Was in attendance cancer 400 years ago? Was it some same as it is today or more uncommon?

Answers:     theres been cancer since man be here on earth...but no one heard something like it so much, cause there was no t.v., radio, the media, Dr's and people died without knowing what was wrong next to them...
Cancers had to be much more rare 400 years ago for the following reason :
er rates have clearly increased in times past 100 years.
Causes of death for the U.S. in 1906 when the U.S. population was ~ 85 million :
#1 Tuberculosis ~ 60,000
#2 Pneumonia/Flu ~ 53,000
#4 Diarrhea ~ 42,000
#8 Cancer ~ 24,000
Here is the CDC notes for 2006 in the USA with a population ~ 300 million :
#1 Heart disease: 631,636 deaths
#3 Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 137,119
#4 Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 124,583
#5 Accidents (unintentional injuries): 121,599
#6 Diabetes: 72,449
#8 Influenza and Pneumonia: 56,326
#9 Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 45,344
#10 Septicemia: 34,234

31% of cancer deaths contained by the U.S. are lung cancers - 90% caused by smoking.

Autopsy studies show that the incidence of lung cancer increased 19 fold from 1852-1952.
In Germany - 1929 - physicians recognized the connect between smoking and lung cancer leading to an aggressive anti-smoking campaign.
964 the Surgeon General of the United States recommended that smokers should stop smoking.
Lung cancer deaths in U.S. men adjusted for population increased at most minuscule 15 fold between 1920 and 1980 showing a direct correlation with cigarette consumption - with a 20 year time lag.

There is far more cancer today than 100 years ago and to be sure more than 400 years ago. The answerer who noted that people 400 years ago did not live long enough to get cancer surrounded by many cases is VERY true. From Roman times to the 1800's, the average life expectancy from birth was ~ 30 years. In the USA of 1906 vivacity expectancy at birth was 47 years. Cancers increase with age. The vast majority of cancer occur after age 50.
cancer must have been more scarce 400 years ago by deductive reasoning rather than actual data since we have no statistics for that time time of year - 1609 AD. European people were only origination to smoke tobacco in 1609. King James I of England wrote a paper blasting the negative vigour effects of tobacco smoking at the same time his scholars were writing the King James book of the bible. King James had no scientific evidence then, but he be dead right.

There are more cancers today because :
1. We live longer
At lowest possible 31% of all cancer deaths could be prevented if we would stop smoking cigarettes. That would also reduce condition care expenditures enormously.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/co… Source(s): MD medical oncologist - cancer specialist physician
Cancer has always been around. It affects not just human beings but all life forms including animals and plants. Patients with cancer did not survive 400 years ago and nearby is plenty of evidence that 'doctors' knew about it. There were 'treatments', nearby were surgeries . . the most telling info is found in Egyptian papers describing breast cancer and that near is 'no cure'. Famous figures throughout history have suffered and died from cancer. It is well agreed that English Queen Mary died from ovarian cancer in 1558. The daughter of 2nd American President, John Adams, died from breast cancer 200 years ago.

ref="http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_6x_the_history_of_cancer_72.asp" rel="nofollow">http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/conten…


cancer has other been with us, sunlight can cause it as can solar radiation, so its a everlasting feature. As for the amount thats impossible to say, there be no tests for it back then so it be rare to actually know the cause of loss. If you want changes in frequency you'd need to look at newer background, say over the last 50 years or so, prior to that gets murky.
AS far as number of people dying from something that we today telephone call cancer, and the number dying 400 years ago from the same problem, it is difficult to establish if it is a higher or lower number mainly because they did not enjoy x-rays to diagnose cancer more than about 75 years ago.

And dissecting the body before 1865 was outstandingly un-popular thing to do, it was just buried and that be that. Cancer could have been discovered post mortum, but not treated effectively. Remember back contained by 1750 the brain was thought to help cool the blood and provide cooling to the body with a significant amount of blood vessels located there.

