Why Are So Many Young People Getting Cancer? What the Data Say 207
Rates of more than a dozen cancers are increasing among adults under 50 worldwide, with the number of early-onset cancer cases predicted to rise by around 30% between 2019 and 2030. Investigators are searching for explanations, considering factors such as obesity, early-cancer screening, gut microbiome, and tumor genomes. Despite increased screening and awareness, mortality from early-onset cancers has risen by nearly 28% between 1990 and 2019 globally.
Cell Phones. Laziness. Evironmental Poisoning. (Score:4, Informative)
Next question.
Re: (Score:3)
I am going to throw in "vaping" and "tiktok"
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
And yet you still come here. Admit it, "commies, dupes, and other democrats" turn you on.
Re: (Score:2)
giggles
Re: Cell Phones. Laziness. Evironmental Poisoning. (Score:2)
Re: Cell Phones. Laziness. Evironmental Poisoning. (Score:2)
Boomers and gen X were exposed to high concentration of lead from leaded gasoline. I'm glad that is over.
Re: (Score:2)
Not over, we're coming back. Now soliciting funds for my blockbuster motion picture Tetraethyl Undead.
On NJ Turnpike trips to Newark airport, a couple of times appeared a tanker truck of the stuff. The tank was smaller than on other trucks. This was before the era of UN coded hazmat placards. Instead, the truck had large signs with skull and crossbones, reading something like "Deadly poison. If this truck is leaking, do not approach. Call xxx-yyyy."
Re: (Score:2)
Note you said "airport". The one remaining use of TEL in the USA is for piston engine planes - LL100. That use is minor compared to all the gasoline used by land vehicles, but even it's endangered - to be gone by 2030.
OK, boomer (Score:2, Insightful)
Cell Phones have been pretty well tested and there's nothing to indicate they cause cancer. You only mentioned them to bring up the image of a kid glued to their cell phone is which a favorite boogie man of the boomer.
As for Laziness, again, favorite boogieman of the boomer. Kids these days have 4-6 hours of homework a night. You'd know that if you ever talked to and listened to any kids.
And as for environmental poisonings, I'll give you tha
Re:OK, boomer (Score:5, Informative)
What child has 4-6 hours of homework a night, seriously say they come home at 4 if they finish at 3 (1 hour travel time) and work till 8 till 10 straight.
That does not include, thing like eating. It sound ludicrous so probably is.
Yes there maybe days when it happens sure, but that's probably because they didn't do their homework given weeks ago and are doing it last minute.
From here https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com] it states there was a survey that said it was 2.7 hours, but state its actually more like 1 hour.
If its your child maybe they are lying to you and playing games, or maybe they have some serious learning difficulties.
I did (Score:3)
For my last 2 years of high school I had 4 hours of homework a night. That got me into a good university, so it was worth it.
Mine did (Score:3, Funny)
Kids know exactly how terrible a world the boomers are leaving them. How gruesomely competitive and how few opportunities the boomers left behind in their wake with their endless hunger for RVs and tax cuts for the wealthy. They're the ones that came up with "OK boomer". It was a FU to the previous generations that sc
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody said shit about radiation, captain make-up. I'm talking about the psychology of the damn things in the hands of non adults. There is so much radiation from cell, TV, and other various sources including satellites bathing us radiation. Yes, I used radiation twiced in a sentence. And I threw in twiced just for your amusement.
Aliens coming to invade us (Score:2)
Just ask Mulder.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Against stupidity we are defenseless. Neither protests nor the use of force accomplish anything here; reasons fall on deaf ears; facts that contradict oneâ(TM)s prejudgment simply need not be believed â" in such moments the stupid person even becomes critical â" and when facts are irrefutable they are just pushed aside as inconsequential, as incidental.
-Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Re: Cell Phones. Laziness. Evironmental Poisoning. (Score:2)
Incorrect spelling is the largest cause of cancer. What is Eviromental?
