animals are smarter than we think

of course they do. Did you never have a pet?


But you rarely see really old animals in the wild because they get deleted from the population.
 
It may not be good to be older, have cancer etc. However city animals get old. Cancer mutation happens instantly, why then these animals don't get much cancer?

Btw, By living in big cities, with clothes, in house/covered places & with other health effecting luxuaries--Do we shed more skin particle or less than animals OR suppose,we without luxuaries? Do we ingest more carcinogens or less? Do we take more unnaturals or less-- than animals& birds?
 
Because they live with us. Please consider this Q-- By living in big cities, with clothes, in house/covered places & with other health effecting luxuaries--Do we shed more skin particle?
 
Last edited:
It is ok, but something is common in all city animals which can differanciate them with city humans.

Can you give this reply to the question asked--By living in big cities, with clothes, in house/covered places & with other health effecting luxuaries--Do we shed more skin particle or less than living naturally in cities?
 
May be then something hidden in this. Less shedding may be due to less dying of cells & otherwise.
 
Last edited:
How can you say when not yet researched. Skin of sole is thick, may be due to non exposure so less sheding.
 
Na ja, I don't know how I can say that. I do work in a research group whose topics include skin and tooth development...but that probably means nothing.
 
No one may be knowing/understanding. Skin particle may be composed of fluoride,silicic acid & sulphur and other. Do you know composition of skin shedded particles?
 
Not cancer but other health risks.

Originally posted by spuriousmonkey
I think that for instance the fox population in the city has a shorter lifespan and therefore probably less prevalence of cancer.
Click to expand...
Some animals have adapted very well to living on the fringes of human settlements. Scavengers like raccoons do best, because they can thrive on our garbage. Small predators like foxes do very well also, because they eat the even smaller scavengers that we are almost incapable of eradicating, like rats.

I wouldn't be so sure to say that camp-followers have shorter life spans than hunters.

I don't know about cancer, but a study was just published on another health risk that comes with urban adaptation. Bears that live on the edges of cities get less exercise and eat more than their cousins in the forest. As a result they are fat and out of shape. Furthermore, since their food supply does not diminish in the winter, they don't hibernate as long as the forest dwellers. All of this may well contribute to a shorter life expectancy.

Other camp followers do very well, however. Deer are thriving; there are more of them in the lower 48 states than there were 100 years ago. Their biggest health risk is being hit by cars. The coyote population is also growing, and they seem to have the life expectancy of similar size dogs. (They just love venison.)

Escaped exotic pets sometimes find an utterly empty ecological niche. There are flocks of macaws in most subtropical US cities such as L.A. The humans have kindly cultivated all kinds of tropical foliage so they have the food that they would have in the rain forest. And there are virtually no predators that can take them on. An eagle or a really big hawk might grab a macaw, but he would be dismayed to find out how well they can fight with their incredibly strong beaks and their prehensile claws. My money would be on the macaw flying away with an amputated eagle claw for his own dinner.
 
Epithelioma is a major type of cancer. Increase/decrease in skin particles may mean increase/decrease in cell multiplicatins so early death so less chance of mutation & stimulation. My studies & assumptions indicates Sulphur, fluoride & silicic acid or their compounds--Potasium Sulphate, Calcium Fluoride & Silicic Acid may be related to cancer( their physiological/organic not foreign effects). These elements/compounds are not yet researched for cancer.
 
if the cells die earlier then other cells have to replicate faster to replace them, thus increasing the chance of cancer. Do you have evidence for your claims and assumptions, some of those noted compounds are vital nutrients and salts.

Also no skin flaks are not composed of such compounds in any exceptional quantities. Toxins are release in sweat, urine, excrement and breath, skin flaks are just dead skin.
 
Last edited:
"if the cells die earlier then other cells have to replicate faster to replace them, thus increasing the chance of cancer."

I think it may only be true in canerous or mutated for cancer condition. Old age, slow replication & cancer may be related & opposite in early age. Cancer cells may not have cellline type replication.

"Do you have evidence for your claims and assumptions, some of those noted compounds are vital nutrients and salts."

In one differant system made by MD qualified doctors, something like this is indicated. Since, it was peculier & unattended, trying to link. However, solid evidances could had solved this issue backed by noble prize & other appreciations. No harm in trying since unsolved, I only think so!! Tell me if wrong?

"Also no skin flaks are not composed of such compounds in any exceptional quantities. Toxins are release in sweat, urine, excrement and breath, skin flaks are just dead skin."

Are these not the constituents of skin,hair,nails, CT,ET etc.? Skin shedded particles may not be dead skin but left out of dead cells. Pls just clarify. I am medically less educated.
 
I'm sorry to say this but your not even capable of making statement that can be interpreted! like what the hell does this mean:

I think it may only be true in canerous or mutated for cancer condition. Old age, slow replication & cancer may be related & opposite in early age. Cancer cells may not have cellline type replication.
Click to expand...

what is not "celline type relication" if am to interpret that as mitosis?

Kumar you must avoid making assumptions based of no proof or assumptions based on assumptions. Let me give you a example: “A witch is a female who burns. Witches burn - because they're made of wood. Wood floats. What else floats on water? A duck; if something has the same weight as a duck it must float. A duck and scales are fetched. The girl and the duck balance perfectly. There for she is a witch.” do you understand that statement because I don't! Some of your statements approach that level of logic!

no once again Skin flaks as in particle that come of the skin is just dead skin! Human Anatomy 130. We produce several pounds of skin flaks as dust in this form per year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top