I'm curious if cancer is still at the same fatality/ diagnosis

I dont mean modernization, btw, is what caused it. But rather, if we have in someway increased its rate

longer average lifespan and more exposure to carcinogens in daily life so obviously higher diagnosis rate today. why is this even a thread. jesus

>>8516323
>more exposure to carcinogens in daily life
Okay, so I wasn't being paranoid in thinking this, then. How does one go about reducing these things anyway? Just setting yourself on a lone island for the rest of your life? I doubt the sun gives enough chance of causing cancer, especially if you're not in direct exposure of it all day

>>8516300
it is higher than centuries ago, because centuries ago we had no hygiene and no antibiotics so people died of things which are trivial to cure today. since you still die of something, the chance of dying of something else than those diseases increases ( for example cancers ).

>>8516497
Pretty much this.

>1624
Todd fell to madness, gradually became more deranged and died a gibbering wreck of human being. The priests tried to exorcise the demons to no avail.

>2016
Todd has brain cancer.

>>8516327
>How does one go about reducing these things anyway?
you can't
unless you choose to live deep in a cave, millions of different radio signals will continue you pass through you daily
and, eventually, there's a good chance one will collide with a cell and fuck it up in just the right way, resulting in a malignant tumor

that's the price we pay for wireless data transmission

The longer a person lives, their probability of developing cancer increases. This is both because they've had more opportunities to be exposed to carcinogens, and had more time for their body to just randomly make a DNA mistake that it can't remedy quickly.

Cancer is more common now because people have longer average lifespans in addition to a higher carcinogen exposure rate. Until very recently in human history, though, cancer was essentially not treatable, so the fatality rate would basically be 100% compared to today's much better numbers. Diagnosis rates were also fucked, because people didn't have the microbiological understanding necessary to know that a given illness was a manifestation of cancer.

>>8516829

You know that radio waves aren't ionising, right m8?

>>8516327
a video about a new york cycler that bought an airfilter/mask gave me the idea to do that aswell.

otherwise.. eat healthy? diet is always a big factor. western civilisation loves there unhealthy fast foods

>>8516327
>>8516829
Well I mean one way to decrease the exposure to carcinogens is to stop intake of fatty red meats like bbq meat or something. Well, not necessarily stop but to cut back on it.

>>8516834
so?
it can still punch your cells right in the gut and move things around
and that's why so many people develop cancer

>>8516327
Don't listen to him.

Carcinogen exposure is not much higher. It IS higher, but not drastically so.

For one thing, we don't heat our homes with wood fires and light our way with candles. Soot is a POWERFUL carcinogen that we mostly don't deal with any more.

Most people don't spend all day working in the fields soaking up UV radiation.

Most people don't have lead pipes in their homes, lead framing in their windows, or dishes made of lead pewter.

World background radiation is fractionally higher, and some plastics we use leach out carcinogenic components.

Air quality is improving in civilized nations due to tighter vehicle emission regulations.
It's not all that bad.

We mostly just actually have a name we can apply to a plethora of mysterious diseases that used to kill without any obvious cause.

>>8516841
pointless
you'll reduce your odds of getting cancer by like 0.1% tops
unless you do something drastic like quit smoking
then you'll probably reduce your odds by 10% or more

>>8516327

One way is actually to consume a lower than average amount of calories.

The less material your body has to process, the fewer times the DNA in your cells will have to be transcripted, on average. This is why tiny skinny old Asian people never die.

>>8516842
>it can still punch your cells right in the gut and move things around
citation needed

>>8516842

Not sure you know how radiation works

>>8516842
Uh, no that's kind of what defines ionizing radiation, is that it does mess eith molecules.

Nonionizing radiation specifically does not fuck around with your cellular machinery.

File: cancer.png (18KB, 723x174px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 723x174px

>>8516851
>>8516850
>>8516848
herp derp herp herp herp

>>8516856
>has been Concern
>some forms
>might have effects
>in some circumstances
ty. it's still a pretty iffy statement.

i'll go out on a limb here and neglegt it :>

>>8516856
>i heard this one guy say it might be dangerous, maybe. he didn't really give any reasons but he looked trustworthy
SKY IS FALLING

>>8516846
Well I mean isn't quitting smoking an obvious call to reduce your chance of cancer anyway?

>>8516865
>>8516860
k I admit it's been a hypothesis of mine for some time that isn't popularly accepted yet
but it's gaining traction

>>8516869
your feelings are not science.
your feelings are not evidence.
your feelings are not facts.

>>8516876
well I'm not currently in a position to do the research myself
so I will continue to push the hypothesis until someone with the resources does the work and validates it for me

>>8516876
he didn't say they were

>>8516869
do research on it (if it hasn't been done). if you want to improve your health, reducing RF exposure shouldn't really be your top priority though.
it's probably negligable over physical activity
diet and ..just aging anyway.

>>8516300
Yeah, not to mention the increase in data collection regarding patients.
Used to be some old guy died and you just wrote it off as "old age" or some other bullshit when it was actually cancer.
Or even died of some other shit while at the same time having early-stage cancer that hadn't progressed enough to cause symptoms.

I got a few friends in medicinal informatics. The cancer fatality rate climbed, from like 23% to 28% after they run a dataminer that correlates symptoms to find death causes through the regional hospital statistics.

And the fact that we live longer, old cells have a much higher chance to develop into cancer cells due to the build up of mutations, shortened telomeres and less effective kidneys/liver leading to increased levels of carcinogens present in the system.

TL;DR, lots of reasons.

>>8516300
>if cancer is still at the same fatality/ diagnosis rates as it was centuries ago

Really starting this debate off strong with a totally false foundation.

>>8516845
anon pls

Asphalt releases PAH (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) to the air for years, we breathe them everytime we're in the street.

Gasoline has benzene, tholuene, ethylbenzene, xylene and other volatile carcinogenics that we also inhale often.

Paint solvents, nail polish and removers, lots of inks, chemical additives to BBQ charcoal, household chemicals, anti mold and bacteria treatment in houses' wood, agrochemicals, industrial waste (both liquid effluents and gaseous emmisions that reach urban areas/water tables) and I could go on all day long listing the near infinite list of hazardous chemicals that interact with our organisms on a daily basis. None of them will give you cancer just by itself, but add them up for decades in an age when life expectancy keeps getting longer.

Let's not forget the addition of all airborne nuclear detonations in the 20th century.


You're severely misinformed if you truly believe that carcinogen exposure is not much higher than it was.

>>8516920
Yes, but he makes a good point.
Depends how far you go back. During the Industrial revolution it may have been just as high.