Re: (Score:2)
The number possibility is "too much sh*t broadcasting in the microwave frequencies" (your Microwave oven itself is 2.45Ghz), while this isn't suggestive of being a cause of cancer unless there is enough exposure over time, it does suggest there is a possibility of things like 2.4ghz Bluetooth, WiFi, and Cellular band 7/38 (2.6ghz),band 53(2.4ghz) band 30/40 (2.3Ghz) that are in too close of proximity to humans while operating at high power (eg people in concrete buildings/basements/shopping malls, or just really far from the cellular site, results in the phone using the maximum power.)
RF EM radiation is non-ionizing.
If it causes cancer, then it's via an indirect "fractions of a degree elevated temperature over time increases cellular division errors and/or inflammation", and in which case, it's time to start moving north.
So no, that's not a real possibility.
Re: (Score:2)
yeah, keep telling yourself that. The whole non-ionizing thing is a red-herring, and played-out already.
Wrong.
Guess what, cells and tissues can be affected in other ways than having their electrons ripped away.
Absolutely. I mentioned the other way the radiation can affect your cells- it can case a small increase in heat.
I hope you don't have children because if so you probably have given them all sorts of transmitters to slowly poison themselves with.
lol, just statistically speaking, since I'm the intelligent person here, and you're the fucking moron auditioning for Idiocracy 2, it's almost certain you're going to have more kids than I do.
Re: Cell Phones. Laziness. Evironmental Poisoning. (Score:2)
I believe in the past, when cellphones used lower frequencies and less power they would have been safe(er). But w
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Cell Phones. Laziness. Evironmental Poisoning. (Score:4, Insightful)
I believe you that someone told you about the difference between ionizing and non ionizing.
Education.
I bet they were convincing too.
Well-established scientific facts usually are.
But what's the difference between ionizing and non ionizing?
The ability to strip the electron off of an atom, changing its chemical and electrical properties.
Amplitude? Frequency?
Heh. You've just told me you don't know ;)
The answer to that is frequency, in the case of photons.
Now take your non ionizing source and nestle it between some conductive and non-conductive surfaces.
There is no surface that can increase the photon energy to become ionizing. To do so would require additional power input into the system.
Hopefully there is no arrangement that can cause local peaks from the reflected waves...
You fundamentally don't understand how photons ionize atoms.
The wavelength of the photon can not be changed by what you describe. Without changing the wavelength of the photon, the photon cannot ionize an atom.
I believe in the past, when cellphones used lower frequencies and less power they would have been safe(er).
In the past, cellular phones used *far* more power, but with photons of generally the same energy.
This means they thermally heated far more than new phones, and were still non-ionizing.
But with the new iPhones that cheat on power emissions tests?
Nothing in the universe can make a 2.4Ghz photon ionize an atom. The photon lacks the energy.
Go run a simulation for a 2.4 GHz source and a conductive plate several inches away separated by a meaty watery dielectric and tell me there's no way to get an ionizing hotspot.
Nothing in the universe can make a 2.4Ghz photon ionize an atom. The photon lacks the energy.
Your physics education is so elementary. It's really disappointing that you don't understand that and try to rectify it before coming to conclusions about how the world works.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
In my uninformed opinion, that's the one of the most likely explanations. I'm not sure about some of the weedkillers now in use, they are also candidates - someone I used to work with lives near a farm and apparently that small village has a very high incidence of cancers.
Some of the other alternatives floated here are ludicrous, some are merely unlikely.
I suppose a statistical analysis of the geograp
Re: Cell Phones. Laziness. Evironmental Poisoning. (Score:2)
I think weed and other pesticides are the most likely cause. Round-up Ready crops get sprayed with tons of the stuff because they are resistant, but how much do they absorb and pass on to us?
