7 ms·
Colorectal cancer incidence in teens up 300% since 1999
- Qem 2y agoCellphone use? Colon position is close to pocket height, where our cellphones tend to stay while not charging or being actively manipulated. Someone should try to correlate tumor starting location with handedness. If it tends to start the same side the dominant hand is, that would be a smoking gun.
- Calvin02 2y agoIf that were the case, you wouldn’t see 10-14 year old see a 500% increase and the increase would be closely correlated with when they got the phone, etc. Also, the article seems to suggest that the absolute incident rate isn’t high - which could mean that we are likely getting better at detection rather than increase in underlying prevalence.
- throwaway11460 2y agoWhat about all the adults that got phones between 2000-2015 and use them since then to today? I'd expect a 50 year old person that uses a phone for the past 25 years to be full of holes if cellphone usage has any effect on kids using them for few years. Especially since older phones were radiating much more energy.
- nick__m 2y agoNot necessarily, assume that cellular radio emissions effects on cells is like really a mild form of radiotherapy. It would mostly impact some cells undergoing mitosis while having almost no impact on mature slowly dividing cells. I am not saying that cellular radio are harmful but it's cumulative impact on dividing cells should be tested to exclude that possibility.
- throwaway11460 2y agoCells are always being replaced, you replace almost every cell in your body each decade.
- JPLeRouzic 2y agoNot true for neurons, some heart cells, skeletal muscle cells (muscle fibers), red blood, etc That's a lot of indispensable cells that do not reproduce. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeletal_muscle#Skeletal_muscle_cells https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeletal_muscle#Skeletal_muscl...
- throwaway11460 2y agoIndeed, that's why I said almost - but it's true for the squishy parts of the abdomen we're talking about.
- Thiez 2y agoThe human digestive tract is constantly creating new cells, it's a lot like skin in that sense. I doubt teens have much significantly more mitosis in their butts compared to adults.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> assume that cellular radio emissions effects on cells is like really a mild form of radiotherapy Except it’s not. It’s thermal. The heat from your cell phone is more carcinogenic than its EM emissions.
- TRDRVR 2y agoEveryone here is complaining about the nature of the proposed natural experiment and I’m just here thinking “where are the pockets on OP’s clothes?” Phones are stored primarily in front pockets that are nowhere near the colon in terms of biology (almost everyone has relatively dense meaty quads and femurs between the thigh and colon) or the inverse square law.
- throwaway11460 2y agoTo be fair, I use my hoodie pockets pretty often.
- rideontime 2y agoTo be fair, that's even further away from the colon...
- throwaway11460 2y agohttps://www.cancer.gov/publications/dictionaries/cancer-terms/def/colon https://www.cancer.gov/publications/dictionaries/cancer-term... No, the ascending and descending parts are exactly where my hoodie pockets are.
- cityofdelusion 2y agoThe large intestine is fairly deep in the abdomen, there’s a lot of tissue and mass between a hoodie pocket and the colon.
- Qem 2y agoOne side of it will be shielded by approximately double the mass, when compared to the one closer to the pocket where the phone is usually stored.
- paulddraper 2y ago> relatively dense meaty quads and femurs between the thigh and colon While it in now way changes the conclusion, quads are on the front of the leg; many people carry it in their back pocket.
- Findecanor 2y agoAfter my first colon cancer, I read all I could find about cell phones and cancer, and did not find anything substantial. The most interesting was an indication that perhaps the radiation could impair the immune system's ability to fight cancer. But I think that stress of modern life would affect the immune system more. I would be more worried about the increase of chemicals in the environment, such as PFAS and nanoplastics.
- datavirtue 2y agoI would be more worried about the quantity of $7 a bag Doritos-derived chips and blue Mt Dew they are eating. Our environment has been riddled PFAs for generations.
- worstspotgain 2y agoWell it's supposedly all non-ionizing radiation, which can't cause DNA damage and cancer links are controversial at best, but I agree it should be looked at statistically. Here are some other conjecturable variables: - Novel chemicals in the environment? - Composting bins now in proximity to food? - Decline in vax rates? (pathogen-cancer route, immune response spillover route) - Organic pesticides on organic vegetables? With the 10-19 year-old groups, you're looking at very low overall numbers, so a 400% increase might mean something like from 10 to 50 cases a year in the US. Still, shedding light on this anomaly might uncover a major causal pathway in the older cohorts.
- datavirtue 2y agoI saw a documentary where a startup in California was doing quite well selling faraday cage underwear. I was really scratching my head and wondering if they were just grifting or if it was addressing a serious issue. These were highly refined products.
- reaperman 2y agoDon’t faraday cages need to be grounded to function properly? https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/321168/effectiveness-of-a-faraday-cage-grounded-or-not-against-external-rf https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/321168/effective...
- choilive 2y agoCell phones emit non-ionizing radiation so this shouldn't be possible from a first-principles physics standpoint.
- hollerith 2y agoJust because it doesn't ionize atoms doesn't mean it can't have biological effects.
