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

      • soundoftheunheard@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        77
        ·
        1 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@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          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.

        • maegul (he/they)@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          25
          ·
          1 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@lemmy.cafe
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            1 year ago

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

            • lte678@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 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@lemmy.cafe
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                1 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)@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 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.

  • girthero@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    56
    ·
    1 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!

    • I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      37
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 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@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        1 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.

      • prodigalsorcerer@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 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@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 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@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 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.

  • Scripter_Lizard@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    46
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I wonder how much of this is actually just the result of better detection and screening processes. Not saying it’s not a problem, but if it’s just because we’re getting better at spotting these things early it might actually be a good thing?

  • gnygnygny@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    40
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

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

  • Cubic25@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 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@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

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

      • Coreidan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

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

        • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          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.

        • GBU_28@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          This is COVID denial style talk.

          The report is actual medical research.

        • WorldWideLem@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

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

        • HughJanus@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Buddy we’re all on this blue rock together. Those corporations couldn’t do shit if consumers didn’t let them. Plenty of blame to go around. We can encourage consumers to make better choices and vote for better regulations and still hold corporations and government accountable. We don’t have to choose.

    • cnnrduncan@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      had that big ozone hole

      Not sure if it still reaches Australia but we’ve still got the ozone hole here in NZ - and apparently cancer season is starting early this year thanks to climate change and water vapour from that Tongan volcano last year!

  • lemmyseizethemeans@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    29
    ·
    1 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

    • remer@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      The fun thing is that your body can tell the difference between hydrogen isotopes and calcium.

      • lemmyseizethemeans@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 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).

    • blargerer@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 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.

      • lemmyseizethemeans@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 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).

          • lemmyseizethemeans@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 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@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 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.