About a million people aged below 50 die of cancer annually, a study says, projecting another 21 percent rise by 2030.
I think a lot of it is increase in diagnostic capabilities.
Ah yes, the significantly higher diagnostic capabilities of death by cancer
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.
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.
That’s correct.
?
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.
A post-mortem is not what most people think of when talking about cancer diagnostics.
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
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.
How many people are getting autopsies in rural Afghanistan or India?
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.
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.
And what is the stat in those countries?
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?
Plastics, PFAS, pesticides, chemicals, radiations, all is contaminated not only what you eat but also what you breath. What a surprise !
Its the plastic blood
Probably a range of synthetic chemicals we’ve been polluting the natural world with for the last century, especially over the last few decades.
Plastic best be mindful and leave room for the PFAS to join in on the fun!
Is there actual data on this? Microplastics aren’t exactly new.
Between cancer and Alzheimer’s getting old sucks.
It sucks even if you don’t get particularly sick.
Still beats the alternative but it can certainly be difficult at times.
A lot of these people were exposed to unregulated toxic shit in their youth
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.
The main suspected causes mentioned are poor diet, alcohol, tobacco, physical inactivity, and obesity
well shit.
Plus side, these are factors that can be managed!
Even if it’s not exactly fun to.
Ah yes. Blame poor people instead of the corporations polluting our natural world. Typical.
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.
This is COVID denial style talk.
The report is actual medical research.
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.
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!
Seed oil consumpion…
Its in everything now
And its not real food
Not real food seems like an arbitrary label?
You think the reason cancer is climbing is because of seed oil? Facepalm.
Tritium currently being dumped into the ocean in Japan but dont worry your bones can tell the difference between that and calcium no problem
The fun thing is that your body can tell the difference between hydrogen isotopes and calcium.
Kids with thyroid cancer obviously just got that from bad hydrogen molecules lol.
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).
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.
You’re information is hilariously incorrect.
Which information? Be very specific.
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).
Who control what is released from the tanks ?
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).
Nuclear fearmongering on my internet? Surely not! /s
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.
