Rising rates of cancer in young people prompts hunt for environmental culprit

I'm guessing, since they don't state it clearly, that the combined rate of all cancers is falling, it's only when you look at subsets that it's rising.

Which prompts the idea: "do different cancers compete for shared resources?"

Would a lung cancer use up something that would prevent a different kind of cancer and so once smoking goes out of fashion you get some rebound as other cancers step into the gap left by them?

edit: I looked at the paper and then followed the link to the paper they cite for a general increase in incidence in top cancers combined in Gen X by the time they reach 60.

> Some portion of these increases can be attributed to rising obesity rates19 and increasingly sedentary lifestyles. 20-23 Another portion might be explained by changes in cancer registry policies and International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th Revision (World Health Organization) classifications, 24 leading to inclusion of relatively indolent lesions in more recent periods that might not have been diagnosed as cancer in earlier periods. Furthermore, radiologic diagnoses have become more common following widespread deployment of sophisticated medical imaging technologies, 25 especially for thyroid 26,27 and kidney 28,29 cancers. We chose not to exclude any leading cancer site from our summaries because our granular estimates are freely available (eFigures 15-17 in Supplement 1).

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=51200100901400413...

The study seems US based only, I wonder if there's a similar trend in Europe -- that would help identifying if some of the potential environmental factors have been regulated out on the other side of the Atlantic.

Summary:

- It's not just increased screening/detection because mortality went up. This affects half of the 34 types studied. Examples mentioned are pancreatic, liver in women, various gut, colorectal, kidney, gallbladder, testicular, and breast (may have missed some because it's sprinkled throughout)

- "there are likely unidentified risk factors but there are also known [ones], like sedentary behaviour, a change in diet, plus rising rates of obesity and diabetes." "[Many young patients] exercise regularly and eat healthily"; microplastics "fit the timeline [but] needs further investigation"

- Earlier screening is being considered but comes with "expenses, radiation exposure and false positives"

Archive / paywall: <https://archive.is/vn8kR>

Some of them we know why, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC452549/

These are millions of people who are at elevated risk of soft tissue cancer because drug companies decided it'd be better to give contaminated medicines known to cause cancer later to developing countries populations. It's only one source but I recently became aware of this paper and it's a bit revolting.

It might not be an environmental cause - if people are genetically more susceptible to those cancers when aged between 20s and their 40s then a lot of people in the older age ranges would have already died from them before the year 2000 and so wouldn't be caught in their data.

If they want to confirm it is an increase then they could repeat their analysis on a set of data covering years previous to 2000.

Maybe plastics.

Unable to read article - what is a way to view this without a subscription?

Huh, how about looking at the largest mass poisoning in human history. Human excrement is now so toxic it cannot be used as fertilizer.

Processed foods or microplastics come to mind

ok, i'm gonna try a more civilized approach:

I truly believe that much of the content (can be specified but the list would be long) on the many tubes poses a serious issue, directly and indirectly, and the speed, intervals and the timing at which the tubes are being consumed plays a crucial role.

the article cites the academics and says that there are noteworthy hints at

> generational shifts in cancer risk.

by itself, and even without context, it makes total sense. behaviors and environments change over relatively short time periods; most notably, what people consume:

a) actively, as in food, drinks, and media

b) passively, as in pollutants and toxins,

c) b in a, to a more than just relevant part.

But most of that is obvious and there's plenty of discussion about it and the article clearly states that cancer happens in people who seem to be living a healthy lifestyle, except that, what we currently consider to be a healthy lifestyle, might be a pack of wolfs in sheep's clothing:

I) supps, energy drinks that are labelled healthy, vapes, common party drugs laced with nonsense, etc., and theoretically healthy foods that are becoming more and more neutral, which kind of means that people are actually eating lesser amounts of healthy food, and even if the threshold is not reached, given how fucked up water, air (and soil) are, as well as temperatures, and unhealthy stress exposure, the bigger picture becomes critical and worthy of attention, especially if you include

II) media consumption: the amount of lies on the news is brutal, the amount of perversion of truth and ignorance of fact just as bad and then there are false temporary partisanship, praising and celebrating death and weapon and ammo sales and all the hate and polarization that goes hand in hand with all this shit, and I really don't want to get into the brutal amount of celebrity bullshit, music videos, song lyrics and so on that give the back of your brain more than enough reason to work on fucking time and space travel and certainly, without anyone noticing, create plenty of psychopath-serial-killer-brain cells.

All this stress builds up and it has nothing to do with weak men coming out of weak times. It's been only 10 - 20 years in the different "categories" I mentioned.

But then there's another topic: the patterns, methods, and characteristics of how consumption occurs.

- supps and shakes, but let's ignore those for now, because I want to bring attention to

- perfectly healthy people consuming shit on the tubes and via ads everywhere, in intervals and timings that our brains actually need to wind down, to not see or hear anything, to, if necessary, have the energy to tune out the other senses: in transit, breaks, on the fucking toilet, for fucks sake, in waiting lines and rooms and those 35 seconds in front of the micro wave and so on - i'm certain y'all have more and better examples.

Sure, a certain cognitive level, aka intelligence & devotion, protect via attention, mindfulness, healthy obsession and so on, but even that kind of humans, feels the stress build up, which is why they spend money and thought on proper recovery. But not everyone has and does that.

an anecdote: parents growing up in the soviet union on their own farms: perfectly healthy food, unhealthy drink, no media, die late, relatively rarely of cancer but theres plenty of wear & tear and an increasing rate of freaking Alzheimer's. They move abroad and wonder why children get pimples and zits and allergies. Children stop drinking cheap milk and eating cheap cheese and processed sweets and pimples and zits go away and even the acne and allergies get much better. father stops watching news and the family lives in peace, no unhealthy stress whatsoever, work is a place to make money and compete athletically (if you are the type). but then younger kids get smartphones, consume media all the time, in classically peaceful moments and or moments like i mentioned before: seconds and minutes in the void, so to speak. they develop temporary tics, mimic strange behaviors and dumb speech, their attention 'is weird' and moody, the ways they see and explore the world are 'strange' and they radiate unhealthy stress, mania and obsession quite a fucking lot. i excluded auto-immune stuff on purpose.

cancer is rare. especially in healthy people with healthy lifestyles. brains are still largely a complex puzzle with many mechanisms we are not aware of. the changes in media and food consumption in the previous years, the lack of 'void', especially regarding emerging risks in the functioning parts of humanity, deserve much more attention.

The article mentions microplastics as a potential cause that's being looked into, and that seems pretty reasonable, but are there any other suspicious potential causes?

unhealthy stress & subsequent lack of recovery due to continued screen exposure & fractal horseshit content while drinking these bum-piss energy drinks & sweets. and yeah, sure, "plastics". but its mostly the horseshit content & lack of something to "balance it off".

it's just how the brain works & how it uses the body to signal that your lifestyle & environment are fucked up, with exceptions extending the rule, of course.

the range of signals is broad and cancer is just one of the extremes, with the rest being written off as xyz, psychosomatic, the kid needs to go outside more, etc

Hijacking this thread to post some of my blog articles on nutrition/health. It's a topic I'm deeply concerned about.

I frequently run into young people with thin hair, girls with endometriosis, and a bunch of stuff people should not be having at this age.

https://kaiwenwang.com/writing/category/health

I'd like to think my perception is insightful or at least novel on a variety of topics: exercise, pufas, vitamin A, indicators of health, plants don't want to be eaten, national food systems, rabbit teeth, glasses, and foldy ears.