About a million people aged below 50 die of cancer annually, a study says, projecting another 21 percent rise by 2030.

  • Illecors
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1111 year ago

    I think a lot of it is increase in diagnostic capabilities.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        741 year ago

        This article kind of made a mess of the numbers. At one point it suggests the mortality rate increased, but that’s not what the actual research shows.

        From OG article: “Our study showed that the global morbidity of early-onset cancer increased from 1990 to 2019, while mortality and DALYs slightly decreased”

        https://bmjoncology.bmj.com/content/2/1/e000049

        The vast majority of the raw numbers increasing is because of the word population going from 5.3 billion to 7.75 billion in that same time. The next cause does seem to be diagnostic ability, especially when looking at what cancers saw the biggest increase.

        • enkers
          link
          fedilink
          14
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          So, correct me if I’m wrong, but the actual number when speaking relative to population growth would be:

          180% / (7.75 Billion / 5.3 Billion) = 123.1%

          So it’s actually only a 23% increase, relatively.

          • idunnololz
            link
            51 year ago

            This article is so misleading.

            • enkers
              link
              fedilink
              3
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Yeah. The unfortunate truth about science news reporting is that usually it’s not sensational, so they need to play things up for clicks and ad revenue. A lot of the time it ends up in somewhat misleading semi-truths like this.

        • maegul (he/they)
          link
          fedilink
          English
          241 year ago

          I think the argument they’re making is that detecting that a death is caused by cancer is probably not an advanced affair requiring new diagnostic technology.

          Personally, I think it’s an interesting question, given that it stands to reason that cancer, by the time it has caused death, should be pretty easily detectable in any sort of autopsy.

          • Illecors
            link
            fedilink
            English
            71 year ago

            A post-mortem is not what most people think of when talking about cancer diagnostics.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              31 year ago

              Well, the article refers to both :)

              I think you’d be right about the “number of diagnoses” statement in the title, but I think the discussion is about the deaths due to cancer, which have also increased and would not have as strong of a correlation for the reasons others mentioned

              • Illecors
                link
                fedilink
                English
                41 year ago

                But that’s directly related. People used to die when “catching a cold”. We call that lung cancer nowadays. Same thing with many other branches of cancer.

            • Even in the US, autopsies are not always performed. Ima quote WebMD because I’m bone idle:

              Although laws vary, nearly all states call for an autopsy when someone dies in a suspicious, unusual, or unnatural way.

              Many states have one done when a person dies without a doctor present. Twenty-seven states require it if the cause of death is suspected to be from a public health threat, such as a fast-spreading disease or tainted food.

              According to a 2012 DOJ report, only 8.5% of US deaths result in autopsy.

            • maegul (he/they)
              link
              fedilink
              English
              31 year ago

              I mean sure. But the data is likely comparative and can be looked at just within countries that have been getting autopsies since the 90s.

              • @Zippy
                link
                31 year ago

                And what is the stat in those countries?

  • @girthero
    link
    651 year ago

    A lot blaming pfas and microplastics, but obesity is up too. According to the cdc that increases risk significantly in 13 types of cancer. Of course now looking up some are linking pfas to weight gain so maybe you guys are right!

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      341 year ago

      There needs to be a lot more studies on obesity and why it’s gone up so much. I don’t buy the “more sedentary lifestyle” argument. Our mobility hasn’t changed THAT much in the last 50 years, at least not enough to explain the absolutely skyrocketing cases of obesity.

      There’s a big link between poverty and obesity. People in poverty tend to be more active due to more physically demanding jobs, so it feels like the cause has to be from cheap food. While a lot of people might immediately look to high fructose corn syrup, I’m not sure it’s that simple. Obesity rates are rising even in places that don’t use HFCS in everything. I wouldn’t be surprised if there was some additive or preservative that started to get heavily used in the last few decades that’s had horrible, unintended consequences.

      • BraveSirZaphod
        link
        fedilink
        121 year ago

        Additives or preservatives aren’t likely to be the core issue. At the end of the day, by far the most significant factor for weight change is calorie intake vs expenditure. The new drugs like Semaglutide fundamentally work by significantly suppressing hunger and increasing satiety, for instance. I’m not sure what the precise data looks like, but in general, people are less social, go out less, spend a lot more time sitting on their phones or computers, and are generally a bit more stressed. All of the is going to contribute to eating more and moving less.

      • @Z4rK
        link
        English
        101 year ago

        Powerty affects more than just the quality of food you can afford. Sleep, stress, and health care for example would also be mayor factors for struggling with obesity.

        In general, obesity is not one single disease but more a compound end result from a ton of different factors, so there are lot of different causes and life situations that lead people to struggling with obesity.

        • @girthero
          link
          41 year ago

          Many also work night shift which increases likelihood for all those factors.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        21 year ago

        There’s also a big link between lack of sleep and both obesity and cancer (and dozens of other health problems).

        Western society has glorified not getting enough sleep as though it makes you manlier or better in some way. It doesn’t. It just makes you die sooner.

