader?
Anybody know if environmental carcinogens really have been identified as the specific cause of neuroendocrinal pancreatic cancer?
If you live in Silicon Valley, how are you feeling?
Hands up if you want to be able to see all the toxins in and around you that are turning your plump, healthy cells into rapidly reproducing, rogue cancer cells as we speak? (Chester sits on hands.)
Comments
Steve is not in touch with the industrial process. If any product were know to cause a specific type of cancer then a whole lot of people other than Steve would have gotten it by now.
Sounds like the author has and agenda and not a lot of science to back it up. He's playing off of Steve celebrity to push his cause.
Originally posted by Scott
Beyond lung and throat cancer it's hard to ID what's caused any one persons cancer.
Steve is not in touch with the industrial process. If any product were know to cause a specific type of cancer then a whole lot of people other than Steve would have gotten it by now.
Sounds like the author has and agenda and not a lot of science to back it up. He's playing off of Steve celebrity to push his cause.
Yes and no. It doesn't matter that Steve isn't in touch with the industrial process. I think the point is, is that the industrial process is dumping toxins into our environment, and even though we can't see them, they're there.
Remember, Steve lives a very healthy lifestyle. Maybe a little too much stress in his life, but - he's in great shape and he's a vegitarian. Who knows what caused his cancer - part genetics - who knows. I don't know what type of industry is in California (I don't think there are too many semi-conductor plants out there) but the semi-conductor business produces some pretty brutal byproducts, which do find their way into streams and such.
By the way, there are "a whole lot" of people who have gotten pancreatic cancer - not always the good kind.
Originally posted by Scott
What evidence to you have to support your claim that "there are 'a whole lot' of people who have gotten pancreatic cancer" as if the rate has significantly increased recently?
Funny, I don't recall mentioning that the rate has significantly increased. One sec, let me check ..... nope - I didn't.
It's not like California has experienced some kind of "Chernobyl"
Sure - the guy is on the extreme side, but unfortunately that's usually the stance you usually have to take to get these types of causes noticed.
No doubt smoking and diet are the biggest factors, but does anyone really realize what chemicals are used to make silicon?
Chemicals at a typical semiconductor fab
For neuro-endocrine tumours, these are a very miscellaneous group of tumours some of which are very unusual in that they sometimes produce special clusters of symptoms as a result of the excess production of chemicals in the blood. These can sometimes affect the body in the form of severe uncontrolled diarrhoea, abdominal pains, flushing or sweating attacks and skin irritation. Not everyone gets all of the symptoms. Where possible these tumours are best dealt with by removing the tumour but when the tumour it is not possible to completely remove the tumour then other treatment may be needed particularly in these patients who have symptoms. A number of specialised investigations are carried out including nuclear medicine scans ? which are able to demonstrate the sites of disease in many patients not visualised on other techniques. Furthermore this particular radioactive scan known as an Octreoscan may give information to help with treatment. For those patients with flushing, diarrhoea, skin rash and abdominal pains the treatment with Somatostatin analogues such as Octreotide or Lanreotide may be very effective in many cases. Other treatments that may be considered include blocking off the blood supply to the liver arteries (hepatic artery embolisation), chemotherapy and radio-nuclide therapy.
The management of both these tumour types does require a strong Team approach it remains an exciting and challenging group of tumours to look after.
He does eat fish, right?
Originally posted by Placebo
Hmmm...I wonder whether the (probably) high mercury content of Steve's vegetarian diet caused this...
He does eat fish, right?
If only all cancers where caused by bad habits.
Originally posted by the cool gut
Funny, I don't recall mentioning that the rate has significantly increased. One sec, let me check ..... nope - I didn't.
It's not like California has experienced some kind of "Chernobyl"
Sure - the guy is on the extreme side, but unfortunately that's usually the stance you usually have to take to get these types of causes noticed.
No doubt smoking and diet are the biggest factors, but does anyone really realize what chemicals are used to make silicon?
Chemicals at a typical semiconductor fab
oooooh, scary chemicals with names that are unfamiliar and scary ooooooh. chemical ignorance strikes again. i have almost all of those in my lab as we speak this very instance, and while one would suspect the cancer rate to be higher in synthetic chemists, it is in fact lower (at least with the most recent generations of chemist) than the population.
most cancers are probably caused by viruses or other infections...
Originally posted by the cool gut
Funny, I don't recall mentioning that the rate has significantly increased. One sec, let me check ..... nope - I didn't.
Can you read and understand English or not? There is an "as if" in my reply. But anyway you're claiming that a "whole lot" of people have panc' cancer? What's the basis for this and is it higher than the natural occurrence?
Originally posted by the cool gut
It's not like California has experienced some kind of "Chernobyl"
Sure - the guy is on the extreme side, but unfortunately that's usually the stance you usually have to take to get these types of causes noticed.
....
Yea when they are not backed up by science. Often used by lawyers to drum up large settlements when the science doesn't back their class action suit, eg Erin Brockovich
Originally posted by Scott
Can you read an understand English or not? There is an "as if" in my reply. But anyway you're claiming that a "whole lot" of people have panc' cancer? What's the basis for this and is it higher than the natural occurrence?
Yea when they are not backed up by science.
After a Google search on Pancreas cancer, I founded that the frequency
of pancreas cancer is rising. However it's the case for most cancers, and there wasn't any explanations about this.
Claiming it's done by chemical stuff or radiation is clueless, unless there is serious scientific studies to back it.
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
chemical ignorance strikes again.
Not very bright, are you? Chemicals are fine stored in little viles and jars on your shelf, but when they're used in vast amounts in an industrial scale manufacturing process, and are eventually disposed of, it's a little hard to keep them out of the environment.
So you work with all these chemicals, and your quite proud that you haven't gotten sick and cancer diagnosis in your field is lower than the average. So you want a f*cking cookie or something?
I know people who worked with PCBS, putting them in transformers. They would be up to their elbows in that shit - they never got cancer or anything like that and are still around today, alive and kicking ... so by YOUR rational ... fear of PCBS is another case of "chemical ignorance"
I swear I've never met anyone so flippin' niave.
But anyway you're claiming that a "whole lot" of people have panc' cancer?
30 000 people die a year in the U.S. from pancreatic cancer. Personally, I consider that a "whole lot" I would disagree with the fact that these deaths are "natural" I never "claimed" to have any evidence to back this up, it's just my personal opinion.
I don't understand why your getting so bent out of shape about all this, the media is FULL of stories with no scientific evidence. To dump on what he is saying, without any data of your own (at least I don't see any) is kinda pointless.
Originally posted by the cool gut
Not very bright, are you?
You my dear old chummy friend are a moron. What constitutes chemical ignorance is embodied in the fact that you obviously have no clue what the vast majority of those chemicals on that page are. Chemicals are fine in little vials, ok, but I also use said chemicals on a daily basis, I have read the MSDSs on most of them, and I know the risks involved. I am not chemically ignorant.
You on the other hand link to a page that merely lists the common chemicals used in semiconductor manufacturing (not knowing what most of them are, and probably hardly looked at the page for much longer than it took to get the google link) with the addage "does anybody know what chemicals are used to ..." What type of question is that coming from someone who wouldn't know what the vast majority of that list means, let alone what within that list constitutes a real carcinogenic threat?
I am as much an environmentalist as the next well read scientist, but in all honesty you don't help your argument by playing on the obvious fears that you and most other americans have of chemicals and chemistry. For instance, it pisses me off to no end that most of the superfund money has gone to cleaning up dioxane which is a low level environmental threat when the small amount of arsenic, a more common and often household term as it is a treatment for heart disease and a well known poison, that was found in the projects next to the port in my home town resulted in profound mental and emotional retardation of the children that lived there. All because dioxane is scary and unknown.
Don't be a unthinking follower.
Cancer death rates declining in U.S.: report
But anyway you can look at the data here.
Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1975-2001, with a special feature regarding survival
Panc' is #11 on the list for incidence and #4 for death rate. You're 35 times more likely to get the top ten over panc. So it's rare. But ... you'll die from it. The only thing that can improve the survival rate for panc is extreme luck (operable) and dying of something else first. Considering how fast you die from panc that's not likely to happen. Plenty of people get hit by trucks after getting treated for prostate cancer.
But anyway this boogie man of industrial process is used to serve peoples political agenda. That's why it irks me so much.
Originally posted by Scott
I just talked to our panc' doctor here. He says smoking is #1 risk factor followed up by genes.
Good I don't smoke. After some years of medecine I have becomed cancerophobic, after a false diagnostic on me. I have realised that it's not mandatory to reach 80 years without severe illness.
Firstly, it pisses me off that some of you couldn't say your piece without sniping at each other. Your posts would be easier and more enjoyable to read if I didn't have to dodge and weave around the attacks on each other's intelligence.
Bruce Sterling, for those who don't know, is a sci fi writer among other things. He also describes himself as a "visionary futurist" which basically means he has a license to throw out nutty ideas in order to challenge current thinking. Personally, I think we need people like that. Leonardo da Vinci's flying machines were pretty off-the-wall. They are as impractical now as they were in his day but we appreciate them as much more than mere flights of fancy (no pun intended).
Having said that, I have found no evidence to support Bruce's claim that Steve's cancer is due to environmental factors. On the other hand, the scientific method isn't infallible either.
A lot of the facts proffered about pancreatic cancer refer to the most prevalent type of pancreatic cancer and not the rarer islet cell cancers which is what SJ's got. Yes, smoking has been identified as the key factor in the types that affect around 90% of pancreatic cancer patients but the causes of islet cell cancers seem to be still pretty much a mystery. A lot of the literature, while making reference to the different types of pancreatic cancer, applies only to the common type when discussing aetiology.
Incidence of a disease can increase while mortality decreases. This appears to be the case with the most prevalent pancreatic cancers. The explanation given for increasing incidence is that people are living longer. So more people are being diagnosed with pancreatic cancer because something else hasn't killed them first. However, this appears to be more hypothesis than established scientific fact.
Environmental factors as a cause of cancer is not pure theory. The causal link between asbestos and mesothelioma is one that springs to mind.
[Aside: I once attended the autopsy of a man who had died of mesothelioma. What I learnt from this experience, if it's any consolation Powerdoc, is that you have to be really, really sick to die.]
Cancer maps and cancer clusters have lead others to ask whether there may be a link between various environmental factors and certain types of cancers. In most instances, the jury is still out. Likewise, people other than Bruce Sterling have suggested the profit motive may cause links between environmental contaminants and cancer to be ignored. There doesn't seem to be any hard evidence of this. But I think you need look no further than the tobacco industry's response to the link between smoking and lung cancer to realize that it's a good thing that someone is at least asking the question.