- Qem 2y agoSome bacteria secrete small iron oxide crystals and are able to use those to sense magnetic fields[1]. Our guts are full of bacteria. Wonder if a nearby RF emitter can cause some of them to run amok. They surely tested the effects of cellphones in human tissues, but I doubt the same was done to bacterial cells. [1]. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetotactic_bacteria https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetotactic_bacteria
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> bacteria secrete small iron oxide crystals and are able to use those to sense magnetic fields There is preliminary evidence "that MTB in the gut are associated with grey matter volume in magnetite-rich brain regions related to orientation and navigation" [1]. > Wonder if a nearby RF emitter can cause some of them to run amok This was explored (and dismissed) in the early noughties [2], when cell-phones-cause-cancer was enjoying a halcyon. (I think it was radiation from CRTs before that. Probably non-organic vegetables today.) [1] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00343-021-0495-1 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00343-021-0495-1 [2] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15376948/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15376948/
- JPLeRouzic 2y agoAll electromagnetic radiation that encounters some conductive material induces (tiny) currents. Cells are full of conductive materials. "Low-frequency electric fields influence the human body just as they influence any other material made up of charged particles" https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/radiation-electromagnetic-fields https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/rad...
- HPsquared 2y agoDietary changes in the population seem the first place to look. That or contamination of some kind? EDIT: or do we simply have better screening now?
- toomuchtodo 2y agohttps://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36477589/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36477589/ https://www.cancer.gov/news-events/cancer-currents-blog/2020/colorectal-cancer-rising-younger-adults https://www.cancer.gov/news-events/cancer-currents-blog/2020... TLDR Strong evidence diet (more sugar, more alcohol, less fiber, highly processed foods in general), western disease, less exercise are contributing factors. Following colorectal cancer rates of folks who get on GLP-1 agonists (semaglutide) might provide stronger signal.
- AnimalMuppet 2y agoAny evidence of a connection with microplastics and/or PFAS?
- toomuchtodo 2y agoThe data I'm able to find indicates these factors don't necessarily cause colorectal cancer, but contribute to its ability to migrate. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.3c04844 https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.3c04844 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4637576/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4637576/ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0045653524003564 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004565352...
- doctorpangloss 2y agoA lot of people have been investigating this and there isn't super hard conclusive evidence. That said, you are looking for zebras instead of horses. For example, in Japan, gastric cancers are already much higher than in the US (like 5x more frequent), and there is evidence it is due to higher salt, smoked foods, H. pylori, genetics, and higher screening. If you are looking for the impact of a specific environmental pollutant, Japan v. US has a great example too: professionals hypothesize that because their cigarettes are equipped with a different kind of filter, Japanese OR of lung cancer due to smoking is like 15, compared to the US's 30-60. There is likely a combination of trends, and maybe environmental pollutants play a little bit of a role. But you could definitely ban PFAS and microplastics - whatever that means - and still observe obesity rates rising, more sedentary lifestyles, more salt and processed food intake, etc., and maybe you'd get 280% increase in colorectal cancer instead of 325% for the next 20 years. Ultimately you could spend your money investigating PFAS and microplastics, or you could spend it investigating all the soap people put on their assholes, all the weird cosmetics they use on their mouth and face, the horrible shit they eat, or any number of things whose incidence rate is also a chart going up and to the right, but might interact with the colon quite literally more directly.
- elzbardico 2y ago[flagged]
- zumafan 2y agoSimilar to the increase in prescriptions of accutane for acne in teens. Coincidence? https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11907498/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11907498/
- daemonologist 2y agoUnless you're aware of any additional correlations or of any causal studies, probably yes.
- bobs_salsa 2y agoAs if the adage “correlation is not causation” isn’t said enough on HN. Here we are still having to scream it from the roof tops.
- glimshe 2y agoUse of YouTube and TikTok by teenagers increased in the past several years. Coincidence?
- Spastche 2y agoisn't bowel issues a super common side effect?
- ale42 2y agoHas this been observed in other countries too or just in USA/North America? Exposure to various chemicals and food habits are vastly different, if those are the source (which are the first culprits I'd consider) of cancer increase, then numbers should also be very different elsewhere.
- duffpkg 2y agoIt's easy to jump to conclusions from this one single meta analysis however based on my experience I would want to see a more deep dive review. I would guess that underreporting, especially in the pre-2010 era after which electronic medical records became much more prevalent, as well as the changeover to ICD10 from ICD9, are likely culprits. Data quality in healthcare today is a D- at best, 20 years ago it was absolute and total garbage. Though this persists today, the excel 65k row limitation and excel date bugs are reponsible for an unimaginable amount of healthcare data destruction. Up until 2012 even, most CDC reporting was done as manual chart reviews typed into an excel sheet. That was a very error prone process.
- oldgradstudent 2y agoThe numbers seem to be inconsistent with other studies. The following paper gives incidence of 0.2/100,000 for 15-19 year olds in recent years, while the post claims a rise from 0.3 in 1999 to 1.3 today. https://acsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.3322/caac.21772 https://acsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.3322/caac...
- AndrewOMartin 2y agoFrom 0.3 per 100,000 to 1.3 per 100,000. Not saying this isn't significant, but whenever you see a phrase like "increase of x%" it's often worth your time to see what that is in absolute terms.
- mharig 2y agoThe EPIC Oxford study showed that vegetarians are more likely to die from colon cancer than the control group, "health food buyers". But the effect canceled more or less out, because the health food buyers did die more often from CVDs. YMMV