        We’ve moved to an “always on” society with the proliferation of the internet. With this comes disrupted circadian rhythms and even more reasons/excuses to not follow a regular or beneficial sleep schedule.

      • @virr
        link
        English
        11 year ago

        Sugar and refined carbohydrates are two big culprits. Then changing the balance of HDL-cholesterol to LDL-cholesterol changes with weight gain making it all worse and possibly leading to a positive feedback loop. The historic denigration of all fats, good and bad, helped to further tilt the HDL to LDL in the population making lots of people less healthy. It isn’t HFCS, it is the over use of sugar in most of our food. This is especially true in North America, but then we exported much of the same food tech to the rest of the world who did the same.

        All that processed food? Full of refined carbs and sugar. Drinks? Often full of sugar. Cheap food? Usually highly processed and refined, so more sugar and refined carbs. You need carbs for energy and fats to keep everything going with balance of nutrients and protein. Any of that out of balance and health suffers. Too little fat can even kill you (rabbit starvation/protein poisoning). The modern diet in North America is terrible because we were told good things were bad and carbs were good. So we ate too little of the good fats, too much of the refined carbs, and too much sugar. Now were here, increased heat disease, diabetes, obesity, and cancer.

    • FiveMacs
      link
      fedilink
      41 year ago

      And obesity is only going to increase since all the grocery overlords have jacked the costs of everything through the roof while their prepackaged boxes of sodium and fat mush seem to be the new staple for everyone.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    371 year ago

    Plastics, PFAS, pesticides, chemicals, radiations, all is contaminated not only what you eat but also what you breath. What a surprise !

    • @joelthelion
      link
      71 year ago

      It sucks even if you don’t get particularly sick.

      • @scottywh
        link
        11 year ago

        Still beats the alternative but it can certainly be difficult at times.

    • @WhatAmLemmy
      link
      141 year ago

      Probably a range of synthetic chemicals we’ve been polluting the natural world with for the last century, especially over the last few decades.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    31 year ago

    I only read the headline and not the article, so I’m not sure if this was mentioned. Would the main cause be from melanoma caused by UV? Melanoma rates in Australia went through the roof when we had that big ozone hole above our country.

    • @tasty4skin
      link
      33
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The main suspected causes mentioned are poor diet, alcohol, tobacco, physical inactivity, and obesity

        • BraveSirZaphod
          link
          fedilink
          31 year ago

          Plus side, these are factors that can be managed!

          Even if it’s not exactly fun to.

      • @Coreidan
        link
        English
        -51 year ago

        Ah yes. Blame poor people instead of the corporations polluting our natural world. Typical.

        • BraveSirZaphod
          link
          fedilink
          6
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Well, if that’s what the medical data actually points to, while I don’t think blame is really a useful concept, that would be the correct conclusion.

          I don’t know if that’s actually the case, because I’m not a doctor, but I’ll listen to them if they say it is.

        • @tasty4skin
          link
          31 year ago

          What did you read that made you think “This is blaming poor people!”?

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            1
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            If I had to guess, it’s probably because poor people are more likely to engage in self-destructive behavior for instant gratification because they have nothing to look forward to in life.

        • @WorldWideLem
          link
          21 year ago

          Poor diet, alcohol abuse, and tobacco use can all certainly be attributed to corporate malfeasance in at least some part.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          11 year ago

          I see your point, but rich people regularly engage in these things all the time.

          I guess they also get to balance it with plenty of outside time on the beach and delicious meals cooked by professional chefs.

    • @optissima
      link
      101 year ago

      Not real food seems like an arbitrary label?

    • @Coreidan
      link
      English
      61 year ago

      You think the reason cancer is climbing is because of seed oil? Facepalm.

    • BraveSirZaphod
      link
      fedilink
      41 year ago

      What I would give for every ‘muh seed oils bruh’ person to actually supply evidence.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    -291 year ago

    Tritium currently being dumped into the ocean in Japan but dont worry your bones can tell the difference between that and calcium no problem

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        -41 year ago

        The deterministic effects are health effects that displayed symptoms due to the killing of tissue stem cells in those exposed to ionizing radiation at more than threshold doses for tissue reactions. The threshold dose for tissue reactions is defined as a dose to induce tissue injury at the level of 1% incidence [7]. Typical early effects resulting in symptoms appearing over several weeks after exposure to ionizing radiation, are acomia and permanent infertility, as well as skin lesions and hematopoietic disorders. Cataracts are a typical late effect with symptoms arising after a long latent period extending to decades after exposure to ionizing radiation. The threshold doses for acomia, permanent infertility and cataracts are 3, 2.5–6, and 0.5 Gy delivered to the whole body, respectively. When pregnant women are exposed to ionizing radiation, embryonic death and malformation are the deterministic effects, which are provoked in fetuses. The threshold doses for both are 0.1 Gy as whole body exposure dose (0.1 Sv, here, the sievert [Sv] is a unit of radiation dose used for radiation protection to assess the health risk on humans), which is the minimal threshold dose among the various deterministic effects. On the other hand, the stochastic effects are health effects displayed stochastically by accumulating DNA mutations in cells of the tissues exposed to ionizing radiation. Typical stochastic effects are solid cancer and leukemia. Therefore, health effects provoked by ionizing radiation at below 0.1 Gy as a whole body exposure dose (0.1 Sv) are only the stochastic effects. There is still no evidence, however, for the stochastic effects provoked by whole body exposure to ionizing radiation of less than 0.1 Gy (0.1 Sv).