Warning, some graphic images at the end
https://www.esi.utexas.edu/talk/silent-spring-ii/
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Microwaves make food hot. Cell phones usually make skin barely warm and rarely penetrate past the first millimeter or so. The power limits are low even taking into account the inverse square law. I do remember the 2G days where sometimes my antenna would burn my neck when on a call.
Your microwave oven is literally contained in a faraday cage.
We've noticed this in an MRI setting (Score:5, Interesting)
About 2-3 years ago, our MRI tech of 20 years started noticing many more young women coming in with breast cancer. Much younger than normal, and more frequent than normal, and more advanced stages. It was anecdotal, but enough for her to notice the difference.
I was thinking COVID. Either covid was acting as a viral trigger for cancer, or people delayed routine screenings during covid until it was more significant.
Re:We've noticed this in an MRI setting (Score:5, Interesting)
About 2-3 years ago, our MRI tech of 20 years started noticing many more young women coming in with breast cancer. Much younger than normal, and more frequent than normal, and more advanced stages. It was anecdotal, but enough for her to notice the difference.
The number of young women on birth control pills has increased in percentage over the years, and those that use them are staying on them for much longer durations than in the past. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a link.
Re:We've noticed this in an MRI setting (Score:5, Informative)
Based on the evidence [cancer.gov], taking birth control pills for at least 5 years may lead to an increased risk of breast and cervical cancer, while at the same time reducing the risk of endometrial, ovarian, and colorectal cancer.
Re:We've noticed this in an MRI setting (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
The problem with hormone based BC is that it's really unnecessary in the first place. There are other options that are more "semi-permanent", like IUD's (not without potential permanent loss of fertility) that don't screw with the hormones in the body.
Re:We've noticed this in an MRI setting (Score:5, Insightful)
We know COVID-19 can downregulate the immune system. This may increases the risk for early onset cancer. If this is true, long COVID patients are at biggest risk to develop cancer, but this may affect even non-long COVID cases from mild Covid-19 infections.
Various viruses have been identified to increase cancer risk, it won't be a big surprise if SARS-CoV-2 is in this group.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The study is extrapolating using data from the years 1990 to 2019, I don't think COVID is a factor. And although we have learned that viruses can cause cancers, it wouldn't explain the rise in cases unless you can find an increased spread of such viruses.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think it would be a lot more interesting just finding out rhinovirus can infect a prostate in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
The study is extrapolating using data from the years 1990 to 2019, I don't think COVID is a factor. And although we have learned that viruses can cause cancers, it wouldn't explain the rise in cases unless you can find an increased spread of such viruses.
My first guess would be antibacterial soap causing weaker immune systems from lack of exposure, coupled with excessively sanitary conditions leading to inadequate bacterial diversity.
Regular exposure to pathogens at a limited level keeps your immune system paying attention. The less frequently it gets triggered, the less likely it is to notice other things in time to stop them. Regular exposure to pathogens is critically important during childhood years, and lack thereof is likely the cause of allergies a [sciencedirect.com]
Re: (Score:2)
My first guess would be antibacterial soap causing weaker immune systems from lack of exposure, coupled with excessively sanitary conditions leading to inadequate bacterial diversity.
Nah. Even if you wash every single bacterium off your hands, they'll be covered again within a few minutes. And unless you wash your face every time you wash your hands, your face is covered with bacteria, mites, and all kinds of things. Got a beard? Even better. The real problem with antimicrobial soaps is that the chemicals used to kill the bacteria can be retained in tissues and potentially cause various types of human disease.
And I'm not sure what you mean by cleaning causing "inadequate bacterial diver
Re: (Score:2)
My first guess would be antibacterial soap causing weaker immune systems from lack of exposure, coupled with excessively sanitary conditions leading to inadequate bacterial diversity.
Nah. Even if you wash every single bacterium off your hands, they'll be covered again within a few minutes. And unless you wash your face every time you wash your hands, your face is covered with bacteria, mites, and all kinds of things. Got a beard? Even better. The real problem with antimicrobial soaps is that the chemicals used to kill the bacteria can be retained in tissues and potentially cause various types of human disease.
