4 ms·

I do not agree: Cancer is a common "disease" (and I disagree that cancer is a disease, as it is quite different from any other concept we call a "disease") of t

by fnl 16y ago

I do not agree: Cancer is a common "disease" (and I disagree that cancer is a disease, as it is quite different from any other concept we call a "disease") of the modern world because of lifespan. The longer you live, the more likely you accumulate the necessary mutations (i.e., organic state changes). To my best knowledge, there is no lifestyle factor involved (However, I admit that you could argue that environmental pollution has increased and ultimately trace that back to lifestyle factors).

_delirium 16y ago
I don't have statistics handy, but I believe there's been a large increase in lung cancer incidence since the early 20th century, especially since the 1930s, even controlling for age, mostly due to lifestyle factors (smoking). And lung cancers are a big enough proportion of total cancers that it actually makes a noticeable impact on the overall numbers, so the 20th century had a higher cancer incidence than the 19th century even for people of a given age. I think lung cancer is unusual in that respect, though.
- fnl 16y ago
  That is partly assumable - especially since more people are smokers than ever before. However, our average lifespans have also dramatically increased in the mid 20th century mostly due to increased hygiene and antibiotics: 18th & 19th c. around 35 y, early 20th c. up to 45 y, late 20 th c. going up to 65 y. (worldwide). And lung cancer regularly shows rather late (beyond 45 y, definitely).
  - hugh3 16y ago
    For what it's worth, a huge portion of the increase in lifespan has been at the child-mortality end. If an average lifespan of 35 sounds low it's because a substantial proportion of children died before the age of five.
brudgers 16y ago
there is no lifestyle factor involved" There is a well established link between cancer and tobacco. http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/dcpcglobalatlas/PopupImage.aspx?image=Risk_Factors_Major_Factors.gif http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/dcpcglobalatlas/PopupImage.aspx?ima... http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/sgr/2004/index.htm http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/sgr/2004/index.ht...

by fnl 16y ago

_delirium 16y ago

I don't have statistics handy, but I believe there's been a large increase in lung cancer incidence since the early 20th century, especially since the 1930s, even controlling for age, mostly due to lifestyle factors (smoking). And lung cancers are a big enough proportion of total cancers that it actually makes a noticeable impact on the overall numbers, so the 20th century had a higher cancer incidence than the 19th century even for people of a given age. I think lung cancer is unusual in that respect, though.

fnl 16y ago
That is partly assumable - especially since more people are smokers than ever before. However, our average lifespans have also dramatically increased in the mid 20th century mostly due to increased hygiene and antibiotics: 18th & 19th c. around 35 y, early 20th c. up to 45 y, late 20 th c. going up to 65 y. (worldwide). And lung cancer regularly shows rather late (beyond 45 y, definitely).
- hugh3 16y ago
  For what it's worth, a huge portion of the increase in lifespan has been at the child-mortality end. If an average lifespan of 35 sounds low it's because a substantial proportion of children died before the age of five.

brudgers 16y ago

there is no lifestyle factor involved" There is a well established link between cancer and tobacco. http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/dcpcglobalatlas/PopupImage.aspx?image=Risk_Factors_Major_Factors.gif http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/dcpcglobalatlas/PopupImage.aspx?ima... http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/sgr/2004/index.htm http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/sgr/2004/index.ht...