    • @Zippy
      link
      101 year ago

      You will have factors more dangerous levels of radiation if you spend much time in the sun.

      Interesting there are cities in the US that have background levels of natural radiation, levels higher than that allowed at nuclear plants. Check out places in Colorado. Yet they have cancer rates no higher than the national average. Some lower.

      The ocean alone has enough natural radiation that if we mined it out of the water, it could power the world for thousands of years. And actually there are ways to mine it for about 10c a kwh. That is economical but far higher than land based mining at about 2c per kwh thus no point in doing so.

    • blargerer
      link
      fedilink
      91 year ago

      This comment comes across as horrible misinformed. If you want to make an argument for tritium being dangerous even at very low concentrations, make that argument. But tritium has nothing to do with calcium, and releasing low concentration tritium from nuclear power plants has been standard procedure for as long as we’ve had nuclear power plants. It’s not unique to Fukushima. France dumps more Tritium in a year than Fukushima will ever dump.

      • CybranM
        link
        fedilink
        51 year ago

        Nuclear fearmongering on my internet? Surely not! /s

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            -41 year ago

            The deterministic effects are health effects that displayed symptoms due to the killing of tissue stem cells in those exposed to ionizing radiation at more than threshold doses for tissue reactions. The threshold dose for tissue reactions is defined as a dose to induce tissue injury at the level of 1% incidence [7]. Typical early effects resulting in symptoms appearing over several weeks after exposure to ionizing radiation, are acomia and permanent infertility, as well as skin lesions and hematopoietic disorders. Cataracts are a typical late effect with symptoms arising after a long latent period extending to decades after exposure to ionizing radiation. The threshold doses for acomia, permanent infertility and cataracts are 3, 2.5–6, and 0.5 Gy delivered to the whole body, respectively. When pregnant women are exposed to ionizing radiation, embryonic death and malformation are the deterministic effects, which are provoked in fetuses. The threshold doses for both are 0.1 Gy as whole body exposure dose (0.1 Sv, here, the sievert [Sv] is a unit of radiation dose used for radiation protection to assess the health risk on humans), which is the minimal threshold dose among the various deterministic effects. On the other hand, the stochastic effects are health effects displayed stochastically by accumulating DNA mutations in cells of the tissues exposed to ionizing radiation. Typical stochastic effects are solid cancer and leukemia. Therefore, health effects provoked by ionizing radiation at below 0.1 Gy as a whole body exposure dose (0.1 Sv) are only the stochastic effects. There is still no evidence, however, for the stochastic effects provoked by whole body exposure to ionizing radiation of less than 0.1 Gy (0.1 Sv).

            • @Zippy
              link
              31 year ago

              Did you even read the dose levels needed to be dangerous? Your source explains why there is near zero danger.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                -11 year ago

                If you ingest tritium the odds of cancer increase, thats the science. But thanks for the condescending attitude you’re obviously very smart.

                • @Zippy
                  link
                  31 year ago

                  If you go outside your chances of cancer increase. If you fly your chances of cancer increase. If you drink water or eat a burger your chances of cancer increases. Don’t be pandemic. Your source actually shows how much you are exaggerating the risk as it is far lower to nil.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        -41 year ago

        The deterministic effects are health effects that displayed symptoms due to the killing of tissue stem cells in those exposed to ionizing radiation at more than threshold doses for tissue reactions. The threshold dose for tissue reactions is defined as a dose to induce tissue injury at the level of 1% incidence [7]. Typical early effects resulting in symptoms appearing over several weeks after exposure to ionizing radiation, are acomia and permanent infertility, as well as skin lesions and hematopoietic disorders. Cataracts are a typical late effect with symptoms arising after a long latent period extending to decades after exposure to ionizing radiation. The threshold doses for acomia, permanent infertility and cataracts are 3, 2.5–6, and 0.5 Gy delivered to the whole body, respectively. When pregnant women are exposed to ionizing radiation, embryonic death and malformation are the deterministic effects, which are provoked in fetuses. The threshold doses for both are 0.1 Gy as whole body exposure dose (0.1 Sv, here, the sievert [Sv] is a unit of radiation dose used for radiation protection to assess the health risk on humans), which is the minimal threshold dose among the various deterministic effects. On the other hand, the stochastic effects are health effects displayed stochastically by accumulating DNA mutations in cells of the tissues exposed to ionizing radiation. Typical stochastic effects are solid cancer and leukemia. Therefore, health effects provoked by ionizing radiation at below 0.1 Gy as a whole body exposure dose (0.1 Sv) are only the stochastic effects. There is still no evidence, however, for the stochastic effects provoked by whole body exposure to ionizing radiation of less than 0.1 Gy (0.1 Sv).