I mean yes, but they'll be covered by different bacteria, and are more likely to be covered with bacteria that are less sensitive to Triclosan, for exactly the reasons you mention.
And I'm not sure what you mean by cleaning causing "inadequate bacterial diversity." Even hospitals, which actively try to sterilize their environments (as opposed to just wiping off the kitchen countertop) are rife with bacteria, including strains that occur nowhere else but in hospitals.
They occur nowhere but in hospitals largely because both sterilization and antibiotics kills bacteria at different rates depending on their sensitivity, which leads to resistant strains. That's what I mean by inadequate bacterial diversity.
And we're seeing the same thing in gut microbiomes because of overuse of antibiotics that e
Re: (Score:2)
Jepp Covid has been linked indirectly to cancer for several reasons, one of them being that it shreds your immune system and goes into various organs of your body! Call me not surprised that cancer rates among young people are rising, the same goes for other things linked to covid like brain fog etc.. aka neural problems and rising cases of infections with other diseases!
Re: (Score:2)
magical novel gene therapies
What are those?
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, if you want to call *all* vaccines "gene therapy" i suppose you could but you'd have to include all of them or demonstrate how the covid vaccine specifically is, or are you just trying to use scary words instead of actual facts to make spurious correlations to suite a narrative.
Re: (Score:2)
messenger RNA. Which codes for a protein.
It does not have any capability to modify any DNA or RNA in the body. How little do you understand these vaccines, anyway?
Re: (Score:3)
But if you're claiming that mRNA vaccines are causing an increase in cancers caused by known oncogene activation, then you're ignorant, and you should really shut the fuck up and educate yourself instead.
Also, mRNA vaccines are not gene therapy. I would normally say, "but you knew that.", but I'm actually pretty sure you don't know that. Again, shut th
Re: (Score:3)
lol. When there is an increased signal of novel never-before-seen cancers, then ya, we'll have to take a look at mRNA vaccines and see where we went wrong.
This is a non-sequitur. There is no basis to assume mRNA vaccines must only cause novel cancers if they cause cancers.
But if you're claiming that mRNA vaccines are causing an increase in cancers caused by known oncogene activation, then you're ignorant, and you should really shut the fuck up and educate yourself instead.
Regardless of whether you are arguing mRNA vaccines cause cancer with no evidence or arguing they cannot cause cancer with no evidence you are still committing the same error in judgement either way.
Re: (Score:3)
Odds are better that the throat cancer you already had made you more susceptible to a bad COVID infection. A bad cough can certainly cause repeat injuries and increased cell division and greater chance of mutation, but 4 months isn't a long time for that much growth for most cancers.
Cancer (Score:2, Informative)
Toxic chemicals in the environment.
Bad quality air.
Excessive amounts of ultra-processed foods.
Re:Cancer (Score:5, Interesting)
You are putting all modern fears in one pile. I do not think that doing this is helpful. Not everything is bad, not everything is dangerous.
Re:Cancer (Score:5, Insightful)
In 198x the air was much worse then now. The air quality dramatically improved after the catalytic converters had been mandated.
You are putting all modern fears in one pile. I do not think that doing this is helpful. Not everything is bad, not everything is dangerous.
Is he? Pesticide, herbicide and fungicide use rocketed up until the 80s and have remained constant ever since. The use of plastics has done nothing but grow since the 80s and the amount of micro and nano plastics as well as chemicals leached from waste plastic that people are exposed to has increased proportionately. When cancer rates go up there is a reason for it and wondering why is not paranoia.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm one of those people. I am now in the age-group of the people who are unexpectedly getting cancer.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Cancer (Score:3)
Water filters, bottled water (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty sure drinking distilled water has it's own issues if it isn't re-mineralized but reverse osmosis systems are fairly common and affordable and get you pretty much all the way there.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
STOP BUYING BOTTLED WATER!!!!!
