 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Breast Cancer / December 2003Are shoes the cause of breast cancer?
Greetings everyone! During the last several years I have had the opportunity to carefully observe and study a number of diseases that occur in the United States population, but less often or not at all in other countries. After much persistence, I finally "stumbled" onto a significant discovery concerning our habitual use of footwear since birth, a seemingly irrelevant topic because almost everyone in the United States considers shoes to be harmless. Nonetheless, please keep an open mind to the possibility that scientists and doctors (even the smartest Nobel Prize winners) have all overlooked something common as the cause of widespread disease during the last two hundred years. Chiropodist Dr. Simon J. Wikler first proposed in the early 1950's that shoes are a cause of degenerative disease in humans because of the inherent changes to our posture and gait. I believe that his novel idea was the tip of a gigantic iceberg, and I have expanded his discoveries to include many diseases with "no known cause", including seemingly-unrelated conditions such as heart disease, cancer, depression, obesity, multiple sclerosis, diabetes, asthma, osteoporosis and even Alzheimer's disease to name but a few. You may find the complete text and pictures of my explanation, including my thoughts on a possible "cure" and prevention for these conditions, at my aptly-named website: http://www.shoebusters.com Dr. Wikler believed that shoes induce poor posture and cause a rounding of the shoulders, placing the breast tissue at a mechanical disadvantage subject to straining and irritation. Breast cancer rarely occurs in Africa where shoes are rarely used. Even Japan, a modern country full of toxins and pollutants, has a breast cancer rate dramatically lower than in the United States. The use of footwear is minimized in Japan, and since the Japanese remove their shoes when in the house, at the office and in restaurants, their postures are better. Other cancers, such as prostate, lung and colon, occur much less often in Japan, and rarely in countries that never use footwear, and I have posted similar messages to newsgroups such as alt.support.cancer and others in the hopes of stimulating a discussion. It is interesting to note that breast cancer occurs in men significantly less often than in women, who tend to have more tissue to support on the front of their skeleton. This indicates to me that breast cancer is purely a mechanical straining of tissue. Breast cancer, like many other cancers, is rare in malnourished countries. It seems that shoes could actually be the only cause of breast cancer in most people. I do not think this suggestion is as radical as some of the surgeries that take place. I am extremely interested in all discussion concerning these ideas, and welcome any opinions, skepticism, comments, feedback or any questions, here in the newsgroups or directly to me. Thank you very much. :-) > Breast cancer rarely occurs in Africa where shoes are rarely used. What a load of trollocks. I suppose use of underwear causes heart disease too. The first item Google popped up with on this subject was: " Breast Cancer Centre of Excellence head Dr Carol-Ann Benn said in a statement that one in 10 South African women run the risk of developing breast cancer" However I think you'll find that here is indeed a correlation between breast cancer and shoe use. It works like this. Breast cancer mainly occurs in older women. Very poor people in tropical climates tend not to wear shoes and tend not to live very long, especially as not wearing shoes increases their risk of parasitisation. Therefore they have little opportunity to contract breast cancer. Tim Jackson Tim wrote: << It works like this. Breast cancer mainly occurs in older women. Very poor people in tropical climates tend not to wear shoes and tend not to live very long, especially as not wearing shoes increases their risk of parasitisation. Therefore they have little opportunity to contract breast cancer. >> Uh oh...not sure here I am on this ;-) Being a native Californian one of my faults is going around barefoot...whenever possible except when shoes are mandatory. That used to drive my East Coast born mom, a former R.N. nuts. In fact I can't recall ever seeing her barefoot... Still we were both dx'd with b.c. at the age of 50...Then again many of her relatives died from b.c. in their 40's or younger, the youngest being 28 at time she passed... > > Breast cancer rarely occurs in Africa where shoes are rarely used. > > What a load of trollocks. I suppose use of underwear causes heart disease > too. Hi! Thanks for your response. Actually, clothing does indeed keep our private parts private and our bodies warm during the winter, but it also reduces the natural absorption of vitamin D being photosynthesized in the skin from natural sunlight. Vitamin D, as you know, is an essential hormone for regulating calcium in the blood and the heart. Now, tight underwear has indeed been implicated in male infertility, so why not tight shoes? > Breast cancer mainly occurs in older women. Sadly, your statement may need to be modified in the next several decades. We do not yet know the full impact of the modern sneaker. Those who grew up wearing those shoes constantly are only now reaching their 30's. The American Cancer Society recently released a survey noting a surge in the number of large breast tumors during the 1990's, and so it seems reasonable that younger ages will begin experiencing the problems traditionally seen in those twice their age. For example, we have already noted huge increases in obesity in the American population, affecting even younger ages than ever before. Most obese people are completely unable to lose excess weight despite trying every diet, exercise regimen, drug, and psychological mind trick in the book from the last one hundred years. Therefore, something else is hindering the ability of overweight people to lose excess fat, and the habitual use of shoes is a candidate. Have you ever tried to bend a toddler's sneaker in half? If you cannot do it with two strong hands, then what kind of a stressful event is that for a 1-year-old learning to walk in such shoes? If you are unable to imagine it, then scale the shoe up to an adult's size, and try walking around in a 3 or 4 inch platform shoe that weighs at least a couple of pounds. Be sure and take 20,000 steps every single day for several years, and keep track of your weight, your blood pressure, your cholesterol, your mood, your blood glucose level, your lung capacity, and even the quality of your vision. You noted that life expectancies are lower in regions that wear less footwear. Please keep in mind that most degenerative disease that affects young people, occurs rarely in these regions. You do not have to be in your 30's or 40's to get multiple sclerosis, arthritis, depression, asthma, diabetes, and obesity. Thanks again for your comments. feetback wrote: << Sadly, your statement may need to be modified in the next several decades. We do not yet know the full impact of the modern sneaker. Those who grew up wearing those shoes constantly are only now reaching their 30's. >> We also don't know the full impact of environmental pollutants, either, or the effect of fumes/gases from man-made products (i.e. plastics) which are of much greater risk. If anything, as far as shoes go, modern sneakers are thought to be much better for ones feet because of flexibility than previous 'hard' shoes. << Therefore, something else is hindering the ability of overweight people to lose excess fat, and the habitual use of shoes is a candidate.>> Yes, that's right but that is primarily due to continued eating and not changing eating habits. People are more likely to engage in long-term exercise, including walking--with shoes than without them. << Have you ever tried to bend a toddler's sneaker in half? >> Yes, actually our pediatrician did it when showing me why it was better for my childrens' first shoes to be sneakers than hard-sold shoes. <<If you cannot do it with two strong hands, then what kind of a stressful event is that for a 1-year-old learning to walk in such shoes? >> If a toddler is under stress from any discomfort, they make it known loud and clear, immediately. << try walking around in a 3 or 4 inch platform shoe that weighs at least a couple of pounds. Be sure and take 20,000 steps every single day for several years, and keep track of your weight, your blood pressure, your cholesterol, your mood, your blood glucose level, your lung capacity, and even the quality of your vision.>> Well, I have never worn platform shoes and rarely wore heels of any kind--but still got cancer and multiple sclerosis. My shoes or posture--which by the way--is excellent had nothing to do with it. Wearing high heels can cause back and foot problems for some--there is no denying that, but those women who have such do NOT have a higher risk of developing breast cancer than those who don't Period. <<You noted that life expectancies are lower in regions that wear less footwear. Please keep in mind that most degenerative disease that affects young people, occurs rarely in these regions. >> They also have less medical care and less chance of being diagnosed and/or accurately diagnosed for anything that might be going on. <<You do not have to be in your 30's or 40's to get multiple sclerosis, arthritis, depression, asthma, diabetes, and obesity. >> True, my child developed asthma as a baby before she ever wore shoes...and I got M.S. in my early 20's when I was at my healthiest and had worn heels probably only once--to senior prom--and they were not very high... > For example, we have already noted huge increases in obesity in the > American population, affecting even younger ages than ever before. Most [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > hindering the ability of overweight people to lose excess fat, and the > habitual use of shoes is a candidate. I've heard many excuses for not losing weight, but blaming it on sneakers is ridiculous. All just excuses for laziness and lack of willpower.  Signaturemadiba > > For example, we have already noted huge increases in obesity in the > > American population, affecting even younger ages than ever before. Most [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > sneakers is ridiculous. All just excuses for laziness and lack of > willpower. We've had the "iron" is the cause of everything man, now the DHEA solves everything man on s.m.d.c and other newsgroups, and "shoes" are the cause of everything man. Sheesh ! <http://groups.google.com/groups?q=author:feetback%40shoebusters.com&hl=en&lr=&ie =UTF-8&scoring=d&filter=0> J I propose this thread as winner of the A.S.C.B. Troll of the Year award For the longest and most blatently pointless discussion raised among the otherwise rather sensible regular contributors to this newsgroup by a new contributor. <g> Tim Jackson > I propose this thread as winner of the A.S.C.B. Troll of the Year award > > For the longest and most blatently pointless discussion raised among the > otherwise rather sensible regular contributors to this newsgroup by a new > contributor. Well, it's given us all a lot of fun! We have enough deep and meaningful conversations here, it's good to escape now and again. Mary > <g> > > Tim Jackson > I propose this thread as winner of the A.S.C.B. Troll of the Year award > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Tim Jackson Yes, looks like shoebusters.com is simply a troll and needs to be canned, he's posted similar pointless threads in s.m.d.c. Signaturemadiba > I propose this thread as winner of the A.S.C.B. Troll of the Year award > > For the longest and most blatently pointless discussion raised among the > otherwise rather sensible regular contributors to this newsgroup by a new > contributor. (cue "High Noon" music) <Narrows eyes, moves to the center of main street & begins to strap on six-guns, as befits a murrican> Who you a-calling "otherwise rather sensible", pohdner? <GG> Seriously: There must be different orders or classes of trolls. This one is so far unfailingly polite and cheery, and (my opinion only) really quite entertaining. I just can't resist feeding him! (I'll try to be better . . . .). Ann T. Remove 'dontsendspam' from address to reply by email > > the > > otherwise rather sensible regular contributors to this newsgroup [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Who you a-calling "otherwise rather sensible", pohdner? > <GG> You may consider yourself excluded from this classification if you wish ;} > Seriously: There must be different orders or classes of trolls. This > one is so far unfailingly polite and cheery, and (my opinion only) > really quite entertaining. I just can't resist feeding him! (I'll try > to be better . . . .). Yes, this is a truly successful trolling, hence the nomination. There are two classes of trolls. There are the Norse trolls who are big, ugly and get junior wizard's wands stuck up their noses (or get Grieg to write music for them) and there are maritime trolls, who catch fish while driving. This is definitely nearer to the fisherman. Tim Ann wrote: << This one is so far unfailingly polite and cheery, and (my opinion only) really quite entertaining. I just can't resist feeding him! >> I've rather enjoyed the amusement re. this absurdity, myself...now wondering whether sleeping, driving, computer and/or using the phone causes earthquakes. Actually I would think sleeping would have it since our youngest was sleeping at the moment this quake hit and also at the time the last major quake it. Two of us were driving during diifferent quakes, and the freeways were quite crowded--and then again, roads are now almost always crowded with drivers. One of my daughters was on the phone at the time. I have also been on the phone when a quake has hit, hmmm, but this time my computer desk began to shake without me hitting it and for longer than usual. I calmly called over to my daughter on the phone about 12 feet behind me and said, I think we might be having an earthquake. She agreed. My other daughter, sleeping about 12 feet in front of me didn't stir. Gosh, the last disaster I directly experienced in some way (brush fires last October--ash coming in through the air conditioning vents when the fire was at it's closes--about 6 miles away--was noted while I was sitting at this very same computer. Hmm, disasters in So. Cal. occur while I am actively using our home computer... > Hmm, disasters in So. Cal. occur while > I am actively using our home computer... It's probably the mass of the text you send to Usenet causing a small shift in the earth's orbit. Better go easy for a bit. Could be you that's causing global warming too. More credible than Amazonian butterflies. I thought it was due to Catharine's ex-husband's SUV, but he got rid of that and it's still happening. Snowed here yesterday mind you, so it might have helped.. <g> Tim Snowed here yesterday > mind you, so it might have helped.. Didn't here, but it was exceedingly cccccold ....... Mary > <g> > > Tim Tim wrote << It's probably the mass of the text you send to Usenet causing a small shift in the earth's orbit.