Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Was cancer less likely in a pre-industrial world?

nationalgeographic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 173 posts

Re: Was cancer less likely in a pre-industrial world?

#11

Post by JohnJamesRambo »

sharklazer wrote: post #9
newsclues wrote: post #2

Did the age of oil or age of nuclear power have more unintended consequences?

The age of glyphosate, an antibiotic that has been sprayed so much that it’s testable in the rain and in sources of groundwater at this point. The effects of long-term antibiotic exposure are up still being learned. But it clear means a gut biome disruption. Thanks Monsanto. Err... Bayer (same people who sold Heroin over the counter 100 years ago)

Last time I reviewed the glyphosate literature it wasn’t that impressive of a link between Roundup and cancer. Has anything changed?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5705608/

I agree Monsanto is a horrible company, but for other reasons.

Re: Was cancer less likely in a pre-industrial world?

#12

Post by Sebb767 »

One thing which I always thought of, but which the article doesn't mention, is age. Especially older people seem more prone to cancer, so in my mind a lower life expectancy will naturally lead to a lower cancer rate, as people die before cancer "is able to get them". Or am I missing something?

Re: Was cancer less likely in a pre-industrial world?

#13

Post by pfdietz »

JohnJamesRambo wrote: post #11
sharklazer wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The age of glyphosate, an antibiotic that has been sprayed so much that it’s testable in the rain and in sources of groundwater at this point. The effects of long-term antibiotic exposure are up still being learned. But it clear means a gut biome disruption. Thanks Monsanto. Err... Bayer (same people who sold Heroin over the counter 100 years ago)

Last time I reviewed the glyphosate literature it wasn’t that impressive of a link between Roundup and cancer. Has anything changed? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5705608/ I agree Monsanto is a horrible company, but for other reasons.

Glyphosate must be bad, because Monsanto is bad. It's inference by moral contagion, which as everyone knows is an excellent way to do science.

Re: Was cancer less likely in a pre-industrial world?

#14

Post by 1123581321 »

jeltz wrote: post #5
sonograph wrote: post #3

Tangent topic; I have often wondered if back pain was less likely in the past? How did they manage without chiropractors?

Excerise and especially walking and running does a lot for back health but at the same time they probably did a lot heavy lifting and handicraft (weaving, shoe making, etc) in bad ergonomic positions.

Poor ergonomics are almost non-existent in traditional cultures. This makes some intuitive sense as only in a wealthy industrialized society is poor posture and back/leg weakness de-correlated from surival. This is one starting point to research it: https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2015/06/08/4123147...

Re: Was cancer less likely in a pre-industrial world?

#15

Post by eliben »

Sebb767 wrote: post #12

One thing which I always thought of, but which the article doesn't mention, is age. Especially older people seem more prone to cancer, so in my mind a lower life expectancy will naturally lead to a lower cancer rate, as people die before cancer "is able to get them". Or am I missing something?

Yes, age and life expectancy is a huge part of it. In the book "Rebel Cell: Cancer, Evolution, and the New Science of Life's Oldest Betrayal", Kat Arney touches upon this exact question and reaches the conclusion that cancer was as prevalent in ancient times as it is now (perhaps accounting for surges like smoking-related cancers), and also mentions age as a big factor in the archaeological discrepancy.

Re: Was cancer less likely in a pre-industrial world?

#16

Post by pronlover723 »

newsclues wrote: post #2

Did the age of oil or age of nuclear power have more unintended consequences?

Possibly no, according to the article.

up to 14% of deaths 400 years ago in the UK were cancer according to the new research. It's currently 29% in the UK, and 17% in the world. 29% is much higher than 14% but according to the article people used to believe it used to be just 1%. How much of that increase to 29% is because of new problems or just because we live longer so cancers get the chance to kill us more vs all the things that used to kill us earlier

Re: Was cancer less likely in a pre-industrial world?

#17

Post by speedgoose »

sharklazer wrote: post #9
newsclues wrote: post #2

Did the age of oil or age of nuclear power have more unintended consequences?

The age of glyphosate, an antibiotic that has been sprayed so much that it’s testable in the rain and in sources of groundwater at this point. The effects of long-term antibiotic exposure are up still being learned. But it clear means a gut biome disruption. Thanks Monsanto. Err... Bayer (same people who sold Heroin over the counter 100 years ago)

I thought it was no evidence of glyphosate causing cancer. A bit like we don't have evidence than 3/4/5G causes cancer.

Re: Was cancer less likely in a pre-industrial world?

#18

Post by [deleted] »

speedgoose wrote: post #17
sharklazer wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The age of glyphosate, an antibiotic that has been sprayed so much that it’s testable in the rain and in sources of groundwater at this point. The effects of long-term antibiotic exposure are up still being learned. But it clear means a gut biome disruption. Thanks Monsanto. Err... Bayer (same people who sold Heroin over the counter 100 years ago)

I thought it was no evidence of glyphosate causing cancer. A bit like we don't have evidence than 3/4/5G causes cancer.

[deleted]

Re: Was cancer less likely in a pre-industrial world?

#19

Post by ch4s3 »

sharklazer wrote: post #9
newsclues wrote: post #2

Did the age of oil or age of nuclear power have more unintended consequences?

The age of glyphosate, an antibiotic that has been sprayed so much that it’s testable in the rain and in sources of groundwater at this point. The effects of long-term antibiotic exposure are up still being learned. But it clear means a gut biome disruption. Thanks Monsanto. Err... Bayer (same people who sold Heroin over the counter 100 years ago)

Glyphosate is a broad-spectrum systemic herbicide and crop desiccant not an antibiotic.
Post reply on HN