Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Most cancer types 'just bad luck' [View all]jeff47
(26,549 posts)47. No, I'm saying we can't do an easy, direct comparison.
There's two problems.
First, lack of proper records. We just don't know what really killed a lot of people until relatively recently.
Second, there's a lot more differences between then and now. Let's say 100 of every 100k died of cancer in 1900, and 150 of every 100k died of cancer in 2014. Has the rate really gone up? Maybe, maybe not. You can't just take the +50 and say it's gone up. You also have to account for the other drastic changes in medicine and public health since 1900. And I don't know an easy way to do that.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
64 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Recent studies have shown a somewhat shocking correlation between cancer rates ...
JEFF9K
Jan 2015
#34
So many things I am sensitive to years later I will see an article saying it is linked
lunasun
Jan 2015
#7
I wonder if asthma, add, colitis, alzheimer's and autism are just bad luck?
appalachiablue
Jan 2015
#4
So you explain it by a vast network of scientists shilling for industries and making false reports..
Fred Sanders
Jan 2015
#26
Cancer was not far more rare, per capita, 100 years ago than today, some types were, but there are reasons.
Fred Sanders
Jan 2015
#14
That *median* life expectancy was due largely to child and infant mortality
CrawlingChaos
Jan 2015
#40
as a premenopausal BC survivor who might have had more kids, I've read a lot about this too
zazen
Jan 2015
#51
And how many more carcinogens, pathogens, and polluted air & lakes are there now vs. ancient greece?
Elmer S. E. Dump
Jan 2015
#24
Not to mention smoking rates, obesity, no exercise, toxins, living longer, sun exposure, etc.
Fred Sanders
Jan 2015
#27
The problem with anecdotes is that you can't set up controls for a sample size of one.
evirus
Jan 2015
#19
Um, It DIDN'T happen. Those are far from the only carcinogens in existance but
GreatGazoo
Jan 2015
#38
You're saying, if I understand you correctly, that the body evolved a separate system to fight
GreatGazoo
Jan 2015
#41
Does this mean doctors will quit trying to act like cancer is some moral failing on our parts?
Jamastiene
Jan 2015
#58