5 ms·
The article mentions microplastics as a potential cause that's being looked into, and that seems pretty reasonable, but are there any other suspicious potential
by bhaney 2y ago
The article mentions microplastics as a potential cause that's being looked into, and that seems pretty reasonable, but are there any other suspicious potential causes?
- throw9474 2y agoBrainstorm: Artificial sugars, chemicals in so many products from Amazon, hormones in meat, vegan substitutes, new preservatives, new herbicides, pesticides and fertilizers Empirical observation: the two young people I know who had cancer (one died, other survived) frequented marijuana and had high levels of radon detected in their homes. But that doesn't necessarily support younger cancer trends.
- arnejenssen 2y agoAdding ultra processed "foods" to the brainstorm. It may contribute to reduced gut-health and affect the immune system.
- RandomThoughts3 2y agoThe name is new but "ultra processed" - which is to say processed - has been with us for 50 years nowadays. Deleterious effects are known: obesity, diabetes and, yes, uptake in cancers. Still, an unlikely candidate for a recent uptake in cancers amongst the young at least as a general category and not aiming at a specific new class of additives.
- _heimdall 2y agoIts hard to make assumptions like this though. There is always the possibility that prolonged exposure to processed foods impacts reproduction over time. We could be seeing a delayed spike now because parents were exposed to the food for a decade or two before they had children. This is all hypothetical, I'm not claiming this is the case. Its just worth considering delayed responses that require a generation or two before the symptoms are easy to spot.
- reddalo 2y ago> ultra processed "foods" I think we reached a point where we shouldn't even call them "food", but "edible industrial products".
- garbagewoman 2y agoWhy artificial sugars, which have been extensively studied as a food, when there are so many pollutants that are actual poison that we ingest every day? This meme never dies, just like the one about MSG
- throw9474 2y agoQuantity ingested
- kombookcha 2y agoOne angle I read elsewhere is that a variety of 'forever chemicals' have been accumulating for some decades now and we may have reached a saturation level where it's noticeably impacting people born into this environment. But it's difficult to sift through, since the effects may not be any one chemical, but a combination of factors or even some kind of interaction when these things are jostling around together inside a growing human.
- maxerickson 2y agoIn the US, levels of some of them have declined significantly (following restrictions on manufacturing). https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/pfas/health-effects/us-population.html https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/pfas/health-effects/us-population.... Note that there's 3 categories in the data there, occupational exposure, exposed communities and then the US general population. There's large declines in all 3 groups.
- marginalia_nu 2y agoArtificial sweeteners, pesticides, and decaying non-stick pans typically crop up in these discussions. Though it's a reasonable guess that it's a whole bunch of factors that have changed, including lifestyle factors.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- reddalo 2y ago> decaying non-stick pans So what safer kind of pan should we use?
- carom 2y agoCeramic, it is as close as you can get to non stick without forever chemicals. I cook every day and that is the best I've found. Anything else requires more maintenance and cleaning. Cast iron has been a disappointment and I have made an honest effort with it multiple times.
- lps41 2y agoCast-iron, or enamel-coated cast-iron.
- sosull 2y agoCast iron, presumably.
- amanaplanacanal 2y agoSupposedly ceramic coatings are getting better.
- qbxk 2y agoI switched to stainless steel, maybe issues with chromium and nickel though. It's also not non-stick, but if you add oil to a dry pan after it's already heated it up, it will form a sort of non-stick surface. (Scratches in the pan surface will impede this effect)
- 2y ago
- ben_w 2y agoWe're changing so many things at the same time, it could be anything from alcohol sugars used as low-calorie sweeteners, to zoonotic diseases introduced to new areas by globalisation and climate change. Or worse (because it's harder to find) combinations where any one by itself is fine. (I can't read TFA, paywall).
- dr_dshiv 2y agoMetaphysical despair
- louwrentius 2y agoThis one is interesting, can you elaborate?