>> Yeah, but you should see the stacks of articles my husband and I have printed out over the past 2+ years. He prefers to read print than computer screen. We must have gone through a minumum of 10 if not more paper reams and that's just a guestimate. << Could be you that's causing global warming too. More credible than Amazonian butterflies. >> Guilty. I must put the car air conditioning on at least once/day--although since the newer cars don't use freon, it's probably not 'that' bad. > I've heard many excuses for not losing weight, but blaming it on > sneakers is ridiculous. The United States is home to some of the most obese in the world, but in Japan, where shoes are worn much less, obesity is rare. We have already noted that diet, exercise, and "willpower" are not helping most obese people in America to lose weight. A fraction may indeed be successful with some combination of these factors, but most obese people cannot lose weight no matter what diet, which exercises, and at any level of "willpower" (whatever that means anyway). If the Japanese do not need pills or surgeries to control obesity, then why should Americans? Do nutritionists need another 100 years to discover a "magic diet"? Have fitness gurus simply overlooked the right combination of exercises? Do psychologists need to research a mind trick specially tailored for Americans to give them the undefined quality that you called "willpower"? Indeed, there appears to be something in our country that is causing more obesity and increased episodes of many other degenerative diseases such as breast cancer, prostate cancer, heart disease, diabetes, asthma, arthritis, osteoporosis and Alzheimer's. Until the cause of all of these diseases is known, "blaming it on sneakers" is no more ridiculous than any of the expensive and risky surgeries that doctors commonly perform to "treat" these preventable diseases. > Until the cause of all of these diseases is known, "blaming it on > sneakers" is no more ridiculous than any of the expensive and risky > surgeries that doctors commonly perform to "treat" these preventable > diseases. Difficult to discuss things with someone that doesn't know what willpower is. Look for people that have lost plenty of weight permanently, without surgery and there you have people with willpower. No-ones saying its easy, it takes w i l l p o w e r. Signaturemadiba > >The United States is home to some of the most obese in the world, > > but in Japan, where shoes are worn much less, obesity is rare. > > Difficult to discuss things with someone that doesn't know what > willpower is. No-ones saying its easy, it takes w i l l p o w e r. It may be easier than you suggest. Most doctors know that once the cause is removed, the human body has an amazing ability to return to a state of normalcy with no outside intervention. We have already noted that modifications to diet and exercise have very little lasting effect, if any, in most people trying to lose weight, so we must search elsewhere for the cause. The habitual use of physically-deforming mechanical devices known as shoes may be a worthwhile candidate to consider. With energetic determination to provide a complete response, I consulted a variety of online dictionaries, and found that the definitions of willpower involve "controlling your own behavior." Are you suggesting that the people who cannot lose weight are unable to "control their behavior"? If they are not able to "control their behavior", then what could possibly be "controlling" it for them? > > >The United States is home to some of the most obese in the world, > > > but in Japan, where shoes are worn much less, obesity is rare. > > > > Difficult to discuss things with someone that doesn't know what > > willpower is. No-ones saying its easy, it takes w i l l p o w e r. snip > Are > you suggesting that the people who cannot lose weight are unable to > "control their behavior"? If they are not able to "control their > behavior", then what could possibly be "controlling" it for them? TV? Advertising? Junk food manufacturers? Who else? Remember "The Hidden Persuaders"? Controlling people's behaviour is easy, all you need is $$$. Tim feetback wrote << It may be easier than you suggest. Most doctors know that once the cause is removed, the human body has an amazing ability to return to a state of normalcy with no outside intervention. >> If that is the case, then if someone wears high heels which has the potential to result in possible orthopedic related difficulties, if one stops wearing them, particularly before any damage occurs, those potential difficulties won't happen and the feet and related structures will return to normal with no outside intervention. > With energetic determination to provide a complete response, I consulted a > variety of online dictionaries, and found that the definitions of > willpower involve "controlling your own behavior." Are you suggesting > that the people who cannot lose weight are unable to "control their > behavior"? Thats right. Habits like going to the fridge to get a snack die hard.. > If they are not able to "control their behavior", then what > could possibly be "controlling" it for them? Habits, their own laziness. Nothing sinister. Signaturemadiba Although we originally began discussing the relationship of shoes to breast cancer in humans, we are now addressing their relationship to obesity. It was pointed out that the United States exhibits one of the highest rates of obesity in the world, and is one of the largest users of shoes on the planet, but in Japan and other countries, where footwear is used sparingly, obesity is rare or nonexistent. Several posters believe that things besides shoes are responsible for obesity, suggesting television, refrigerators, and junk food manufacturers, for example. Others suggested obesity is related to subjective qualities such as "willpower", "laziness", and "habits." Yet obesity has been plaguing those in the United States for over 100 years, well before television, refrigerators, and so-called "junk food" became popular or available in society. It is also difficult to understand how subjective qualities such as "willpower", "laziness" and "habits" affect those younger than two or three years old and considered obese. Are these two-year olds in America really "lazier" than those in India, China, Mexico, South America, Africa, Japan and the rest of the Asia where obesity is rare? Do American toddlers really take fewer steps each day than those in other countries? At only two years old have they already acquired a "habit" that is impossible to break? Do they truly lack "willpower"? If so, then what caused them during those first two years to acquire behavior completely absent in their peers elsewhere around the world? The Japanese eat very little fat and suffer fewer heart attacks than the British or Americans. The French eat a lot of fat and also suffer fewer heart attacks than the British or Americans. The Japanese drink very little red wine and suffer fewer heart attacks than the British or Americans. The Italians drink excessive amounts of red wine and also suffer fewer heart attacks than the British or Americans. The Germans drink a lot of beer and eat lots of sausages and fats and suffer fewer heart attacks than the British or Americans. Conclusion: Eat and drink what you like. Speaking English is what kills you. Mary > Conclusion: Eat and drink what you like. > > Speaking English is what kills you. And speaking it with a Northern English accent is even more lethal! It's not the greasy chips and relative poverty, it's the short "a" that does for us. Tim > > Conclusion: Eat and drink what you like. > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > It's not the greasy chips and relative poverty, it's the short "a" that does > for us. Hadn't thought about that. Hmm ... where's the nearest elocution class? Mary > Tim > Yet obesity has been plaguing those in the United States for over 100 > years, well before television, refrigerators, and so-called "junk > food" became popular or available in society. It is also difficult to > understand how subjective qualities such as "willpower", "laziness" > and "habits" affect those younger than two or three years old and > considered obese. And how many two year olds wear shoes? Is there a serious obesity problem among two year olds in the US, and if so how long has it been going on? I think the statistics show a worrying -increase- in obesity in recent decades which could be correlated to the above causes. Of course historically the main cause of obesity has been affluence. Tim Jackson > And how many two year olds wear shoes? Is there a serious obesity problem > among two year olds in the US, and if so how long has it been going on? Some infants are considered obese even before they begin walking. In my opinion, socks are also deforming to the foot of a newborn, producing an unnatural stressful event to the body of a child that is fresh out of the womb and in need of protection from such environmental obstacles. We may not be able to get the infant's opinion-- after all, any infant who grows up successfully in socks considers them to be harmless. Perhaps you are one such person who considers socks not worthy of "esteemed" scientific research? But there are infants who do not grow up at all to reach that state. Did you know that SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome) occurs much more often during the winter than during the summer? Researchers have examined all sorts