I also think that things like falling trees, or loose animals also killed citizens more often than today. Even construction accidents and coal mining suffered larger losses than today. So lets vote that you might live to an average age of 42. It was not rare for a farmer or coal miner to die in the past the age of 35. Yes they would live past 45 on a regular basis, but more than 10 per 1,000 might die before reaching 35.

The prospect of being one of the older crowd, who live past 65 is occasional, and those are almost expected to die of old age at any day after they turned 60. So if they got Consumption, it be thought to be a result of old age, not cancer caused by smoking to many cigarettes.
y if at hand is a construction site with 1,000 workers on it, and there is 1 death, it will probably result within the construction site being shut down for weeks, even if it was a result of the worker dying of something like low blood sugar rank and fainting while on a high steel beam, and falling to their annihilation.

So the number of farmers, miners, and so on dying before the age of 45 is much more rare than before 1950.

Acid rain, cigarettes, and many other causes also mete out cancer. I think that cancer is also fairly easy to prevent. I feel that cancer is a fairly delicate cell, and requires a acidic environment to thrive and reproduce. Myself, I don't want to host cancer, so I drink a alkaline diet, and I seem to be doing well.

If it was not for cancer, I reflect we would be seeing a lot more people live past the age of 75, and die from infirm age. But consider that many of the people 200 years ago that died of old age might enjoy secretly been dying from cancer - it is a possibility.
ess if we eliminate adjectives forms of lifestyle disease, then many more will live into their 90's and beyond, and the social security system will progress broke paying for those people, and I might never collect anything!

Lifestyle diseases are things like diabetes, cancer, heart conditions, gout, scurvy. These are preventable by making diet changes.

In Japan, Diabetes is not considered an "Old Age" disease - like it was surrounded by the 60's there. It is now considered a lifestyle disease, that the patient brought on by consumption un-healthy over a long time - 10 - 20 years or more. If diabetes really was a old age disease, then (the Japanese doctors would articulate that ) all people over the age of 80 in Japan would own cancer and diabetes, because it effects each older person. Yet because it individual effects those with a lousy diet that reach a age of say 35 - 55, and sometimes effects a creature over the age of 80 who is eating a good diet, it is not a old age disease, but a diet and lifestyle problem.

I close to the way they describe diabetes and cancer in Japan. Perfectly avoidable.

Good Luck!
yes there was, it was more uncommon because people died around 30, and people did not know what cancer was , so the loss recorded wasnt called cancer
cancer is raison d`être my the mutation from natural cells
er existed, but it wasn't as common back then because of the difficult immune system humans had because they had adapted to harsher environments.

Hope I helped!
Cancer have been around as long as humankind and longer.
oldest description of cancer in humans was found within an Egyptian papyrus written between 3000-1500 BC. It referred to tumours of the breast.

The oldest available specimen of a human cancer is found in the remains of skull of a female who lived during the Bronze Age (1900-1600 BC) The tumour in the woman's skull be suggestive of head and neck cancer

Here are some articles about the history of cancer:

ref="http://cancer.about.com/od/historyofcancer/a/cancerhistory.htm" rel="nofollow">http://cancer.roughly speaking.com/od/historyofcanc…


It's not possible to say if it be rarer 400 years ago. Cancer would not often have been recognised as such.

Most importantly, cancer is in principal a disease of ageing - most people diagnosed with it are over 60; improved strength care means more people living longer, and so more family developing cancer.
rates of most cancers haven't increased significantly in the last few decades; but survival rates enjoy.

(a)ricky852: you may be interested in this article; there is no proof of the acid/alkaline theory and much evidence that it is incorrect.
ref="http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelateecstatics/DSH/coral2.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRela…

Type 2 diabetes is indeed often a result of significant overweight, but there are other risk factors isolated with weight.

I'm a long term lacto-vegetarian who's never smoked, who eats a largely organic diet, avoids caffeine and exercises regularly. In the last six years I enjoy been diagnosed with both cancer and type 2 diabetes.

Cancer affects the healthy and the contaminated alike

Related Questions: