3 ms·

> In some cases, the industry has replaced these chemicals with newer phosphorus-based flame retardants, Trasande said, adding that researchers are now concerne

> In some cases, the industry has replaced these chemicals with newer phosphorus-based flame retardants, Trasande said, adding that researchers are now concerned these chemicals may be linked to cancer as well. Then what can we do? What chemicals can we even find that do not harm us? I hate to be a chemical company shill, but thousands of people used to die in city fires, which we simply at the time took as a fact of life. This absolutely sucks, it's like there really is no way out when it comes to these things. It really seems that while prevention is great, especially with microplastics being so pervasive now, a cancer cure seems like the only way we as a society can surivive without suffering with relentless cancer diagnoses and deaths which are only rising now. That or we have a degeneration of infrastructure and the economy, which means we'll just go back to dying in tenement fires again.

AstralStorm 3y ago
We see more deaths to cancer because a lot of smokers or former smokers are reaching the late age. Additional issues are general causes of death slowly shifting from cardiovascular to cancer. One rise in preventable cancers is because some people do not take HPV vaccine anymore. That is mostly breast cancer. Pancreatic cancer is potentially linked to diet, not exactly to adulterants, but the change is not big. Testicular cancer and ovarian cancer rates are the probe for PFxx exposure. Again, not a big change... When the vaccination rates are accounted for. Thyroid cancer too, but it's a rare one so noisy data. Breast cancer has the confounder of HPV so you get to look at a subset... Liver cancer is too non-specific and rates are as usual. PFxx cancer risk exists, but is very likely tiny lifetime, compared to diet, smoking or lack of exercise. Perhaps even stress but that's hard to track. We're talking RR of edge like 1.05-1.1... unless it's industrial workers and kidney cancer. At most. And results are inconsistent. Removing these is mostly based on precautionary principle at this point, and the fact it will take forever to fet rid of them. And that they're developmental toxins. As in mess with children.

AstralStorm 3y ago

We see more deaths to cancer because a lot of smokers or former smokers are reaching the late age. Additional issues are general causes of death slowly shifting from cardiovascular to cancer. One rise in preventable cancers is because some people do not take HPV vaccine anymore. That is mostly breast cancer. Pancreatic cancer is potentially linked to diet, not exactly to adulterants, but the change is not big. Testicular cancer and ovarian cancer rates are the probe for PFxx exposure. Again, not a big change... When the vaccination rates are accounted for. Thyroid cancer too, but it's a rare one so noisy data. Breast cancer has the confounder of HPV so you get to look at a subset... Liver cancer is too non-specific and rates are as usual. PFxx cancer risk exists, but is very likely tiny lifetime, compared to diet, smoking or lack of exercise. Perhaps even stress but that's hard to track. We're talking RR of edge like 1.05-1.1... unless it's industrial workers and kidney cancer. At most. And results are inconsistent. Removing these is mostly based on precautionary principle at this point, and the fact it will take forever to fet rid of them. And that they're developmental toxins. As in mess with children.