of factors in trying to understand what kills an otherwise-healthy newborn during the winter, but not so much during the summer. However, according to a search for "socks sids" on the National Library of Medicine's PubMed journal article database (http://pubmed.gov), not one researcher has yet considered that constrictive or tight socks, worn more often of course during the winter, could be placing an enormous amount of stress on the newborn's body, triggering its survival instinct constantly during its first weeks out of the womb. The incidence of SIDS declines dramatically after the first six months, after which the infant is able to cope with many other sources of environmental stress, and actually begins to walk shortly after. The cause of SIDS may be closer to the body of the infant than most doctors suspect at present. If socks are thus sufficient to cause death in a healthy newborn, how many other diseases find their genesis in a child just weeks after it is born? Hypertension? Heart disease? Cancer? Obesity? Asthma? Addictions to drugs?Autoimmune diseases such as MS or Crohn's? Depression in a newborn? > Of course historically the main cause of obesity has been affluence. And among the first things that people spend the money on are shoes, especially for the children. At one time, prior to the Industrial Revolution that spawned disease, shoes were restricted to a small minority of the world's population. Most of the world grew up barefoot as children. It has only been during the 19th and 20th centuries that most people in America and Europe could afford shoes and socks for children. As the living standards are raised around the world in the 21st century, their children will begin wearing shoes and socks, and we can expect degenerative disease to soar in those regions. China is an early example. > Of course > historically the main cause of obesity has been affluence. That's very true. But there are exceptions ... :-) Mary > Tim Jackson >> Breast cancer rarely occurs in Africa where shoes are rarely used. > >What a load of trollocks. I suppose use of underwear causes heart disease >too. [snip] Holy smokes, Tim, you mean that isn't true? Ten years ago I switched from briefs to boxers because someone told me this. Just kidding, of course. The writer seems to have committed what we in economics call the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy -- because two events happen together one must have caused the other. My favorite counterexample to this is the summer I spent teaching five classes that started at 8 a.m. Monday through Friday I got up at 5:30 a.m. Every day I observed the sun rising when I got up. Therefore my getting out of bed caused the sun to rise -- obviously! - Tony SignatureTony Lima /"\ ASCII ribbon campaign \ / against HTML mail X and postings / \ > Greetings everyone! > [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > questions, here in the newsgroups or directly to me. Thank you very > much. :-) You mean it is not telephones after all? > > Greetings everyone! > > [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > > You mean it is not telephones after all? Well, I've never heard the telephone theory, thank goodness, I use it a lot. In our 'ouse we always thought it was camel breeding. Mary One of the best posts I've seen in here in awhile. The website is cool also :) All in all, a rather pleasant diversion. Allan wrote: << One of the best posts I've seen in here in awhile. The website is cool also :) All in all, a rather pleasant diversion.>> Still giggling...it came at a time when most needed...and gosh, I thought it was from all that cheese I pigged out on... Geesh, I hope not! I've had a thing for shoes since toddlerhood. A few years ago, during a real weight loss campaign, my motivation was a new pair of shoes for every ten pounds. If I can't eat fat or sugar, can't smoke and can't breath the air, I'm gonna have a hissy at the notion that I can't delight in shoes!! Barb, I grew up having to wear shoes that were good for my feet. I sort of rebelled for awhile in my teens. For the most part the shoes I wore 'fit' good the majority of the time. I rarely wore heals except for some 'special' occasions. There appears to be absolutely no relationship between the types of shoes that one or doesn't wear and breast cancer...Now, not wearing shoes that are bad for your feet does have some positives in terms of overall health, but the suggestion that there is any relationship to cancer brings back memories of the days that chiropractors had about the same reputation as witch doctors. Please excuse the analogy if there are any chiropractors here. Much of what they do now, I understand, is based on valid principles re. the skeletal system and how it works. > I rarely wore heals except for some 'special' occasions. > There appears to be absolutely no relationship between the types of > shoes that one or doesn't wear and breast cancer... Hi! That is an interesting point: what is the effect of those elevated heels worn only during special occasions? There are some folks who believe that having smoked a few cigarettes 30 years ago is responsible for their lung cancer, and society is now doing everything possible to keep cigarettes from teenagers. Perhaps in 30 additional years folks will be just as concerned about a few months in high heels as a teenager. It may sound like a weird and crazy notion at the present, but some 30 years ago, cigarettes were also considered harmless by most in society. Nobody has asked the question yet: how do we know when a child has outgrown a pair of shoes? Do we wait until the child complains of ingrown toenails? Do we wait until the sides of the shoes are splitting? Or has the child outgrown the shoe before the toes even touch the sides? What happens to the body of a child that outgrows a shoe? Is it a stressful event that can influence immunity towards disease? > There are some > folks who believe that having smoked a few cigarettes 30 years ago is > responsible for their lung cancer, 'Responsibility' for any particular cancer is difficult to assign, it seems to be much more a combination of sevreal risk factors, with a good dose of random luck thown in. Many people assign blame for cancer, or for recovery from it, to some particular cause with only the flimsiest of evidence. The only real proof lies in population statistics, and those say that smoking a few cigarettes 30 years ago makes a very small contribution to your lung cancer risk. > and society is now doing everything > possible to keep cigarettes from teenagers. That is because the teenage years are when most smokers become addicted, and long term addiction is the real killer. If you can keep a kid off cigarettes during those few years when (s)he thinks it looks 'cool' and when (what remains of) the targeted advertising is at its most intense, then you probably have a non-smoker for life. If they could stop when they got to 20, starting wouldn't be a big danger. Then again I'm all for -other- people smoking, well away from me and mine and preferably in private. It does wonders for our taxes, pensions and life insurance. Tim Jackson << The only real proof lies in population statistics, and those say that smoking a few cigarettes 30 years ago makes a very small contribution to your lung cancer risk. >> My mom smoked 4 packs/day after her breast cancer dx. She survived 6 yrs. after her dx. Interestingly, the cancer never went to her lungs... I (Kaye) wrote: << My mom smoked 4 packs/day after her breast cancer dx. She survived 6 yrs. after her dx. Interestingly, the cancer never went to her lungs...