>around 38% of oncologists develop cancer at some point in

>>18670925
Sauce

probably radiation exposure.

The bigger mystery is why less than 5% of other doctors get cancer. I think you have that stat incorrect is the answer.

Which sort of calls into question the rest of your numbers.

>>18670925
>97% of people will believe anything with a number in.

File: 15826247_1176861345683032_2589841546477924670_n.jpg (25KB, 500x338px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 500x338px

>>18670925
almost 99% of all life will end, someday. if there's a god, why would he be around for trillions of years, before getting bored 1 day, so he creates life, just to wipe it all out. fuck your beliefs. i mean, i'd do it, but i also fap to gore.

>>18670977
This.

Most methods of cancer treatment, whether it be radiation, chemo, proton, hormonal, etc, all themselves can increase chances of developing cancer somepoint in life, if not correctly used or even being around them long term.

It's ironic as hell but yeah, treating cancer increases your likeliness of getting cancer because the tools for fighting cancer can cause it too.

I agree that exposure to certain chemicals/ machinery used to treat cancer can increase your risk. Also, losing a family member/ close friend to cancer can motivate people to pursue oncology as a career. If you already have a hereditary risk, or grew up in an area with environmental issues, going in to oncology is only going to further put you at risk of developing cancer.

I would also suspect that perhaps some of these people get cancer as a result of having a long life. As a doctor, you may be healthier, and avoid things like obesity or heart attack killing you in your 60's. Pretty much anyone who lives to old age will develop some sort of cancer, even if it's just abnormal moles/ melanoma.