Put a freakin' filter on your faucet, like I do, or buy a filter pitcher.
Re: (Score:2)
Read the article, not the summary (Score:5, Informative)
According to the linked article:
- The rates and deaths from early-onset cancer decreased from 1990 to 2019.
- The rates of cancer are increasing only since 2019 -- and by a whopping 30% (!)
- But all those increases are based on models, not actual data
Re: (Score:2)
Why misinform about a topic like this?
- The rates and deaths from early-onset cancer decreased from 1990 to 2019.
"In some countries, including the United States" but not globally
- The rates of cancer are increasing only since 2019 -- and by a whopping 30% (!)
That's not what they said at all. Based on the 28% increasing rate in the years 1990-2019 they predicted a further 30% increase by 2030
- But all those increases are based on models, not actual data
Let me know when you can get real data from the future. Until then I'll be using models which, as the saying goes, are wrong but useful.
Re: (Score:2)
There was no "increasing rate from 1990 to 2019". Please read the article. Look at the charts they provided. The article is very plain on this point. The summary is, unfortunately, less clear.
Re: (Score:2)
"This rise, coupled with an increase in global population, means that the number of deaths from early-onset cancers has risen by nearly 28% between 1990 and 2019 worldwide. "
Straight out of the article, WTF are you on about?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
- But all those increases are based on models, not actual data
This is an outright lie.
Mortality estimate for the future is a model, the increase from 1990 to 2019 in incidences of ealier-than-expected cancer is based on data.
Currently, there is a long term trend of decreasing mortality from all cancers, but that trend has recently flattened. The modeling treats that flattening as an increase of mortality hidden by our general downward trend.
Fuck everyone who modded you up.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm just repeating what the actual article said. The article says everything 2019+ is based on a model. Their graphics are completely honest, they show different lines for data vs. projection.
Re: (Score:2)
What happened between 2019 and 24.. covid did...
Re: (Score:2)
One person with a view on this, is perhaps the world's most renowned expert on malignant melanoma and the treatment thereof, Dr Angus Dalgliesh.
He is no such thing.
He noticed that a considerable number of patients in his care had sudden relapses, and by overlaying patient data with other available data, he was able to identify a correlation so strong that a non-causational relationship is highly improbable.
This is not data. It's an anecdote. In his interview, he mentions a paper as supporting his suspicions that has been flatly debunked as junk science.
His opinion is not a popular one, but that shouldn't matter as long as it's based on hard data.
Agreed, but it's not.
It's based on anecdotes, which are painted by his personal views, which are predictable given his assertion.
When you lie to spread a viewpoint, that's misinformation. Why do you do it?
Re: Read the article, not the summary (Score:2)
what is the biggest common denominator for this timeframe here?
Zoom meetings? Microsoft Teams? WFH? Inflation way above COL? Electric cars? The Mandalorian?
I don't know...
FOOD (Score:3)
#1 is food, namely sugar, also habitually too much food.
Re: (Score:2)
If you look at food ingredients in the US it looks like a chemistry set. The crap in there is taste additives, preservatives and to make the food look appetizing.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/u... [cbsnews.com]
Sugar is bad, but high fructose corn syrup and artificial sweeteners are worse. I would add a lack of outdoor exercise
Probably RoundUp (Score:2)
They put that shit on everything.
maybe none of the above (Score:3)
Maybe the fact that we have gotten a lot better at curing cancer, or delaying death by many years, is what is behind this. If someone who has had a cured cancer begets children after that, it increases the incidence of any cancer proclivity genes in the population, as well as anyone who has had gene therapy. In addition anyone who has had cancer is that much more likely to hurry up and procreate. This effect only works for people who get cancer during or before reproductive years, so is more likely to have an effect on descendants in their reproductive years.
Diet (Score:2)
I'd be interested in the differences between first world and third world countries.
