Live data from Hacker News

Why are so many young people getting cancer?

nature.com

251–254 of 254 posts

Re: Why are so many young people getting cancer?

#251

I think it's endocrine disruption from microplastics. Hormones act like relays in the body, so when one system goes, a cascade of failures often follows (the most famous being diabetes). The body goes into maladaptive modes of operation to survive, which aren't sustainable, so epidemic changes kick in, eventually creating a breeding ground for tumors. Forever chemicals like PFAS are a runner-up. The fluorocarbon tail…

I got downvoted for mentioning PFAS, but I think that is a huge part of it. There are so many kids with cancer or debilitating ulcerative colitis in my town, including my teenager. My neighborhood has a slurry of PFAS and GenX chemicals in the well water that we just discovered a couple of years ago. My neighbor's PFOS reading was 144 ppt!!! The high school had a mix of forever chemicals too, over 50 ppt for PFNA. Th…

Ya I forgot to mention that the reason I chose microplastics and PFAS is that those are relatively new compared to when Gen X was growing up in the 70s and 80s. We had BPAs and leaded gasoline etc, but those effects were well-understood and we finally transitioned off of them.

Also I learned recently that 10% ethanol has the same antiknock effect of tetraethyllead (TEL), but they suppressed it because the fossil fuel industry didn't want biofuels to eat into their profit margins. Better to shower the world with lead and reduce IQ levels, evidently.

Re: Why are so many young people getting cancer?

#252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> dude our soil is contaminated. our food grow from the soil. cattle eat grass that grows from the contaminated soil. be it heavy metals, microplastic, pesticides or other chemicals That's true but it doesn't mean that the contamination has an actual effect, so vibes. This is not a minor point at all. > eating meat from cattle is going to yield less contamination, because it has been filtered by nature (grass) + catt…

> "That's true but it doesn't mean that the contamination has an actual effect, so vibes. This is not a minor point at all." If contamination has no effect, why does lard come with a transgenic warning on the packaging? the pig is not genetically modified, but because it consumes gmo food, it's fat becomes contaminated... Why do large fish carry massive, measurable mercury traces? By your logic, you could pour chlori…

> If contamination has no effect, why does lard come with a transgenic warning on the packaging?

In my jurisdiction no such warnings exist. You should check what level of paranoia your region handles because it may be based on evidence or in scaremongering.

> Why do large fish carry massive, measurable mercury traces?

Because large fish are apex predators and apex predators have always had a large amount of contaminants. This holds true now and throughout history, it's not a modern phenomenon.

> By your logic, you could pour chlorine into a plant's soil, wait a week, and eat it without an issue because "contamination might not have an effect."

This is what happens with pesticides, we spray crops and then wait days to weeks for the offgassing or biodegradation. For the record continue to spray crops with water with human and animal feces for nutrition as has been the case throughout human history

> futhermore, cattle are ruminants, pigs, chickens, and fish are not. they have a completely different digestive system that filters out significantly more toxins before they ever reach the meat, followed by pigs, chickens, and lastly fish.

You need to show some evidence of solid studies that show bioaccumulation of toxins because mechanistic effects (or your random theorizing as a layman) are not sufficient proof.

> vitamin d supplements are not the same thing as getting direct sunlight.

You need to show proof of this.

> also their food is mainly genetically modified. you know there are different kinds right? cage free, free range and pasture raised. which one do you think has the better nutrient dense meat and eggs quality?

You need to show proof that the nutrition profile is drastically better. Some free range food tastes different for sure but you need to show me that there's a large enough difference. I am not arguing about the ethics of modern factory farming though.

> 1. never ever go outside. stay indoors and only consume vitamin d pills 2 only eat ultra processed, genetically modified foods, and high sugar snacks 3. only use vegetable oils! never ever consume natural oils/fats 4. if you have a garden, pour chlorine on your garden vegetables and eat them a few weeks later. (if they survive it) 5. never fast. eat 6+ times a day to keep your insulin spiked at maximum capacity

I mean hundreds of millions of people do this and most of these things have been studied, quite literally to death.

* We know the effects of vitamin D supplementation (favorable compared to more than moderate sun exposure as direct sun exposure brings risks of melanoma)

* We know the effects of GMO: no known effects at all, no specific mechanism of action of because GMO is meaningless unless you can tell me of specific genetic changes that trigger the creation of some toxin in the target organism

* We know the effects of ultraprocessed foods: largely attributable to high palatability that leads of greater body mass and spikes in glycemic index if not supplemented with fiber or physical activity.

* There have been hundreds of studies on vegetable oils and not a single one has shown negative effects beyond what you might get from excess calories. Have you actually read these studies? You talk about "natural" oils, which is a completely meaningless term.

* The garden thing is a stupid analogy and dependent on the chemistry of whatever chemical in question you're talking about. You know that chemistry is an exact science and we can know empirically how different substances biodegrade right?

* Fasting has some marginal health benefits but is ultimately just a method of calorie restriction, which is healthy overall. No human randomized control trial has shown fasting to be better than alternative methods of dieting.

* Likewise, the number of times you eat does not have and known impact when you equate for calories.

Re: Why are so many young people getting cancer?

#253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean the experiment that has been literally studied to death showing no substantial difference than most other vaccination methods that gets conveniently trotted out as an excuse of all the world's evils by pseudoscience grifters?

You mean the experiments where they said there wasn't enough data to show that what-cannot-be-named may have adverse effects? Now those adverse events are showing up but you will still insist that it cannot possibly have anything to do with what-cannot-be-named without even checking

"Adverse events" is a BS term invented by people that are insufficiently knwoledgeable in the field to properly interpret the VAERS database.

Re: Why are so many young people getting cancer?

#254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As you know this, why don't you fix it? What is forcing you to doom scroll rather than putting the phone in a different room before going do bed?

What's forcing people to keep eating terrible diets and getting fat? What's forcing that results in . The answer is usually human weakness or someone seeking to make a profit by encouraging the bad habit, or a combination of the two. As individuals, there's nothing we can do other than exert willpower, and we should. But as a society we should also be asking questions about the supply side of these bad habits.

As a society we should be asking those questions yes

As an individual, pretending you have free will and can opt to not do things you know are bad for you is probably better than doing those things while complaining that society isn't stopping you from hurting yourself

Post reply on HN