Was cancer less likely in a pre-industrial world? • Hacker News Board

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

#71

Post by watwut » Sat, May 15, 2021, 5:11 PM UTC

_0w8t wrote: post #49

linspace wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

[1] shows pretty convincingly that probability of a dearth due to violence or war has not changed during the last 2000 years. What we perceive as peace is a consequence of extremely violent WWII and to lesser extent WWI that killed vastly more people even after accounting for population increase than wars in the 19th century. [1] - https://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/violence.pdf

WWII was 80 years ago. So yes, when when we compare current mortality due to violenve with past, we don't count WWII as "current".

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

#72

Post by kmonsen » Sat, May 15, 2021, 5:15 PM UTC

GuB-42 wrote: post #22

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, 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.

Yeah, you have to die of something and as you get old one of those will hit quite likely.

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

#73

Post by noT1 » Sat, May 15, 2021, 5:18 PM UTC

I thought it was accepted by the medical community every major ailment occurred at much higher rates “back in the day”. That it’s a case of having lacked sophisticated detection methods the numbers are so low.

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

#74

Post by sm0ss117 » Sat, May 15, 2021, 5:21 PM UTC

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #61

zackees wrote: post #56

sv40 is a cancer causing virus that contaminated 1/3rd of all polio vaccines. From wikipedia: The discovery of SV40 revealed that between 1955 and 1963 around 90% of children and 60% of adults in the U.S. were inoculated with SV40-contaminated polio vaccines. Link to studies: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=sv40...

"Studies of groups of people who received polio vaccine during 1955–1963 provide evidence of no increased cancer risk." [1] [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25057632/

Quick rule of thumb, the reason we associate it with cancer is because the only ppl we systemically tested for it had cancer. If you tested everybody you'd probably find it in everybody since it was in a mandatory vaccine

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

#75

Post by mikewarot » Sat, May 15, 2021, 5:25 PM UTC

When I saw a great^n grandmother's 1870 census entry, which said she had 7 children, 1 of which was still alive (at 55), the reality of life back then hit me hard.

This a meaningless question for most people, if it helps save lives in the future, great.

I think you should also pay attention to Bret Weinstein's work on telomeres and cancer. If the environmental pressures are for a low age, you end up with long telomeres to allow more dividing of cells to replace those damaged, however those same long telomeres make you more susceptible to cancer should you live longer.

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

#76

Post by 101001001001 » Sat, May 15, 2021, 5:49 PM UTC

https://youtu.be/06e-PwhmSq8

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

#77

Post by CoryAlexMartin » Sat, May 15, 2021, 5:51 PM UTC

mikewarot wrote: post #75

When I saw a great^n grandmother's 1870 census entry, which said she had 7 children, 1 of which was still alive (at 55), the reality of life back then hit me hard. This a meaningless question for most people, if it helps save lives in the future, great. I think you should also pay attention to Bret Weinstein's work on telomeres and cancer. If the environmental pressures are for a low age, you end up with long telomer…

Are our telomeres long enough to allow for the development of cancer, or is it necessary for the system to be overridden, thus allowing cells to replicate indefinitely? My layman's understanding was that benign moles were benign, and not cancerous, because the telomere system was functioning normally and limiting growth. Am I wrong?

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

#78

Post by retrac » Sat, May 15, 2021, 6:00 PM UTC

nemo44x wrote: post #32

strken wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It’s amazing how precarious being born is. I think I read that about 200 years ago around 40% of people didn’t make it past 5 years old or something like that. Antibiotics have helped a lot in modern times, especially for mothers giving birth.

The improvement in child survival is attributed to many things, but it may be a mix of vaccinations, less indoor air pollution, much better hygiene, better nutrition, and perhaps just better parenting. (People have had some very peculiar ideas on how to care for and raise children; I wouldn't be surprised if in hindsight our distant descendants consider us woefully inadequate in that regard too.)

Most of the progress, in absolute terms, with reducing maternal mortality and the infant/toddler death rate in the industrialized countries was actually made before antibiotics were developed, in the late 19th / early 20th centuries. In England in 1851 about 26% of children died before the age of 5, falling to 23% in 1891, 19% in 1911, 11% in 1921, 9% in 1931, and 7% in 1941 (and then we're in the antibiotics era).

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

#79

Post by throwaway12319 » Sat, May 15, 2021, 6:03 PM UTC

bryanmgreen wrote: post #60

Probably a dumb question, but I’ve wondered if plastic has anything to do with cancer in the modern era? Mostly everything we consume these days has been touched by a form of plastic.

There's very extensive documentation on the carcinogenic effect of microplastic and atmospheric particulate.

It's not a debated issue: it's well known.

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

#80

Post by ineedasername » Sat, May 15, 2021, 6:10 PM UTC

rtkwe wrote: post #65

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?

Life expectancy is a tricky number to compare across long spans of time because it's heavily influenced by people dying young which was much more common in the past than it is now, people did die earlier but it's not as bad as a say 40 year life expectancy would make it seem because that number is dragged down by lots of early childhood deaths.

Yes, in 1800, even in more developed countries at the time, about 30% of kids died by age 5. And being pregnant was frequently fatal as well, with nearly 1 in 10 pregnancies killing the mom.