5 ms·
Yeah that's part of it, but to easy to dismiss it as such. Breast cancer for instance also has been on the rise for the last century, and that's pretty hard no
by wouldbecouldbe 3y ago
Yeah that's part of it, but to easy to dismiss it as such.
Breast cancer for instance also has been on the rise for the last century, and that's pretty hard not to diagnose:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9038417/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9038417/
- wouldbecouldbe 3y agoOne of the most interesting facts I've read in breast cancer studies is that not breast feeding in twenties seems be a pretty high risk factor for developing breast cancer.
- stareatgoats 3y agosource, please
- hackeraccount 3y agoThe closest I've seen to that is that having children (with each additional child providing a bit more) adds a protective effect. https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/hormones/reproductive-history-fact-sheet#:~:text=The%20risk%20of%20breast%20cancer,not%20given%20birth%20(7) https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/h.... The risk of breast cancer declines with the number of children borne. Women who have given birth to five or more children have half the breast cancer risk of women who have not given birth
- stareatgoats 3y agomany thanks - that's an interesting correlation! and the first I've heard of it. If there is a causal relationship here then that would surely account for a certain percentage of the change in cancer rate under discussion here, as women (in developed countries) tend to get their children ever later in life, and fewer of them.
- wouldbecouldbe 3y agolinked article in comment also mentions it: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9038417/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9038417/