 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / General / February 2004shrinkage of eyeball/cornea compare shrinkage urinary bladder with age
This winter I have experienced something rather new to my health. Not saying is a good sign. But given the coldness and the drinking of alot of tea and beverages, that I no longer have one early morning run to piss but now three runs. I found out from the literature that accompanying older age that the urinary bladder shrinks and that older people (I am now near 54) have to piss more often. When I was 40 years of age, I needed to correct my eyes to see 20/20 with prescription glasses. It was a minor correction because of my farsightedness, that I could not read things up close like books. But this correction had to be corrected about every 5 years. As I was told that the eyeball sort of shrinks with age and the 20/20 vision is lost in each of these shrinkages. So I am wondering if there is some mathematical relationship between eyeball shrinkage with age and with urinary bladder shrinkage with age? Can we say that all bladders, taking the eyeball as a bladder, that all these sacs in the body shrink with age and that they have some sort of Mathematical Relationship. Can we say that the cells that compose sacs or bladders in the body have a mathematical relationship with age. Now I know that the prostate gland is one of the highest cancer rate organs of the body rivaling the lungs for cancer. But the lungs are so directly in contact with outside environment of pollutants and health hazards whereas the prostate gland and the urinary organs are somewhat sheltered. So why would the prostate gland be so vulnerable to cancer? One would think also that the eyes would be exposed to more pollutants and hazards then the tucked away urinary organs. So why are the eyeballs not more prone to cancer than say the prostate gland or urinary bladder? If both the eyes and urinary bladder shrink with age, yet the eyes exposed to more health hazards and pollutants one would think that eye cancer would be rivalling lung cancer in terms of frequency. Question: cells that make up sacs such as the urinary bladder or eyeballs or prostate gland, are they more prone to cancer than cells that are not saclike? Perhaps the prostate gland is not saclike. Perhaps the higher incidence of cancer for the prostate gland is because it deals with special chemicals of hormones and that all the glands of the body are more prone to cancer than nonglands because of their dealing with hormone chemicals. Perhaps the high rate of prostate cancer is because of hormone chemicals. Archimedes Plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies >This winter I have experienced something rather new to my health. Not >saying is a good sign. But given the coldness and the drinking of alot >of tea and beverages, that I no longer have one early morning run to >piss but now three runs. I snipped out all your other questions because there is an urgent point I have to make. You raise (in the section I snipped) questions about shrinkage of the urinary bladder. Unfortunately, the more common reason for frequent urination in older men is something else -- prostate problems (another question in the part I snipped). An enlargment of this gland presses on the urethra and prevents complete voiding of the bladder so that it fills again morre quickly. The point is that you should get yourself QUICKLY to a physician and get your prostate checked. It could be simple benign hypertrophy. On the other hand, it may be a cancer. Or it could be simple aging. I know. I am a 64 year old male who had prostate cancer. Do it now! When you return from your doctor's visit, ask the questions again. > >This winter I have experienced something rather new to my health. Not > >saying is a good sign. But given the coldness and the drinking of alot [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > When you return from your doctor's visit, ask the questions again. I am going to heed your advice and try to get it checked tomorrow. I am reluctant because I felt that prostate cancer examination was an imprecise affair that leans too heavily on a "judgement call", and that prostate cancer is not on the increase but rather what is on the rise is the imprecise judgement saying you have cancer when it is really not true. I believe prostate cancer is a health niche wherein the general public is being soaked of money. I believe prostate testing is more erroneous than accurate for the purpose of enriching the medical profession. I admit I must have something wrong with my urinary bladder for this increased pissing. But how can I have prostate cancer yet have normal masturbation. I understand the function of the prostate is to make the seminal fluid. If I had prostate cancer it would stand to reason that symptoms should show up in masturbation. But I guess the gland can be normal functioning inside to produce the semen fluid yet cancerous outside and swelling to block normal pissing. Regardless, I am going to the doctor tomorrow. Obviously I have some problem, hopefully it is not cancer. My mother died of lung cancer at the age of 48, quite young. I wonder if a female who had lung cancer can pass on genes to male offspring who are more susceptible to prostate cancer? I wonder if there is some statistical study as to lung cancer in females and prostate cancer in their male offspring? I consider myself toughminded and not scared of things like cancer, but I must admit, tonight I have some tremor and a hint of faintness and a bit of fear, because if I do have prostate cancer it seems as though my life will have to chart a different course for the years remaining. >> >This winter I have experienced something rather new to my health. Not >> >saying is a good sign. But given the coldness and the drinking of alot [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] >of fear, because if I do have prostate cancer it seems as though my life >will have to chart a different course for the years remaining. You can have 90% or 99% or 99.9% normal function of the prostate gland and still have prostate cancer. It need not disturb sexual activity in the slightest. The only problem is that the growth (whether benign or malignant) squeezes the urethra to impede urination. It is purely a mechanical thing -- the gland is a little too large, that is all. But it still works fine. I don't think there is any connection between lung cancer and prostate cancer. It is just coincidence -- these, unfortunately, are not two rare conditions. You are right that ordinary prostate tests are not conclusive. If the doctor feels an enlarged gland, that does not at all mean cancer. Similarly, an elevated PSA (prostate specific antigen) blood test is not a certain diagnosis. However, the combination is a sign. In my case, the doctor felt an actual lump in the prostate, a much worse sign. The real diagnosis is biopsy, which is not a very pleasant task, so you don't want to do that unless the probability of cancer is really significant. I share with you some concerns about the way that medicine is practiced. However, when a pathologist says there are malignant cells in the microscope slide, that is not a question of health policy -- it is a question of my own real state of being! The university hospital I went to, and the staff physician on salary, had no particular reason to try to push me into surgery. Another fact is that prostate cancer is extremely slow growing so even a diagnosis is not cause for immediate alarm or panic. People live for years and years with the condition. In fact, for many older patients, the "proper" treatment of the cancer is to do nothing. The chances are very likely that they will die of other causes before the cancer gets too bad. In my case, the cancer was diagnosed when I was in my late 50's. My father lived to 99, as did his mother. My mother lived to 88. I was not interested in 5 year, 10 year or even 15 or 20 year survival rates. I was thinking 40 years! That is a different story. So see the doctor. The chances are it is NOT cancer. Even if it is a prostate problem, it is likely benigh hyperplasia, an innocuous overgrowth of the gland. That can be corrected surgically, too. If you do have cancer, I hope you will find, like I did, that it can really improve your life. Prostate cancer is a very treatable condition. Every time I go into a health facility (which I find myself doing more and more often as I age), I see so many people so much worse off than me that I feel very grateful for my own good fortune. This probably is very far off topic for these news groups. It should be in a cancer support group. Still, for all you middle aged men reading this, I urge you all to see a doctor NOW if you haven't in the last several years! (huge snips) > You are right that ordinary prostate tests are not conclusive. If the > doctor feels an enlarged gland, that does not at all mean cancer. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > university hospital I went to, and the staff physician on salary, had > no particular reason to try to push me into surgery. Thanks, I took your advice and made a medical appointment to find out for sure what I got. I believe I have BHP which you mentioned in your other post, because looking through the web it says that men in older age have such a high frequency of getting some form of BHP. They also say that the cause of prostate cancer and BHP are unclear except that hormones play a role in the cancer. But I wonder if the way one sits in bad posture, perhaps like contracting hernias has some role in forming BHP. I know I sit in lousy awkard positions often. Or like truckers who get spinal problems whether sitting wrong induces BHP. Thanks for mentioning biopsy. I like to be really sure of things and will see about biopsy. I hope this prostate gland is not going to be a yearly worry as to whether something is recurrantly going wrong down there. I like to see a return to long stretches