- dmichulke 2y agoNot GP, but smart phones and social media lead to people having less real-world contact, fewer deep connections to others, less sex, ... which then leads to depression, anxiety, and "metaphysical despair" I suppose that's what GP meant.
- XorNot 2y agoLiterally none of those things cause cancer. In fact they would all reduce the incidence of cancer, because cancer rates can only rise if detection does. In the US healthcare system, this is even more unlikely if one is withdrawn from society - you can have cancer a long time before you'll think something is "wrong".
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- ifyoubuildit 2y agoWhy are you so confident that depression and anxiety don't cause cancer? Even if they didnt cause it directly, there is a whole raft of associated drugs that could absolutely cause cancer. It's not like this is a thing a trial would always catch (for exactly the reason you point out).
- XorNot 2y agoBecause depression rates and health effects are highly studied, and no one has found a correlation to cancer?[1] [1] https://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20230811/analysis-depression-anxiety-do-not-increase-the-risk-of-cancer https://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20230811/analysis-depressi...
- pbmonster 2y agoHigher obesity rates is anther factor.
- negative_zero 2y agoI would add PFASs to the suspect list.
- johntfella 2y agoBloomberg did a good mini-doc on pfas 8 months back; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8qGtEVh7oQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8qGtEVh7oQ I suspect it might end up being an all or the above kind of situation, perhaps mixed in with transgenerational effects from atmospheric atomic tests and so forth (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLCF7vPanrY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLCF7vPanrY, https://web.archive.org/web/20200507112343/https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/fallout/rf-gwt_home.htm https://web.archive.org/web/20200507112343/https://www.cdc.g..., & https://www.americanscientist.org/article/fallout-from-nuclear-weapons-tests-and-cancer-risks https://www.americanscientist.org/article/fallout-from-nucle...)
- beejiu 2y agoBreastfeeding is also a possible cause, although I think there's evidence that's pointing in both directions. "They found those who were breastfed as infants had a 23 percent greater risk of developing colorectal cancer as adults. Even more troubling, a younger group within that cohort exhibited about 40 percent increased risk of developing high-risk colorectal cancer before they turned 55." Breastfeeding rates have increased from ~30% to ~70% between 1970 and 2010. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/10/study-finds-link-between-breastfeeding-rise-in-adult-colorectal-cancer-risk/ https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/10/study-finds-l...
- _heimdall 2y agoIt seems highly dubious to me that breast feeding alone would have anything to do with it. The idea that mammals evolved in such a way that women breast feed their babies only to get colorectal cancer specifically because they breast fed seems very evolutionarily confusing. Maybe there is something else going on where environmental conditions or toxins combined with breast feeding somehow cause and issue, but I can't imagine its just due to breast feeding.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- netdevnet 2y agoReady meals
- slifin 2y agoI'm surprised no one here has mentioned artificially created fats/oils Canola oil, rapeseed oil, sunflower seed oil etc They are in everything but if we think about what rancid fats are, they are "fats and oils that have undergone a process of oxidation, or degradation, that causes them to develop off-flavours, odours, tastes, and textures" (Exposure to air, light, and heat) When you look into how these oils are manufactured these oils are not particularly stable to begin with, and then they're exposed to processes like: - Mechanical pressing - Solvent extraction - Degumming - Neutralization - Bleaching - Deodorization To get to that clear oil that you see in the shops, this is all before some places deep fry their oils to cook, if an oil has a rancid taste, that is one of the main ways you would tell that it is not good for you, but if something has been deodorised I'm not sure you would be able to say that the oil is rancid I'd much prefer to stick to fats/oils that existed before the 1900s, you can tell many people are storing fats that have not reacted well within their body
- _heimdall 2y agoThe modern food oil industry is such a confusion one in my opinion. For example, canola oil is actually just rapeseed oil. They had to cultivate breeds of brasiccas that were low enough in erucic acid for human consumption. Then they realized that selling rapeseed oil may not be a great brand and they named it Canola, Canadian oil low acid. Also pretty much anything you would think of as a vegetable oil isn't actually a vegetable oil, its a seed oil.