3 ms·

They do if the effects are cumulative. They additionally cite in the article that perhaps it's smoking that's changed, yet that also didn't really significantl

They do if the effects are cumulative. They additionally cite in the article that perhaps it's smoking that's changed, yet that also didn't really significantly change in public until the 90s. 40 additional years of pesticides/lead/smoking/etc will take their toll.

dragonwriter 1y ago
> They additionally cite in the article that perhaps it's smoking that's changed, yet that also didn't really significantly change in public until the 90s. Prevalence of smoking in the US peaked at around 45% in the 1950s, and had dropped to around 25% by the 1990s. (Depending on your own age, this may feel wrong because there was a surge in youth smoking from the 80s peaking in the mid-1990s, so its easy for people in a certainnage range to feel like smoking was very prevalent through the 1990s, and then dropped like a rock.)
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > Prevalence of smoking in the US peaked at around 45% in the 1950s, and had dropped to around 25% by the 1990s Wouldn't you expect to see more variation between the American and European cohorts if smoking were the culprit?
- AbstractH24 1y ago
  And while smoking has plummeted, nicotine usage is resurgent As is smoking of other things
  - daedrdev 1y ago
    Of course nicotine addiction is one problem and putting ash in your lungs is another
  - noleary 1y ago
    Interestingly, there's reasonably good basis to suspect nicotine (though not smoking) can reduce rates of neurodegenerative disease like Alzheimer's and Parkinson's.
    - esperent 1y ago
      You are correct but you really need to provide a source when making this claim because it sounds so unbelievable: https://www.healthline.com/health/alzheimers-dementia/nicotine-and-alzheimers https://www.healthline.com/health/alzheimers-dementia/nicoti... (Not calling healthline a source, but it has links to publications for those interested). It's important to note, of course, that smoking increases the risk of pretty much every bad health related thing that can happen to you, including dementia. However, using nicotine without smoking might have benefits due to its effects on acetylcholine receptors.
PantaloonFlames 1y ago
I would think pesticides in the 1890’s through 1930’s were not as dangerous as what came later. Is that a poor assumption?
- cogman10 1y ago
  It is, mainly because the history of pesticide research has basically been looking for the least harmful pesticides to humans. Before DDT went into wide use in the 1940s, aersnic based pesticides were common. Here's a particularly nasty one that was commonly used up until DDT replaced it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead_hydrogen_arsenate?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead_hydrogen_arsenate?wprov=s...
  - thowayaymb 1y ago
    My great-grandma is the only one in my family who died of cancer and she used to apply farm chemicals by hand
Eric_WVGG 1y ago
this is a thousand percent due to lead
- userbinator 1y ago
  The younger generations would've been exposed to much more leaded gasoline per body mass when they were young, whereas the older generations were already at least young adults by the time leaded became commonplace.
  - cogman10 1y ago
    The older generation would have been consuming lead arsenic in the form of pesticides at higher rates than the younger generation. IDK if there's a way to measure who got the most poison though.
adastra22 1y ago
I expect the two world wars & a Great Depression might have more to do with it than pesticides or leaded gasoline.
dr_dshiv 1y ago
Smoking reduces the risk of dementia because you die first.

dragonwriter 1y ago

> They additionally cite in the article that perhaps it's smoking that's changed, yet that also didn't really significantly change in public until the 90s. Prevalence of smoking in the US peaked at around 45% in the 1950s, and had dropped to around 25% by the 1990s. (Depending on your own age, this may feel wrong because there was a surge in youth smoking from the 80s peaking in the mid-1990s, so its easy for people in a certainnage range to feel like smoking was very prevalent through the 1990s, and then dropped like a rock.)

JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> Prevalence of smoking in the US peaked at around 45% in the 1950s, and had dropped to around 25% by the 1990s Wouldn't you expect to see more variation between the American and European cohorts if smoking were the culprit?
AbstractH24 1y ago
And while smoking has plummeted, nicotine usage is resurgent As is smoking of other things
- daedrdev 1y ago
  Of course nicotine addiction is one problem and putting ash in your lungs is another
- noleary 1y ago
  Interestingly, there's reasonably good basis to suspect nicotine (though not smoking) can reduce rates of neurodegenerative disease like Alzheimer's and Parkinson's.
  - esperent 1y ago
    You are correct but you really need to provide a source when making this claim because it sounds so unbelievable: https://www.healthline.com/health/alzheimers-dementia/nicotine-and-alzheimers https://www.healthline.com/health/alzheimers-dementia/nicoti... (Not calling healthline a source, but it has links to publications for those interested). It's important to note, of course, that smoking increases the risk of pretty much every bad health related thing that can happen to you, including dementia. However, using nicotine without smoking might have benefits due to its effects on acetylcholine receptors.

PantaloonFlames 1y ago

I would think pesticides in the 1890’s through 1930’s were not as dangerous as what came later. Is that a poor assumption?

cogman10 1y ago
It is, mainly because the history of pesticide research has basically been looking for the least harmful pesticides to humans. Before DDT went into wide use in the 1940s, aersnic based pesticides were common. Here's a particularly nasty one that was commonly used up until DDT replaced it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead_hydrogen_arsenate?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead_hydrogen_arsenate?wprov=s...
- thowayaymb 1y ago
  My great-grandma is the only one in my family who died of cancer and she used to apply farm chemicals by hand

Eric_WVGG 1y ago

this is a thousand percent due to lead

userbinator 1y ago
The younger generations would've been exposed to much more leaded gasoline per body mass when they were young, whereas the older generations were already at least young adults by the time leaded became commonplace.
- cogman10 1y ago
  The older generation would have been consuming lead arsenic in the form of pesticides at higher rates than the younger generation. IDK if there's a way to measure who got the most poison though.

adastra22 1y ago

I expect the two world wars & a Great Depression might have more to do with it than pesticides or leaded gasoline.

dr_dshiv 1y ago

Smoking reduces the risk of dementia because you die first.