165
submitted 3 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

As cancer cases rise among young adults in the United States, a new study has identified 17 cancer types that appear to be more common in Generation X and millennials than older age groups.

Among adults born between 1920 and 1990, there is a significant difference between each generation in the incidence of cancer rates and cancer types, including breast, colon and rectal, pancreatic and uterine cancers, according to the study published Wednesday in the journal The Lancet Public Health.

“Uterine cancer is one that really jumps out where we see tremendous increases. It has about a 169% higher incidence rate if you’re born in the 1990s as opposed to if you’re born in the 1950s – and this is for people at the same age. Someone born in the 1950s, when they were in their 30s or 40s, saw a different incidence rate compared with someone born in the 1990s in their 30s or 40s,” said Dr. William Dahut, chief scientific officer for the American Cancer Society, whose colleagues authored the new study.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] FoxyFerengi@lemm.ee 53 points 3 months ago

I wonder how much is due to the amount of plastic we've been in contact with. I cringe to think about all the plastic wrapped, or Tupperware stored foods I've microwaved over my lifetime. Or all the water from plastic bottles I've drank.

[-] AmidFuror@fedia.io 16 points 3 months ago

Most of it is likely explained by obesity. Solve that and then you can worry about plastics and Roundup if you like.

[-] Atsur@lemmy.world 16 points 3 months ago

I wonder how much of the increase in obesity rates is attributable to having un-digestible microplastics stuck in our guts and bowels?

[-] NineMileTower@lemmy.world 15 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

It may or may not have an effect, but the food industry 100% has a lot to do with it.

[-] AmidFuror@fedia.io -2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Are you suggesting that the excess weight deemed to be obesity is from plastics and not fat? And that both the toxicity of the plastic and its distribution in the body mimics what we would expect fat to do?

It seems that regardless it would be very noticeable to doctors performing physicals if many of their obese patients were actually stuffed with microplastics instead. I'm sure you could find positive support for this in the medical literature if it had a modicum of truth to it.

[-] phdepressed@sh.itjust.works 9 points 3 months ago

Studying microplastics in humans is still new. There are in fact a few studies that roughyl support atsur's allegation(based on a pubmed search for "microplastics obesity"). These studies don't have plastic acting as fat but rather that plastic causes signaling for fatty acid synthesis and reduction of lipolytic signaling. So basically plastics signal for you to be fat and can make it harder to lose fat.

Very minimal human data and not much that looks at direct cause-effect but there is at least a correlation that bears consideration.

[-] AmidFuror@fedia.io -1 points 3 months ago

Slightly more plausible than 5G, at least.

[-] card797@champserver.net 4 points 3 months ago

Sugar content is driving obesity. Not plastic consumption.

this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2024
165 points (98.8% liked)

News

23267 readers
1999 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS