can't radiation kill cancer if its treated soon enough?
Radiotherapy can in some instances, yes. It works by directing beams of Gamma Radiation (rays) from different angles into one concentrated spot.
You do it like this because the gamma rays can actually ionise cells, which can kill them or cause mutations and even induce cancer.
(This is how you get skin cancer, by having concentrated Ultra-Violet Radiation (rays) ionising the cells of your skin. Remember that UV Light, Visible Light, X Rays, Microwaves, Infra-Red [Heat], Radio waves and Gamma Rays are all Electromagnetic Radiation, being entirely the same thing, but moving at different frequencies and wavelengths.)
If you direct a number of beams from different angles at one point, then that single point gets a concentrated dose of radiation, while the other areas around recieve only minor radiation.
This beam only goes for a tiny instance of time though.
You also can't use it repetetively, as otherwise you risk damaging other healthy surrounding cells.
Some doctors are wary to use it in certain cancers in risky areas, such as the brain or heart or testicles, since any prolonged radiation here could cause severe damage to the areas around the cancer. (You'd be very upset if you went for radiotherapy on your testicular cancer, came back free from cancer but now sterile.)
There's also the problem with the spread of cancer.
Since cancer can spread from one place to another, and also grow exceedingly large, there ends up being no way to stop the cancer. It might have spread to so many places that to kill all those cells would leave you without any of your vital organs.
Or it might be so large that radiotherapy couldn't be used since you'd have to repeatedly flash gamma rays through the same tissue, damaging them.
The plus sides to radiotherapy however are that they are generally quick and painless, and much less inconvenient than chemotherapy, where you can become very sick with the numerous drugs, which are actually designed to kill cells (since that is the job they are doing, in killing cancer cells).
But, you then have the downsides of it being ineffective in controlling large and well-spread cancers, and also the slight radiation poisoning, which can cause partial hair loss and sickness.
Isn't cancer like problems with cells instead of a disease?
Any illness is considered a disease (don't mistake that for meaning any injury, as having a cut isn't a disease.)
Cancer is a cellular/mutagenical disease. Usually when people think of diseases though, they think of things that can be spread around, like another organism, like a bacteria or virus or parasite. They're but single types of diseases.
also what the forget is so important about breast cancer
compared to some other cancers it isn't so bad, yet it gets TONS more attention because boobs
All cancers can kill. Breast cancer happens to be exceedingly common in both men and women, hence it's attention.
Also, due to the position of breast cancer, where it is in the breast upon the upper torso, it happens to be in close vicinity to multiple important organs, such as the heart and lungs.
It's very easy for this cancer to spread to these organs, at which point it is highly likely to be fatal.
You also have to consider the reason why it gets so much more attention. Because breast cancer is often a visible cancer, just like skin cancer or testicular cancer. Many many people will start to feel pain in their breast, or notice abnormalities with it, but due to lack of education or more often embarassment, many will not go to a clinic to get it diagnosed.
This means there is a high rate of death from breast and testicular cancers, because many people do not go and get it checked out, and it in turn kills them without them knowing they even had it.
Why do you think there are so many campaigns for breast and testicular cancer where the highly promote regular checking of the breasts and testicles. Because so many people pass it off as nothing, when it is very possible for it to be deadly.
Wouldn't the law of nature be that you have to eat to survive?
Or like you have to breath air?
Not really. I suppose you could say that is the law of nature concerning (most) animals, but it's not true for all.
Think about those statements in terms of other forms of life.
Plants don't need to "eat", since most of them produce their own food via photosynthesis.
Some bacteria don't need air, since they respire anaerobically, in the absence of oxygen.
Virus' don't need any food, since they simply exist by infecting other organisms, reproducing and dying. They simply exist as a species by rapidly reproducing and have no need to stay around and gather food.
It's a very awkward and impractical thing to say "laws of nature", and it is a very unscientific thing to do, since you simply can not categorise nature well enough to put it into laws.
And when you consider nature to encompass more than just life, to the extent that it encompasses weather and geology and all sorts, it's just not a good place to start in a scientific context.
But, as far as a vague saying goes, it works fine. But in this topic, it's best to be precise.
If I were to reword Qwepirs original post where this argument sprang from it would be as such;
Am i the only one who agrees? The human society is currently breaking the laws of nature allowing the weak to live on. The weak people are meant to die and feed the ones that are strong. It sounds really disgusting but thats how animals do it.
I imagine if we followed nature and had a dog eats dog world, you would be dead as would most people who think that way.
if we followed the way other animals worked humanity would be extinct
we have literally nothing going for us except our ability to stick it to mother nature and act differently to other animals
The bold line is where I would imagine Qwepir bases his point on.
Tonkka suggests that humans should act in the same manner that animals do.
But Qwepirs point is that humans are only humans (and alive) because we don't act like animals (and follow the "laws of nature")
