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

Why are so many young people getting cancer?

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 254 posts

Re: Why are so many young people getting cancer?

#91

Post by strictnein »

If I had to bet, it would be on HPV causing a majority of the rise in colorectal cancer. It is a major cause of throat cancer in men[0] and causes almost 100% of cervical cancer in women[1]. We have had a significant increase in anal sex over the past 10+ years[2] and are now seeing an increase in colorectal cancer.

"Britain has found that the proportion of 16- to 24-year-olds engaging in heterosexual anal intercourse has risen from 12.5% to 28.5% over recent decades. Similarly, in the US 30% to 45% of both sexes have experienced it."

Still needs to be studied more as there don't seem to be any large studies yet.

"We found that colorectal tissues from 28 (51%) of 55 patients with colorectal cancer were positive for HPV DNA." [3]

[0] https://www.ucihealth.org/blog/2025/04/hpv-related-oropharyn...

[1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7062568/

[2] https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/aug/11/rise-in-popu...

[3] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1479314/

Re: Why are so many young people getting cancer?

#92

Post by [deleted] »

sodafountan wrote: post #59

I know of two women under the age of 30 who got cancer, they were spouses/girlfriends of friends of mine. I didn't know them well personally, and only met them a handful of times at outings. Because they weren't married yet I'm sure it's just compounding their financial struggles. I was shocked when I heard they had cancer, I almost didn't believe it. Under 30 is such a young age to be diagnosed.

[deleted]

Re: Why are so many young people getting cancer?

#93

Post by bluefirebrand »

talkingtab wrote: post #69

What I find interesting is the concept of dead food versus live food. This is just something I wonder about. For example a dead apple is one that was picked a year ago, sold today, kept in storage until now. Long shelf life - is the crucial change in our eating that I can see. When was the last time you had a fresh apple? Does the food industry want us to consider the health benefits of a dead apple versus a living a…

> What is funny to me is the conversations we have about "ultra processed food" do no address this aspect of the issue. I keep wondering why.

Hate to say it, but it's because it comes across as unscientific woo

We can measure the differences between an apple freshly picked and one preserved for a season. We can objectively see how the sugars and carbs and calories change, if they do.

Maybe there's some yet-to-be-discovered process in our bodies that deals with preserved food differently than fresh food, but if that is the case it's more likely because of the preservatives than the food being "dead"

Re: Why are so many young people getting cancer?

#94

Post by testbjjl »

arthopacini wrote: post #74

for millions of years we were constantly fasting, then we hunted and killed animals, eating their protein and fat, no carbs, we were constantly in ketosis We recently begun eating carbs, And very very recently started eating tons of processed carbs (because now we got the tech) We are rarely in ketosis, and because of high carbs/sugar consumption, we start developing insulin resistance. (the idea is simple, we create…

I agree with a lot here and practice keto throughout the year and occasionally break to eat burritos, rice, pasta and drink beer because I enjoy them. But our ancestors were not in constant ketosis. They ate substantial carbohydrates in the food they consumed seasonally, though not as much as we consume today because of our tech. Also, doesn’t ice reduce blood flow? Lastly Ramadan and cancer rates are not supported. This discounts age distribution, smoking, genetics, environmental exposure, etc.

Re: Why are so many young people getting cancer?

#95

Post by lompad »

ragequittah wrote: post #71
aeturnum wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without counting anything out it's worth saying that artificial sweeteners are some of the most-tested food ingredients because of concern about their health impacts. It's possible that we missed something, but you have to weigh that against the chance we missed something about every other possible food ingredient (all of which have been tested less).

I used to be in this same boat whenever someone questioned my sugar-free drinks. Trust the science! Then more science saying new things about artificial sweeteners kept coming out. And then I personally (with the mindset of "they can't possibly do harm") started getting stomach issues that I can pretty much definitively link to any time I drink sucralose. Which is a shame because I loved me a coke zero. If I drink/ea…

The problem here is looking at a substance in isolation, instead of comparatively.

The actual question is: would drinking that stuff with sugar have caused more damage to health? And the answer will likely be yes. Because we _know_ just how bad sugar is for you. Particularly diabetes, microbiome changes, addictive behavior, obesity of course, cardiovascular issues...

If you'd look at sugar in isolation, as a new substance that stuff would never be allowed in any country at all.

Re: Why are so many young people getting cancer?

#97

Post by SubiculumCode »

socalgal2 wrote: post #65
SubiculumCode wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are exposed to more more types of chemicals in our every day than ever before. Some offenders to me, besides herbicides and pesticides are: [1]: ubiquitous flame retardants, which in America they put in every couch, carpet, and mattress [2]: ubiquitous microplastics pollution, [3]: joint effect of Obesity and Ultra-Processed Foods [1] https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2022&q=flame+retar... [2] https://scho…

Wasn't microplastics just debunked as not a thing? https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/jan/13/micropla...

First, I would not say "debunked" is the most appropriate term. The studies were not shown to be false, but the article highlighted that come doubts have been cast due to potential contamination confounds. The letter (Challenges in studying microplastics in human brain https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-025-04045-3) will get integrated into methods research. See here for current citations: (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=0&hl=en&as_sdt=2005...). Sciencing is actually harder than it looks from the outside, and therefore research fields goes through iterations of refinement. As the article you linked to included this quote: (Prof Lamoree “It’s still a super-immature field and there’s not many labs that can do [these analyses well]. When it comes to solid tissue samples tissues, then the difficulty is they are usually taken in an operating theatre that’s full of plastic.”).

Second, I do not think anyone is claiming that microplastic pollution is not ubiquitous, because that is obvious. That microplastics get consumed is also probably not that controversial. The extent to which microplastics get consumed but do not exit the other end of the pipe is an empirical question that has methodological challenges.

Third: I think there are some subtleties here involving the size of plastic particles. Microplastics is a catch-all term these days, but a more formal definition puts microplastics at plastic particles that range from 5 mm to 1 μm (micrometer), while nanoplasticsare 1 μm down to 1 nm (nanometer). micro- and nano- plastics can require different techniques to detect.

Re: Why are so many young people getting cancer?

#99

Post by nonethewiser »

talkingtab wrote: post #69

What I find interesting is the concept of dead food versus live food. This is just something I wonder about. For example a dead apple is one that was picked a year ago, sold today, kept in storage until now. Long shelf life - is the crucial change in our eating that I can see. When was the last time you had a fresh apple? Does the food industry want us to consider the health benefits of a dead apple versus a living a…

For the apple, why call it living vs dead? why not old vs new?

Milk is also probably the best example of dead vs. live except you have it backwards. The milk sold in stores deliberately kills off the good bacteria to greatly extend shelf life and prevent food borne illness (pasteurization). Your point is more consistent with raw milk.

Re: Why are so many young people getting cancer?

#100

Post by jandrewrogers »

VirusNewbie wrote: post #49
mixmastamyk wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“TV” dinners were, packaged in aluminum foil. Microwaves didn’t become prevalent until perhaps the mid 80s.

ah, interesting. Ok, so TV dinners != microwave dinners, and maybe they're more healthy than microwaved dinners or food that comes in plastic.

I wouldn't exactly call TV dinners "healthy". In many ways it was much more heavily processed fatty carbs than what passes for microwave food today. It was loaded with salt and sugar.

The main difference is that TV dinners were designed to be heated in an oven rather than a microwave, back when microwaves were less common.

Post reply on HN