4 ms·

It's not that complicated. Some people are unlucky. There is nothing one can do to avoid disease eventually. Some people start getting sick in their 80s, some

It's not that complicated. Some people are unlucky. There is nothing one can do to avoid disease eventually. Some people start getting sick in their 80s, some die healthy & peacefully in their sleep in their 90s and some get cancer being <10 years old.

danuker 5y ago
> There is nothing one can do to avoid disease eventually. You can move where this cancer is rare. https://ourworldindata.org/cancer#the-prevalence-of-cancer-around-the-world https://ourworldindata.org/cancer#the-prevalence-of-cancer-a... Or better yet, optimize for a total healthy lifespan, not just against cancer: https://ourworldindata.org/burden-of-disease#the-global-distribution-of-the-disease-burden https://ourworldindata.org/burden-of-disease#the-global-dist...
- modo_mario 5y ago
  > You can move where this cancer is rare. I figure some of those light coloured countries have more people simply not getting a diagnosis. Additionally going to central africa as a white person might increase your chance of skincancer enough to offset any reduced of other cancers. It's probably better to just go to where people live the longest and adjust to the local diet/rythm, etc
- mmmmmbop 5y ago
  These are really interesting maps, but I'm missing a few important data points. For the cancer one, I feel like it's misleading. E.g. Russia and Central Africa might be low in cancer because of their low life expectancy, and Central Africa additionally because of its majority black population (which I assume to be less prone to skin cancer). As a white person, I believe it would be a mistake to move to Central Africa expecting to reduce one's skin cancer risk, as evidenced by the high skin cancer rates of white people in South Africa or Australia. So for that map it would be great to be able to filter it by age group and ethnicity. The disability-adjusted life years (DALY) one seems much more useful. What stands out there is how much healthier people are on average in Western Europe compared to the U.S. Perhaps that is in part because of the more egalitarian societies and health care systems in European countries, which greatly improve the health of the less well-off. I wonder if that comes at the cost of the better-off, i.e. if say the top 10% in the U.S. are actually healthier in the U.S. than in Europe. It would be interesting to be able to filter by income level.
  - danuker 5y ago
    > might be low in cancer because of their low life expectancy No, the cancer rates are "measured as the age-standardized percentage". But skin color definitely plays a role, at least in skin cancer, and I don't think the figures account for it. I did not think of that, thank you!
  - danuker 5y ago
    > the more egalitarian societies and health care systems As someone from Romania, I believe that is true. But since joining the EU, we've also seen changes in food laws, which have a large impact on health. For example, recently it became mandatory to label citrus fruit when it was treated with preservatives, to know whether the peel is edible. People used to consume the peel regardless; now more people are aware. There is also an important difference between "flavorings" and "natural flavorings". For instance, artificial butter flavoring causes "popcorn lung".
    - samatman 5y ago
      Your last paragraph goes off the rails a bit, the diacetyl in ordinary butter is no better for your lungs than its synthetic equivalent. If there's a difference it's the amount of exposure, not whether the identical molecule comes from in vitro synthesis rather than in vivo.
      - danuker 5y ago
        Thank you, I did not know this. I know that factory workers exposed to concentrated diacetyl are more affected. I suppose it matters how much of the flavor escapes into the air, but I did not know that it is naturally present in butter. That said, butter comes with its own issues. For example, 14g/day is associated with a 1% reduction in life expectancy - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4927102/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4927102/

danuker 5y ago

> There is nothing one can do to avoid disease eventually. You can move where this cancer is rare. https://ourworldindata.org/cancer#the-prevalence-of-cancer-around-the-world https://ourworldindata.org/cancer#the-prevalence-of-cancer-a... Or better yet, optimize for a total healthy lifespan, not just against cancer: https://ourworldindata.org/burden-of-disease#the-global-distribution-of-the-disease-burden https://ourworldindata.org/burden-of-disease#the-global-dist...

modo_mario 5y ago
> You can move where this cancer is rare. I figure some of those light coloured countries have more people simply not getting a diagnosis. Additionally going to central africa as a white person might increase your chance of skincancer enough to offset any reduced of other cancers. It's probably better to just go to where people live the longest and adjust to the local diet/rythm, etc
mmmmmbop 5y ago
These are really interesting maps, but I'm missing a few important data points. For the cancer one, I feel like it's misleading. E.g. Russia and Central Africa might be low in cancer because of their low life expectancy, and Central Africa additionally because of its majority black population (which I assume to be less prone to skin cancer). As a white person, I believe it would be a mistake to move to Central Africa expecting to reduce one's skin cancer risk, as evidenced by the high skin cancer rates of white people in South Africa or Australia. So for that map it would be great to be able to filter it by age group and ethnicity. The disability-adjusted life years (DALY) one seems much more useful. What stands out there is how much healthier people are on average in Western Europe compared to the U.S. Perhaps that is in part because of the more egalitarian societies and health care systems in European countries, which greatly improve the health of the less well-off. I wonder if that comes at the cost of the better-off, i.e. if say the top 10% in the U.S. are actually healthier in the U.S. than in Europe. It would be interesting to be able to filter by income level.
- danuker 5y ago
  > might be low in cancer because of their low life expectancy No, the cancer rates are "measured as the age-standardized percentage". But skin color definitely plays a role, at least in skin cancer, and I don't think the figures account for it. I did not think of that, thank you!
- danuker 5y ago
  > the more egalitarian societies and health care systems As someone from Romania, I believe that is true. But since joining the EU, we've also seen changes in food laws, which have a large impact on health. For example, recently it became mandatory to label citrus fruit when it was treated with preservatives, to know whether the peel is edible. People used to consume the peel regardless; now more people are aware. There is also an important difference between "flavorings" and "natural flavorings". For instance, artificial butter flavoring causes "popcorn lung".
  - samatman 5y ago
    Your last paragraph goes off the rails a bit, the diacetyl in ordinary butter is no better for your lungs than its synthetic equivalent. If there's a difference it's the amount of exposure, not whether the identical molecule comes from in vitro synthesis rather than in vivo.
    - danuker 5y ago
      Thank you, I did not know this. I know that factory workers exposed to concentrated diacetyl are more affected. I suppose it matters how much of the flavor escapes into the air, but I did not know that it is naturally present in butter. That said, butter comes with its own issues. For example, 14g/day is associated with a 1% reduction in life expectancy - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4927102/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4927102/