>> I should add that as far as we know the cancer didn't go to her lungs. It was in her bones and did go to her brain--but that could be due to the type of breast cancer she had. I don't know for sure but wouldn't be surprised if it was lobular, which I have, which has a propensity to show that pattern of metastases. In addition, my aunt (her younger sister) who has breast cancer got a recurrence on the other side. She does know what type she has, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is lobular. And as far as smoking is concerned, I am not condoning or excusing it in either way. I don't smoke and never have and have a really hard time being around it. Fortunately, I live in one of the states that was more environmentally concerned in this way--and smoking in restaurants and other public buildings is not allowed. I grew up with 2nd hand smoke, and once I moved away (starting in college), I have had a hard time being around it. My husband's aunt recently died from pancreatic cancer at the age of 85. Except for the recent dx of cancer she was very healthy and mentally alert (more so than most) despite the fact that she smoked regularly until the end. I have several relatives who did smoke regularly as well--and none of them developed cancer. However, fortunately, things have changed and I/we are rarely exposed to 2nd hand smoke in our state. << That is an interesting point: what is the effect of those elevated heels worn only during special occasions? There are some folks who believe that having smoked a few cigarettes 30 years ago is responsible for their lung cancer, and society is now doing everything possible to keep cigarettes from teenagers >> Totally illogical because the percentage of women who wear heals regularly and don't get breast cancer is significantly greater. I don't think that wearing heals for a few hours in ones' life is going to result in breast cancer. It occurs in cultures where women don't wear heals. Personally, I wonder if the incident of possible formaldehyde poisoning that occurred 15 mos. before I felt a mass (almost 2 yrs. before my dx) may have anything to do with the types of very aggressive breast cancer with which I was dx'd or possibly contributed to an acceleration and proliferation of a slower growing cancer. I won't go into the long story but I spent several hours each day, over a period of about a week, with my head inside new plasterboard cupboards, scrubbing them with baking soda. We were rebuilding, and I had wanted all wood, but contractor put in these--won't go into the why's but I was not at all pleased. I was concerned about their toxicity and cancer-causing potential. I found the best thing that could be done was to clean them thoroughly with baking soda. I did. However, in the process I developed breathing-related difficulties, a very strange rash, and a cough. My symptoms corresponed to those associated with formaldehyde poisoning. Our contractor assured us that the cupboards were 'safe' Well, the law had been changed re. safety precautions. However, that was for new materials. Older materials were still allowed to be sold but think label had to state that it still had formaldehyde. Either way that stuff is carcinogenic--which if it were a contributing factor-- may be why I had 3 types of aggressive b.c. and a rare presentation of two of 'em. Interesting you should mention cleaning your cabinets, and then being dx 15 months later. We live in a mobile home. We've been here for 28+ years.{house built 1974/purchased new} In 1996 I sanded down the kitchen walls {paneling} and painted them. They have a perservative on them when they're made, and it's the same chemical you mentioned in your post.{dang if I can spell it right now} The first couple years we lived here we would expierence a burning in our eyes upon returning home after the house had been all closed up for a while. Most times when we had been away on vacation for maybe a week to ten days. I was dx in April 1999. I asked the oncology nurse about this and a pesticide I was using for the garden at about the same time, she told me this would most likely result in lung cancer. She asked me how long I had been using the spray for the garden, and when I redid kitchen walls. She went on to say it would've had to be continual use of these chemicals over a period of 10 years or so to cause cancer. This still bothers me, as this would have been something I myself could have prevented, had I been more careful in doing things around here. I don't obsess about it, but do think about it occassionally and wonder what would have happened, had I done things differently. I'll never at this late date, but doesn't stop me from wondering just the same. Take care there dear God bless annie Ultimately.....we know deeply that the other side of every fear is a freedom. "Courage"...is *fear* that has said it's prayers. Annie wrote: << I sanded down the kitchen walls {paneling} and painted them. They have a perservative on them when they're made, and it's the same chemical you mentioned in your post >> These are most dangerous when they are 'new' and have that odor in them. It was quite stupid of me to have done what I did--I lay on my back inside the cupboards scrubbing them down. I was quite angry that they hadn't used real wood, especially because I knew and was concerned about their potential danger to begin with. Knowing that, it was definately not smart of me to do what I did. As far as the breast cancer, I am not so sure that would have caused the lobular or DCIS--but I am wondering if it was responsible for the IBC (inflammatory breast cancer) and helping or causing the other two cancers to be so aggressive. In fact I don't know if I mentioned it but the area we live in has one of the highest rates of breast cancer, and also one of the highest rates of IBC. As I mentioned I developed a weird cough and rash at the same time or right afterwards. My symptoms corresponded to those listed for formaldehyde poisoning, and I was definately at risk for that at the time. > I don't think that wearing heals for a few hours > in ones' life is going to result in breast cancer. There are some people who are concerned with trace amounts of chemicals and radiation in our food, homes and air, but there is no easy way to measure their quantities or effect. The effect of a heel, however, is much easier to determine, and you only need to stand with more weight on the ball of your foot in order to observe or feel changes to the body column. According to podiatrist Dr. William Rossi, during the first 20 years, the foot experiences growth spurts that are not regular or precisely predictable. Some bones do not even form, he says, until the third or fourth year. It could be that the few hours that a child is wearing an elevated heel will be the defining moment shaping its life to come. > It occurs in cultures where women don't wear heals. A shoe can have a flat heel, but come to a sharp point in the front. Pointed toe fashions are the most common type of shoe in the world, found in most cultures, and they also are meant to deform the foot. Squeezing of the toes appears to be another significant factor in body mechanics. Natural toes spread and fan out to provide a wide, stable base for walking and standing. Squeezing the toes together eliminates that advantage, and the feet typically turn out to the side, losing support for the pelvis and thus rounding the shoulders. > A shoe can have a flat heel, but come to a sharp point in the front. > Pointed toe fashions are the most common type of shoe in the world, > found in most cultures, and they also are meant to deform the foot. > Squeezing of the toes appears to be another significant factor in body > mechanics. Natural toes spread and fan out to provide a wide, stable > base for walking and standing. The reason I don't wear shoes is because my toes fan out and procide a wide, stable base for walking and standing. There are no shoes made which fit me. > Squeezing the toes together eliminates > that advantage, That's obvious. I got breast cancer. I still think it's the camels. Mary feetback wrote<< Some bones do not even form, he says, until the third or fourth year. It could be that the few hours that a child is wearing an elevated heel will be the defining moment shaping its life to come. I highly doubt it. However, if one wants to look at the importance of shoes--my mom was an R.N. We grew up wearing only sensible shoes from the 'best' of stores. My mom did the same. Both of us got breast cancer. She had 3 first maternal cousins, all first cousins to each other and none of them siblings, die at early ages. One female cousin died at the age of 28 (her mom died from breast cancer in her 40's and her brother died of Hodkins in his 30's); another female cousin died at the age of 31 (her mom died of liver cancer in her early 60's but there is good chance it was metastasized breast cancer); another