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect that would be difficult to do. Many people in poor countries probably either never get treated or don't have any kind of measurable records of their treatments, especially for long-term chronic illnesses like cancer. And then, which countries would you measure and compare? I'd suspect people living in countries that have experienced recent war or environmental crises would have a much higher instance of cancer than those that haven't.
At the end of the day, the only simple comparison to make is bet
Covid Vaccines (Score:2, Troll)
Under 50 (Score:2)
... young? It doesn't feel young to be this old.
Did anybody look at the graphs in the report? (Score:2)
Did anybody look at the graphs in the report? Hockey Stick itis.
Microplastics are an obvious target (Score:2)
That seem largely ignored as any study talking about microplastics seems to be like "Well, it might do something, but who knows, anyway" while so many of these seem to very specifically **not** mention them as a possibility at all.
Elephant in the room (Score:2)
Nobody will even consider the possibility that the mRNA shots may not have been a great idea. ..but we stopped talking about that.
Microplastics? Uh... citation needed! (Score:2)
Microplastics *are* being found everywhere, but plastics are generally inert and fairly non-toxic. That's why we hailed plastics as innovative for the medical field for things like surgical tubing, and why nobody is really worked up about all the groceries you buy being wrapped in or contained in plastic.
Most microscopic particles of things found to cause cancer do so when they're breathed in constantly and lodge themselves in the lungs (like asbestos fibers).
I don't think anyone has seen a big increase in
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The VC in PVC stands for vinyl chloride.
vinyl chloride is carcinogenic.
It's safe, as long as it's not compromised, but when it breaks down it very much is not.
Re: (Score:2)
Also massively implicated in cardiovascular disease and could be the biggest discovery in that field since statins.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.10... [nejm.org]
Re: Microplastics? Uh... citation needed! (Score:2)
plastics are generally inert and fairly non-toxic
So is asbestos or silicate particles, vut it turns out that their physical properties csn kill none the less.
So who knows what micro plastics might yet turn out to be and why...
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, but with asbestos, it's not even harmful unless it's released into the air. Plenty of people have old asbestos tile floors made back in the 1950's, and/or similar tile that was glued down with asbestos-laced glue. Not a concern whatsoever, unless you go to tear them out.
There's a lot of baseless fear around the material, but the reality is a bit different. I'm just saying, there's not currently a real reason to have great fear of microplastics turning up in our bodies in trace amounts or in the soil or
Re: (Score:2)
Also massively implicated in cardiovascular disease and could be the biggest discovery in that field since statins.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.10... [nejm.org]
Re: (Score:2)
It's not always plastic, but plastic is global & increasing, will plausibly affect the colorectal area more and has recently been heavily implicated in stroke.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.10... [nejm.org]
But it could be organophosphates or something else. It would be interesting to compare the EU which bans far more of this stuff.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think you have all that much in the way of "chemistry understanding".
It's not the base polymers that people are worried about. It's the endocrine-disrupting additives such as plasticizers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Should they be then talking about "endocrine-disrupting additives such as plasticizers" instead?
I don't know. Maybe they should, if you're unable to comprehend the problem otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
Most things you consider plastic are not usable as you use them without plasticizers.
Re: (Score:3)
Years of leaded gasoline too. Although I may be wrong since my IQ was lowered by the damn stuff.
Re: (Score:3)
Also did you know that receipts that use thermal paper are loaded with skin absorbing BPAs? So that might be a possibility. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5453537/
Re: (Score:3)
I touched a receipt and it didn't absorb any of my skin.
Re: Is it really a question? (Score:2)
Data? that is the problem! (Score:2)
Data's the reason we don't know, it's preventing us from accepting the answers from our tribal leaders!
Correction: YOUR tribal leaders who agree with my leader, the others are frauds and your sheep for following them!
Re: (Score:2)
It's amazing you can breath and type at the same time.