Live data from Hacker News

Was cancer less likely in a pre-industrial world?

nationalgeographic.com

21–30 of 173 posts

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

#21
post #6

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

Chiropractors are charlatans so it was the same as any other healing elixir scam that was being run (which are notable and commonplace throughout history).

My brother is a chiropractor who mostly agrees with you. He thinks that most chiropractors do about as much harm as good, or more.

Of course, he believes otherwise about his own particular school of chiropractic, the Gonstead Technique. As a long time beneficiary of that method I've come to agree with him. It has helped me quite a bit, and the long list of his vastly improved patients (many or most who are refugees from other chiropractors) is impressive and convincing to me.

Some healers are quacks; in some disciplines, most are. But that doesn't make them all quacks.

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

#22
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, I tend to think of an increase of death by heart disease, cancer and neurodegenerescence to be good news overall.

These diseases are essentially dying of old age. Better treatment for heart disease will mechanically increase cancer deaths and/or Alzheimer.

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

#23
The modern age has possibly removed some carcinogens like inhaling smoke from (bon)fires, mycotoxins from spoilt food, nutritional illiteracy and unsanitary conditions. But the modern age has introduced a lot of new ones like tobacco, food additives, sugar, gluten, radiation, asbestos, industrial processing of food, pesticides, sedentary lifestyle.

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

#25
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?

This is a common misconception. Life expectancy hasn't changed much. It's children dying that bright down the average in earlier years. If you lived to your 20s your life expectancy was pretty much the same as it is now.

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

#26
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?

Perhaps they control for age?

A lot of the lower life expectancy was sky-high infant mortality, and if you made it to 10 in 1850 (hardly preindustrial, but preindustrial stats are harder to find) you could expect to live to 60 or so. Presumably you'd compare the cancer rates of your study's skeletons with the cancer rates of today's 60 year olds.

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

#27
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?

This is a common misconception. Life expectancy hasn't changed much. It's children dying that bright down the average in earlier years. If you lived to your 20s your life expectancy was pretty much the same as it is now.

I have heard this multiple times and I would love some citations because although most of the reduction in life expectancy may come from death at child birth, for obvious mathematical reasons, I cannot believe wars, famine and disease don't account for anything

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

#28
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?

I think evolution plays a part in why older people are more prone. A debilitating illness in your teens is likely to stop you reproducing and is more likely to vanish. But a genetic trait for cancer later in life can get past on.

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

#29

The modern age has possibly removed some carcinogens like inhaling smoke from (bon)fires, mycotoxins from spoilt food, nutritional illiteracy and unsanitary conditions. But the modern age has introduced a lot of new ones like tobacco, food additives, sugar, gluten, radiation, asbestos, industrial processing of food, pesticides, sedentary lifestyle.

Is tobacco use higher today vs pre-industrial eras? I don’t think of it as a particularly modern introduction to humanity.

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

#30
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?

This is a common misconception. Life expectancy hasn't changed much. It's children dying that bright down the average in earlier years. If you lived to your 20s your life expectancy was pretty much the same as it is now.

This is not true. Live expectancy for adults did changed a lot too, just not as much as when you count also kids.

> If a medieval person was able to survive childhood, then he had about a 50% chance of living up to 50–55 years.

This is from wiki. Our life expectancy is much higher. In fact, contemporary medicine is saving a lot of adults.

Post reply on HN