cousin, a male died of breast cancer in his 40's...oh and I forgot her sister who is a survivor. She was dx'd with breast cancer at 45 and a second cancer (lung) for which she has had 3 recurrences in her 60's. Oh and another increased risk fact for me was that my dad's Russian born mom died in her 40's (in about 1931) from breast cancer. His brother got colorectal cancer in his 30's and was 'cured' with experimental treatment, although he went on to get lymphoma but not until his 70's. His eldest daughter, my first cousin, was dx'd with breast cancer in her 50's and his younger daughter was recently diagnosed with a rare type of blood disorder, Waldenstroms (a rare type of cancer). Neither of those female cousins were high heel wearers. Another of my uncles--brother to the above (both sons of paternal grandmother) died of melanoma. I have passed down this legacy to my own 3 daughters. Plus, they are at increased risk from my husband's side. His mom died of breast cancer in his 60's. His maternal first cousin was dx'd with breast cancer at 50 and went on to died from pancreatic cancer at 60. His aunt, also aunt to just discussed first cousin died--probably the only of his relatives to wear high heels more than anyone else (and not all the time) died from pancreatic cancer at the age of 85 at a time when she was physically and mentally 'fit.' > Geesh, I hope not! I've had a thing for shoes since toddlerhood. A few > years ago, during a real weight loss campaign, my motivation was a new pair > of shoes for every ten pounds. If I can't eat fat or sugar, can't smoke and > can't breath the air, I'm gonna have a hissy at the notion that I can't > delight in shoes!! Thanks for your comments. You are not alone in your love of shoes. The typical American, for example, owns about five pairs of shoes, and it is not uncommon to find hundreds of pairs in somebody's closet, representing a significant investment of their hard-earned income. The Greek ideal of "everything in moderation" includes shoes themselves. Why not enjoy shoes? But does that mean you should wear them all the time? Although nobody has done the study yet, I can imagine that drinking alcohol constantly for 16-hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year, could produce some pretty nasty results. Becoming a "social" user of shoes and alcohol may indeed be a sensible approach. > The Greek ideal of "everything in moderation" includes shoes > themselves. Why not enjoy shoes? But does that mean you should wear > them all the time? I don't wear shoes. Well, I wore them one day in September 2003. My bc was diagnosed in 1998. MUST have been the camels. Mary > I don't wear shoes. Well, I wore them one day in September 2003. > My bc was diagnosed in 1998. > > MUST have been the camels. Y'know, I've been thinking <rips top off can'o'worms>: If the postural impact of shoes has such a deleterious effect, perhaps breast cancer is really caused by *bras*. Not only does it change your posture by creating unnatural weight distribution, but it compresses and constrains the breast tissue in an very unnatural way. I could (but thankfully won't) illustrate by comparing photos of the typical westernized bra-distorted breast with the natural, more . . . um, vertically enhanced breast shape that seems common in the closer-to-nature cultures (as far as I can recall from photos in old National Geographic magazines). Case in point: Back when I was younger, cuter, and slightly more laciviously-oriented, I didn't wear a bra. I didn't get breast cancer *then*. No, it was only after I had been bra-wearing for a number of years. Very suspicious, eh? (<VBG>, :-), and whatever else I should insert here so you know I'm joking!) Ann T. Remove 'dontsendspam' from address to reply by email > Case in point: Back when I was younger, cuter, and slightly more > laciviously-oriented, I didn't wear a bra. I didn't get breast cancer > *then*. No, it was only after I had been bra-wearing for a number of > years. Very suspicious, eh? You're right, it was the same with me. Must be that then. > (<VBG>, :-), and whatever else I should insert here so you know I'm joking!) Oh! But I suspect that's the get-out clause and that you really did mean it ... I mean, two people with the same experience from two people - 100%. Obvious, then, innit! Mary > Ann T. > Remove 'dontsendspam' from address to reply by email Ann T wrote<< If the postural impact of shoes has such a deleterious effect, perhaps breast cancer is really caused by *bras*. >> Interesting concept, but breast cancer was around before bras. A close friend of my sister's who was very small breasted, who never wore a bra, was dx'd with breast cancer in her late 20's. The incidence of breast cancer is increasing. Women of all sizes get breast cancer. There appears to be a hormonal relationship for I believe most breast cancers. Bras do not affect hormones--one way or the other--although I suppose they might have an indirect impact on such in a round about way <g> > Bras do not affect > hormones--one way or the other--although I suppose they might have an indirect > impact on such in a round about way <g> I can assure you that bra's do affect -my- hormones! Tim Tim wrote << I can assure you that bra's do affect -my- hormones!>> Um, that's what I thought--yours and most of the other husbands who have posted here ;-) >Tim wrote << I can assure you that bra's do affect -my- hormones!>> > >Um, that's what I thought--yours and most of the other husbands who have posted >here ;-) Funny - mine are far more affected by the absence of a bra... > >Tim wrote << I can assure you that bra's do affect -my- hormones!>> > > > >Um, that's what I thought--yours and most of the other husbands who have posted > >here ;-) > > Funny - mine are far more affected by the absence of a bra... Depends what effect you have in mind. I was thinking suppression. This thread could get out of hand. I could discuss the symbology of bra's and for example the logic of bra burning, at some length, but I promise I won't. Well, not here anyway. Tim >Um, that's what I thought--yours and most of the other husbands who have posted >here ;-) I would like all of you to notice that I haven't posted in this thread because I am a well-trained spouse. I wear the pants in my house - my wife said I could. ;-) Signatureallan spammers can reach me at abuse@localhost humans can reach me at wizard at pointbeing dot com > >Um, that's what I thought--yours and most of the other husbands who have posted > >here ;-) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I wear the pants in my house - my wife said I could. I get mine to take them off ... Mary > ;-) > > Bras do not affect > > hormones--one way or the other--although I suppose they might have an > indirect > > impact on such in a round about way <g> > > > I can assure you that bra's do affect -my- hormones! I'll remove mine next time we meet. Mary > Tim > Interesting concept, but breast cancer was around before bras. Excellent point. Breast cancer has indeed been around for thousands of years, and one of the earliest records dates back to ancient Egypt where our modern day diets, pollution, toxins, chemicals, cars, bras and beds were not found. Pointed-toe shoes, however, have been worn for thousands of years, and were most certainly worn in Egypt during the time of that breast cancer record. > There appears to be a hormonal relationship for I believe most breast cancers. I have found that inappropriately sized shoes, especially ones that constrict the free motion of the toes, can be aggravating to the entire body, and may thus influence mood, hormonal balance and internal chemistry. >>There appears to be a hormonal relationship for I believe most breast cancers. > I have found that inappropriately sized shoes, especially ones that > constrict the free motion of the toes, can be aggravating to the > entire body, and may thus influence mood, hormonal balance and > internal chemistry. I have found that inappropriately sized bras, especially ones that constrict the free motion of the . . . well, you know . . . can be aggravating to the entire body, and may thus influence mood, hormonal balance, and internal chemistry. Not only that -- as Tim is my witness! -- loose or tight bras can influence the mood, hormonal balance, and internal chemistry of mere *bystanders*! <Giving up on smilies -- it's obvious to those who would've read the smiley, anyway, innit? And there's no getting through to the others!