this post was submitted on 07 Sep 2023
319 points (97.9% liked)

World News

32288 readers
710 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Illecors@lemmy.cafe 114 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml 33 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Ah yes, the significantly higher diagnostic capabilities of death by cancer

[–] soundoftheunheard@lemmy.ml 77 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

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@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This article is so misleading.

[–] Enkers@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] corvus@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago

That's correct.

[–] Illecors@lemmy.cafe 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] maegul@lemmy.ml 25 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] lte678@feddit.de 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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 5 points 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.

[–] ExLisper@linux.community 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

How many people are getting autopsies in rural Afghanistan or India?

[–] sxan@midwest.social 8 points 1 year ago

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@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

And what is the stat in those countries?

[–] girthero@lemmy.world 56 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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 33 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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 13 points 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 2 points 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] reddig33@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Pfas and micro plastics cause hormonal issues that can result in weight problems.

https://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/agents/endocrine/index.cfm

[–] Fiivemacs@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Huschke@programming.dev 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Don't forget sugar. I've recently visited the US and their bread (if you can call it that) could easily be classified as cake where I'm from.

[–] Fiivemacs@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

https://globalnews.ca/news/7371355/subway-bread-sugar-ireland/

I stopped eating breads tbh...they are just horrid for you.

[–] starship_lizard@programming.dev 45 points 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 37 points 1 year ago

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

[–] ZugZug@sh.itjust.works 21 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Between cancer and Alzheimer’s getting old sucks.

[–] joelthelion@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Coldgoron@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago (4 children)
[–] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 10 points 1 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.

[–] shreddy_scientist@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago

Plastic best be mindful and leave room for the PFAS to join in on the fun!

[–] GBU_28@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

I always wanted to be stretch Armstrong.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Nerorero@lemmy.blahaj.zone 15 points 1 year ago

A lot of these people were exposed to unregulated toxic shit in their youth

[–] Cubic25@aussie.zone 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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 26 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (7 children)

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

[–] nxdefiant@startrek.website 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

Plus side, these are factors that can be managed!

Even if it's not exactly fun to.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] cnnrduncan@beehaw.org 7 points 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!

load more comments
view more: next ›