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

141–150 of 254 posts

Re: Why are so many young people getting cancer?

#141

Post by kansface »

jansan wrote: post #139
zeroonetwothree wrote: post #81

The comments in this thread are amusing because everyone is confident they know the cause of this (complex and multifaceted) issue and of course each of their explanations is different.

Let's see what we got so far: - Infectious Diseases - Sexual Habits - Obesity - Agricultural Chemicals - Dietary Shifts - Food Processing & Storage - Microplastics and Forever Chemicals - Environmental & Indoor Pollution - Sleep Deprivation - Covid Vaccines That is quite insane. When things become hard or impossible to understand, even hardcore atheists turn towards secular religion.

I don’t understand why this is insane? Why do you expect a single cause?

Re: Why are so many young people getting cancer?

#142

Post by ragequittah »

aeturnum wrote: post #110
ragequittah wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I don't think it's worth going through and providing you links about the mischaracterizations in your post - as you seem to have your own sources - but your depiction of the history of scientific consensus is not accurate. As you say problems caused by sweeteners around weight gain, insulin regulation, etc are long documented. As are the many studies showing that sweeteners cause cancer at doses (100x+ iirc) far abov…

Many of the research went under my radar when I was researching it ~15 years ago then. Specifically sucralose was what I was researching, because it's what I drank, and there seemed to be no real evidence of harm that I could come up with or that anybody arguing with me about it could point to. And everyone defending it (including me) always had the line about how extensively studied it was at the time.

But research kept coming in. In 2013 CSPI changed their sucralose recommendation from "safe" to "caution". Then in 2016 it changed it again to "avoid". [1] Insulin sensitivity was more of a concern as of 2018 [2]. Sucralose + carbs causing further insulin problems was added in 2020 [3].

There's several more but I'm not going to make an exhaustive list. The point is the more research done the more the sweeteners go from almost completely benign (which you could easily say about sucralose ~2010) to problematic. So saying "the science is in, these sweeteners don't cause cancer" seems off-putting to me after going through the journey of so much of the science being wrong. It reminds me that we didn't classify processed meat as carcinogenic until 2015. And we only classified nitrates as "probably carcinogenic" in 2010.

[1]https://www.cspi.org/new/201602081.html

[2]https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30005329/

[3]https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32130881/

Re: Why are so many young people getting cancer?

#143

Post by wemwemwem »

margalabargala wrote: post #115
wemwemwem wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is simply not true. A calorie is a calorie might be true, and its hard to know which is healthier for any single fresh vs storage example but plenty of chemical processes are going on. It could certainly be the case that a small number of storage examples where particular changes occur cause particular risks that account for a significant portion of cancer.

Respectfully, that's a crock of nonsense. "It's not at absolute zero, therefore there's some chemical process going on, therefore we don't know if it's causing significant portions of cancer"? The number of things you can say that about is frankly infinite. You have zero reason to believe that any of the "chemical processes" that happen to an apple (or any food) in long term storage have anything to do with cancer. T…

Science is building hypothesis and testing them. It is not saying it seems unlikely so I don't care. You can look up the changes to green beans depending if they are fresh, shipped a huge distance without bring frozen or frozen. Some nutrients change, these changes could affect satiety which could affect obesity, but you just don't care?

Re: Why are so many young people getting cancer?

#144

Post by jansan »

kansface wrote: post #141
jansan wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's see what we got so far: - Infectious Diseases - Sexual Habits - Obesity - Agricultural Chemicals - Dietary Shifts - Food Processing & Storage - Microplastics and Forever Chemicals - Environmental & Indoor Pollution - Sleep Deprivation - Covid Vaccines That is quite insane. When things become hard or impossible to understand, even hardcore atheists turn towards secular religion.

I don’t understand why this is insane? Why do you expect a single cause?

The number of different reasons that people come up with (and with conviction in many cases) is insane IMO, not any single reply or commenter (I hope).

Re: Why are so many young people getting cancer?

#145

Post by kanbankaren »

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…

[Trailer park Boys. I would give $50 if you delete your post.gif]

Re: Why are so many young people getting cancer?

#146

Post by pluralmonad »

seszett wrote: post #72
loeg wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's mostly obesity, which the article sort of mentions ("known links to obesity") but kind of obscures by saying "obesity does not fully account for the rise" and "a clear answer remained elusive." The medical establishment and journalism have found it extremely uncomfortable over the past decade to notice that obesity has negative health consequences because it might embarrass some fat people, and this is more of t…

> The medical establishment and journalism have found it extremely uncomfortable over the past decade to notice that obesity has negative health consequences because it might embarrass some fat people, and this is more of that. I can't help but think about the same thing with "co-sleeping". It's been discouraged altogether on the basis that it increases the incidence of sudden death syndrome in newborns, which sounds…

Went down this rabbit hole about "back is best" recommendation for babies. Turns out back is only best for the vanishingly tiny subset of infants prone to SIDS. And appreciably worse for everyone else. "Public health" means something different to bureaucrats.

Re: Why are so many young people getting cancer?

#147

Post by cindyllm »

wemwemwem wrote: post #143
margalabargala wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Respectfully, that's a crock of nonsense. "It's not at absolute zero, therefore there's some chemical process going on, therefore we don't know if it's causing significant portions of cancer"? The number of things you can say that about is frankly infinite. You have zero reason to believe that any of the "chemical processes" that happen to an apple (or any food) in long term storage have anything to do with cancer. T…

Science is building hypothesis and testing them. It is not saying it seems unlikely so I don't care. You can look up the changes to green beans depending if they are fresh, shipped a huge distance without bring frozen or frozen. Some nutrients change, these changes could affect satiety which could affect obesity, but you just don't care?

[dead]

Re: Why are so many young people getting cancer?

#148

Post by andrewstuart »

Could it be the plastics, or maybe the pollution in the air, or maybe the pfas in the water, or maybe the pesticides in the food, or maybe the vaping, or maybe the sedentary lifestyle, or maybe the hundreds of nuclear weapons exploded all over the earth, or maybe it’s the degradation of the ozone layer due to chemicals used in manufacturing.

Such a mystery.

Re: Why are so many young people getting cancer?

#149

Post by weatherlite »

strictnein wrote: post #91

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 intercours…

[flagged]

Re: Why are so many young people getting cancer?

#150

Post by UncleOxidant »

strictnein wrote: post #126
lenerdenator wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kinda surprised at the idea that HPV is the cause; at least in the US, there was a fairly large push about 15 years ago to get more people (particularly teenage girls and young women) vaccinated against HPV. Would we not see a corresponding dip in deaths related to HPV-associated cancers by now?

Two things, I think. 1. The original guidance did not call for boys to get the vaccine. It does now. 2. We're talking about two different age groups. The article talks about those under 50. The group who got the HPV vaccine as part of their normal schedule are now just hitting their early 20s. There's also still a huge number of people in the US who have HPV. It's really, really common. "Approximately 42.5 million Am…

Any idea what the percentage of teenagers who are getting the HPV vaccine is? I'm going to guess it's fairly low at this point given that there tend to be religious objections and also given the growing antivaxx sentiments.
Post reply on HN