> Ann T. Remove 'dontsendspam' from address to reply by email Ann T wrote << I have found that inappropriately sized bras, especially ones that constrict the free motion of the . . . well, you know . . . can be aggravating to the entire body, and may thus influence mood, hormonal balance, and internal chemistry.>> That was never an issue for me---never had a problem that way. It was easy to find a bra--at almost any store. I guess I was just "average" or what the manufacturers based their model of average on. Naively at one time I thought everyone was basically the same except smaller or larger. I didn't know that nipples came in so many different sizes and shapes. I knew there was some variation but thought it was minor since I had nothing to compare to other than one or two mags and probably my mom's nursing books. My sister was different--lighter in color w/nipples which I thought was weird, but basically same size (nipple that is). She was also much bigger but that ran in the family. We were a little different than my mom, who was even more 'perfect' but just figured that would change with age and having kids. I didn't realize that those of us who were basically the same size varied so much in appearance. It's not something one normally sees. After my bilateral I got prostheses which fit quite nicely into the same size bra I had always worn. Again, it has never been an issue. It almost looks the same except for the missing cleavage. The only way that has impacted me is in a swimsuit and am not too sure about a couple of old evening gowns (which I still have but have not worn in years--replaced them before b.c. dx anyway with ones that I can still wear). > (<VBG>, :-), and whatever else I should insert here so you know I'm joking!) Seems to have been ineffective though :-( Mary > Ann T. > Remove 'dontsendspam' from address to reply by email >>(<VBG>, :-), and whatever else I should insert here so you know I'm > > joking!) > > Seems to have been ineffective though :-( Always is! Ann T. Remove 'dontsendspam' from address to reply by email > >>(<VBG>, :-), and whatever else I should insert here so you know I'm > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Always is! No, Ann, there are some hereabouts who notice and understand. Sometimes. Possibly. On the other hand though ... Mary > Ann T. > Remove 'dontsendspam' from address to reply by email >>>>(<VBG>, :-), and whatever else I should insert here so you know I'm >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > No, Ann, there are some hereabouts who notice and understand. Yeah, but you would've noticed and understood even without the smileys! I think they just add cuteness without function . . . y'know, like yard gnomes. ;-) ? Ann T. Remove 'dontsendspam' from address to reply by email > >>>>(<VBG>, :-), and whatever else I should insert here so you know I'm > >>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Ann T. > Remove 'dontsendspam' from address to reply by email Breast cancer must be caused by a chemical or a virus - what else could get inside someone's body to attack it - surely 1 in 10 women were not destined to get the disease naturally? > Breast cancer must be caused by a chemical or a virus - what else could get > inside someone's body to attack it - surely 1 in 10 women were not destined > to get the disease naturally? Why not. Why should bc be different from heart disease or Alzheimer's or arthritis or osteoporosis or whatever other disease or degeneration they would get if not bc. Just because most of the diseases we have found cures for had identifiable external causes does not mean they all have to. Some conditions are a natural consequence of aging, and perhaps this is true of cancer. I believe that we will all get cancers of several organs if we live long enough no matter how healthy we are. Tim Jackson > > Breast cancer must be caused by a chemical or a virus - what else could > get [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Tim Jackson but if a jap moves from japan to the usa she experiences the same risk of breast cancer as an american citizen according to the american cancer society - something must be around to double her chances - and wealthy women get it more often expecially in certain areas of LA. > > Breast cancer must be caused by a chemical or a virus - what else could > get [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > cancer. I believe that we will all get cancers of several organs if we live > long enough no matter how healthy we are. Yes, I believe that too. I understand that most old men die with (not of) prostate cancer. I wonder how many other people die with (not of) other cancers? Are cancers looked for when they're not the known cause of death? An interesting speculation. Mary > Tim Jackson > Are cancers looked for when they're not the known cause of death? No. Autopsies are only done if the cause of death is in some way suspicious or uncertain, and even then they are only really looking for cause of death, any other information obtained is rather incidental. So there are no really solid statistics on the prevalence of asymptomatic cancers in the elderly. However I understand of those that are examined, where the cause of death is found to be other than cancer, a large proportion of the elderly do carry evidence of asymptomatic breast or prostate cancer. Tim > > Are cancers looked for when they're not the known cause of death? > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > found to be other than cancer, a large proportion of the elderly do carry > evidence of asymptomatic breast or prostate cancer. Thanks, Tim, that confirms what I instinctively felt. Mary > Tim Marvin wrote: << Breast cancer must be caused by a chemical or a virus - what else could get inside someone's body to attack it - surely 1 in 10 women were not destined to get the disease naturally?>> It might be caused by a spontaneous or genetic mutation. As far as the stats, in the U.S. it is 1 in 8 women, but in our state it is between 1 in 6 and 1 in 7. What might possibly be responsible is or would that be 'are'--plastics. Seriously, when one of our daughters, the only one who was 'short' for her age began pubertal development 'early,' we became concerned. She was out of sync in this area compared to her older sisters who were at her height when they were two years younger but did not begin pubertal development until they were two years older than she (making a 4-year discrepancy). Anyway, although I had some concerns socially--she had just reached the height at the age of 8 where she could go on rides that most go on at 6 when she showed signs of breast development. She got axillary hair at the age of 7. I was most concerned with increased risk of breast cancer and also of impact it might have on height. (She was given Lupron injections for 2 years to delay onset of menstruation) and although still the shortest of the three (one is 5'7" and the other 5'5"), did reach at least her potential of 5'1." Anyway, in the course of exploring this, found out that wide-spread use of plastics increases estrogen levels. That triggered a 'light.' Being a working mom who nursed her kids, I wanted to make her transition as easy as possible. I had the sitter at our house when she was at a younger age than I did for the older two. (I was home with the eldest until 6+ mos, and she had a very tough transition. I went back to work when my middle one was 5 mos. She still had a tough time, although not as difficult). So with my youngest I had the sitter there when she was 3 mos. and returned to work when she was 4 or 4.5 mos. Anyway, I did something with her that I did not do or not as much with the others. I pumped the milk right from the start--nursing her on one side while pumping on the other. I stored the milk in plastic Playtex nursing bottle bags which I then warmed in the microwave. In my research the suggestion or hypothesis was made that increased use of plastic with food storage may be associated with increase estrogen levels which may bring about earlier pubertal