of no health problems again. Perhaps my problem was that I bragged a couple of years that I had almost a perfect healthfree body, never having had to go to the doctor for 99.99 percent of my life. As soon as someone makes such a boast, then the clouds open up and the Gods then strike down that moment of haughtiness and hubris with some prostrate albatross. On one website I read about prostectomy. I wonder if that would guarantee no prostate cancer and then never again any BHP. I suppose the downside is that then I would be sterile. But for people who have no need to reproduce when they reach 50, then a prostectomy sort of looks real good. Archimedes Plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies > Another fact is that prostate cancer is extremely slow growing so even > a diagnosis is not cause for immediate alarm or panic. People live > for years and years with the condition. In fact, for many older > patients, the "proper" treatment of the cancer is to do nothing. Well, if caught early and treated. One just died (prostate cancer newsgroup), a little more than one year after diagnosis. It had already spread to all his bones, including his pelvic bones. J >> Another fact is that prostate cancer is extremely slow growing so even >> a diagnosis is not cause for immediate alarm or panic. People live [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >It had already spread to all his bones, including his pelvic bones. >J Of course, you are correct. Prostate cancer is a major killer in men. I should have said that prostate cancer detected very early in older men is sometimes best treated by "wait and watch". Certanly I do NOT advocate neglecting it and I most certainly do NOT advocate waiting until you may be in advanced stages before even getting a checkup! > >> The point is that you should get yourself QUICKLY to a physician and > >> get your prostate checked. It could be simple benign hypertrophy. On > >> the other hand, it may be a cancer. Or it could be simple aging. Hi Norman, don't know your first name. Anyway, when I was in my 40s and out in the state of Wyoming driving all the way back to New Hampshire and did it almost nonstop except for a 2 hour rest. I payed for that stunt by having a nerve in my lower back give me pain. I remember a word syadica nerve as the nerve which went out on me. And someone else had this problem and told me to lay on the floor and he made a quick motion of my pelvis and it seemed to go away. And then I did some daily sit-ups. I suspect that BHP is caused because of no exercise in that region where the prostate gland lies coupled with winter coldness. Before I got this frequent urination problem I had slept in freezing weather-- woodstove not filled-- and with the bed sheets off me when the temperature was too warm entering the bed and waking up with the lower portion of my body exposed to the cold. I notice that if I treat my BHP with heat that it helps significantly and that the urine stream is greater. Norman, I am believing that there exists a daily exercise that eliminates and prevents BHP. I suspect it is caused by physical too cold and no exercising. Perhaps even a virus may also cause BHP. So I think that daily exercise-- perhaps sit-ups, and warmth and heat and then BHP goes away. Because the medical studies show that 80 percent of men over 60 get BHP that sounds like a physical problem cause where in old age we do less exercising and expose to cold weather. And also we have bad habits of poor posture when sitting. So that BHP resembles the physical getting of a hernia, where BHP is the analogy of a hernia on the prostate gland. Archimedes Plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies >> >> The point is that you should get yourself QUICKLY to a physician and >> >> get your prostate checked. It could be simple benign hypertrophy. On [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] >whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots >of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies The r in rnorman is Richard. I am not a clinician so I can't answer your questions definitively. I don't believe any of the factors you mention aggravate or contribute to either prostate cancer or benign hypertrophy. Still, your personal physician or urologist can answer those questions for sure. Also, I most certainly do NOT advocate either biopsy or prostatectomy unless you absolutely know they are necessary and that they are the best option for you. I told you that the biopsy is particularly uncomfortable -- the route they take to repeatedly jab the biopsy needle into the gland is through the colon. You don't want to do that unless you absolutely have to! The surgery is also major abdominal surgery, complete with its own risks. There are other non-surgical treatments for cancer and you must consult, if diagnosed, you must consult with your urologist to discuss all the alternatives, each with pros and cons. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.