development. That also might account for increased breast cancer rates, too. One source that I wonder about is storage of water in plastic bottles. Supposedly they have been 'treated' but, well, still wonder. Then there is storage of foods in plastic containers, too. Another modern change that I had some concerns about at the start was use of microwave ovens. Microwave cooking involves re-arrangement of the molecules in the food in a way that is different than regular cooking. Just some food for thought... > Marvin wrote: << Breast cancer must be caused by a chemical or a virus - what > else could get [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > the food in a way that is different than regular cooking. Just some food for > thought... one of the bc nurses here told me that the rate in Queensland, Australia is 1 in 12 - and the american cancer society gives the rate in Canada as 1 in 8. lots of guys who work in the building industry here are getting melinomas in their forties. they have been working without shirts - so we know that these are not a natural consequence of aging! it has a cause - ultraviolet radiation and wearing a shirt will save you .... if only the cause of bc was that simple to see. > one of the bc nurses here told me that the rate in Queensland, Australia is > 1 in 12 - and the american cancer society gives the rate in Canada as 1 in > 8. And the rate is exceptionally lower in Japan. There is a simple difference between all of these cultures and climates that offers a compelling explanation about what causes breast cancer in humans. > if only the cause of bc was that simple to see. You may be among a rare few who actually want a simple answer. The doctors evidently have an enormous supply of patients willing to pay for complicated and traumatic treatments instead of understanding the cause and removing it. > lots of guys who work in the building industry here are getting melinomas in > their forties. they have been working without shirts - so we know that > these are not a natural consequence of aging! it has a cause - ultraviolet > radiation and wearing a shirt will save you Can you please offer evidence to support your conviction that exposure to ultraviolet radiation causes malignant melanoma? Melanoma can occur deep inside the body where no sunlight ever shines. The digestive tract is an example of such skin. Is it possible that you (and most dermatologists) have it backwards? In other words, is melanoma a sunlight-deficiency disease? > Can you please offer evidence to support your conviction that exposure > to ultraviolet radiation causes malignant melanoma? We've been there already. > Melanoma can occur deep inside the body where no sunlight ever shines. The > digestive tract is an example of such skin. Is it possible that you (and > most dermatologists) have it backwards? In other words, is melanoma a > sunlight-deficiency disease? Melanomas can occur anywhere because melanocytes are found everywhere in the body. BUT, the overwhelming majority occur in the skin, where the trigger was excessive exposure to sunshine (cumulative dose/ sunburns as a kid, etc -here the jury is still out). Of the few melanomas not found in the skin most are metastases from (often microscopic) skin lesions. Signaturemadiba > >>>>(<VBG>, :-), and whatever else I should insert here so you know I'm > >>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > ;-) ? Quite. I give in. What's a yard gnome? And do they wear shoes? Mary > Ann T. > Remove 'dontsendspam' from address to reply by email > What's a yard gnome? > > And do they wear shoes? <Flipping madly through her "Murrican to Brit" conversational dictionary> . . . um, um, garden gnome? I thought these were big in the U.K.?! Well, I mean small -- usually about 1 foot tall -- but popular ?! Y'know, the little cement gnome guys you (well, some people) put in the garden? Shoes on gnomes? Now, there's a toughie. AFAIK, they don't get BC, so I'm guessing not. But they do almost universally get hardened arteries, so y'never know. Ann T. Remove 'dontsendspam' from address to reply by email > > What's a yard gnome? > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > . . . um, um, garden gnome? I thought these were big in the U.K.?! OH! I see, sorry. The thing is that a yard in UK is VERY different from a garden. > Well, I mean small -- usually about 1 foot tall -- but popular ?! > Y'know, the little cement gnome guys you (well, some people) put in the > garden? I do know what you mean, I suspect that many are plastic but otherwise they're probably concrete (cement is an ingredient of concrete but expensive to use by itself and not as durable) Oh our 'common' language - it leads to so many misunderstandings. I suspect that our languages are becoming even MORE diverse. > Shoes on gnomes? Now, there's a toughie. AFAIK, they don't get BC, so > I'm guessing not. But they do almost universally get hardened arteries, > so y'never know. Wellies, that's what most British gnomes wear, to protect them from the gardening tools they use, keep their feet dry and generally protect them. Wellies weren't mentioned by the OP, perhaps they're safe to wear. I wear them a lot, mine re white, they cause a lot of amusement but they're cool in summer and were very cheap. I bought them from the beekeepers' suppliers but they're also used by slaughtermen and surgeons. I'm rambling. Sorry. Mary > Ann T. > Remove 'dontsendspam' from address to reply by email > The thing is that a yard in UK is VERY different from a garden. Yup, as I should remembered. Makes multiply untranslatable a song parody (to the tune of "sweet rosie o'grady") I know: "Sweet Rosie O'Grady, Quite foolish from birth, Got tired of living, Thought she would leave this earth." "She swallowed a tape measure, dying by inches was hard. So she went out in the alley, and laid down & died by the yard." As you know, our "yard" is like your "garden" (or like 36 inches, depending on context). How's *that* for rambling? > I do know what you mean, I suspect that many are plastic but otherwise > they're probably concrete (cement is an ingredient of concrete but expensive > to use by itself and not as durable) It is common here to call concrete "cement", though strictly the cement/concrete distinction applies as you note. > Wellies, that's what most British gnomes wear, to protect them from the > gardening tools they use, keep their feet dry and generally protect them. Ah, but we don't use "wellies" to keep our feet dry. We use "boots" for that. We have no "wellies". I gather you-all have boots on your cars (autos?), which seems very strange to a murrican! When we have a "boot" on our car, it means the police have clamped a wheel with a large immobilizing device on account of our unpaid parking fines, so the car can't be driven away until we pay up. Ann T. Remove 'dontsendspam' from address to reply by email Amn > > The thing is that a yard in UK is VERY different from a garden. > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > So she went out in the alley, > and laid down & died by the yard." :-) I did know about your yard, I'd just forgotten when you mentioned yard gnomes ... But a yard here isn't just 36 inches. It has a specific meaning relating to an outside part of a house, like a garden but usually paved (or concreted) and often with walls. And not a drive(way) or hard standing for a motor vehicle. When I was a child we had a lavatory yard, where the outside privies were. > As you know, our "yard" is like your "garden" (or like 36 inches, > depending on context). [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Ah, but we don't use "wellies" to keep our feet dry. Well of course not! The Grand Duke was English! > We use "boots" for > that. We have no "wellies". I gather you-all have boots on your cars > (autos?), which seems very strange to a murrican! When we have a "boot" > on our car, it means the police have clamped a wheel with a large > immobilizing device on account of our unpaid parking fines, so the car > can't be driven away until we pay up. Yes. We wear hoods on our heads. Oh, it's so hard ... I'll stick to Latin :-) Mary > Ann T. > Remove 'dontsendspam' from address to reply by email > > Amn |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message