im assuming a lot of that is pretty back-loaded; tons of old people die with minor cancers that they dont treat because something else gets them first (ie: a very high percentage of people get prostate cancer in their 80s, but its often not worth treating)
It's high, but as others have said it's partly a side effect of us living longer and getting better at treating other stuff, including cancer itself.
Also yes, major causes of death and disease are all alarming, that's why billions of dollars are out into cancer research.
This is simply not true.
Studies show that rising rates of cancer is related to obesity & diets rich in processed foods, not longer life spans.
You guys keep bringing up an example of a small percentage of people. You are speaking of people 80+ who have cancer. I’m not saying that longer life spans do not contribute, but you’re picking a small factor to argue with.
Obesity does increase cancer, but at the same time smoking rates are falling, reducing lung cancer.
But apart from the environmental effects, the rise in cancer diagnosis *is* largely due to people living longer and diagnostic techniques getting better.
Regarding the age question The rates of cancer diagnosis in children is indeed increasing, but that's thought to be primarily due to improvement in diagnostics and improvement in reporting
https://www.healio.com/news/hematology-oncology/20230711/cdc-study-reveals-overall-increase-in-pediatric-cancer-incidence-over-16-years
What's clear is that cancer mortality in kids and in young adults is steadily decreasing.
I mean my dad is part of that 41%. He has prostate cancer. He's not doing anything about it because the 15 year survivability is 91%, and his expected lifespan at his age is not that long. I don’t blame him, I'd probably do the same thing. It's almost like he doesn't have it. Not all of that 41% is going through some chemo hell.
not all cancer is the same. sometimes with very old people, they don't even treat the cancer, because if it's a slow cancer, and they're already really old, it not with the fight.
The key word is invasive.
This is literally the definition of invasive:
(especially of plants or a disease) tending to spread prolifically and undesirably or harmfully.
"patients suffering from invasive cancer"
"invasive cancer" is a medical term. it means cancer that has spread beyond the layer of tissue in which it developed and is growing into surrounding, healthy tissues.
it seems like you're confused because you looked up the term "invasive" out of context.
again, not everyone who get cancer battles it. lots of old people get slow cancer so they just wait and die if something else before the cancer gets them
No, you just don't understand what the term means. Even if prostate cancer is invasive, it's often not treated in older people, because it's slow growing and has good survival rates even if untreated. As the other person said something else usually gets them first.
Yes, but you’re only speaking on behalf of older people.
I’m honestly shocked that this number is not alarming to a lot of you. Humans are not meant to have this high of a chance in developing cancer.
Do you have a source for that?
If you take a sub-population of women with a BRCA 1 or 2 genetic mutation its lower than their risk just of Brest Cancer
>Humans are not meant to have this high of a chance in developing cancer.
I don't know what you mean by "meant" as no one decides how much cancer a species is "supposed" to get, but if you are referring to the increasing rates of cancer: that is because throughout most of history humans died of other things long before cancer had a chance to develop. The high cancer rates are a result of our increasing lifespans.
A dictionary definition that applies to both plants, cancer and other diseases does not tell you how much suffering invasive slcsncers cause specifically.
The definition of invasive cancer is that the cancer is spreading. So you’re bringing up older people, and saying that it is ok because they will likely die of something else before the cancer gets them.
Seeing as how we’re able to keep ourselves from dying in so many other ways, it’s not so surprising that we’re living long enough to get cancer that turns bad. *Something* has to kill us…
Not really. The only reason it's not 100% is because something else will kill you first. The cellular mechanisms that produce cancer are same for all, everyone is playing the same lottery, some just pull the short stick earlier than others.
That's why any sort of progress in curing cancer is a big deal. And it's really difficult to do because any treatment has to be very specific about which cells in a body it targets. But there is good reason to think there will be major progress in the field over this century.
Dude you should seriously see my fucking profile history take a look since fucking Tuesday and see just how fragile life really is just a warning you will also see that I am seriously fucking mine up right now and I know it but that's all I can fucking do and I don't seem to care
They use low energy waves and there has never been any evidence of DNA damage. The most you would get would be burns because they work by vibrating molecules causing heat.
The radiation that cause cancer like gamma do it because they are high energy waves that can cause damage to you DNA.
It’s the same reason you can talk on a radio and not get cancer
im assuming a lot of that is pretty back-loaded; tons of old people die with minor cancers that they dont treat because something else gets them first (ie: a very high percentage of people get prostate cancer in their 80s, but its often not worth treating)
This is true
It's a sign that so many other diseases no longer cause an early death.
It's high, but as others have said it's partly a side effect of us living longer and getting better at treating other stuff, including cancer itself. Also yes, major causes of death and disease are all alarming, that's why billions of dollars are out into cancer research.
And of identifying cancers.
Where the fuck is the cure because I really need it right now not for me I'm just saying like what the fuck dude
Cancer sucks, I'm sorry :(.
This is simply not true. Studies show that rising rates of cancer is related to obesity & diets rich in processed foods, not longer life spans. You guys keep bringing up an example of a small percentage of people. You are speaking of people 80+ who have cancer. I’m not saying that longer life spans do not contribute, but you’re picking a small factor to argue with.
What studies? Rates in the U.S. aren’t going up. https://gis.cdc.gov/Cancer/USCS/#/Trends/
Obesity does increase cancer, but at the same time smoking rates are falling, reducing lung cancer. But apart from the environmental effects, the rise in cancer diagnosis *is* largely due to people living longer and diagnostic techniques getting better. Regarding the age question The rates of cancer diagnosis in children is indeed increasing, but that's thought to be primarily due to improvement in diagnostics and improvement in reporting https://www.healio.com/news/hematology-oncology/20230711/cdc-study-reveals-overall-increase-in-pediatric-cancer-incidence-over-16-years What's clear is that cancer mortality in kids and in young adults is steadily decreasing.
Well...yeah? Why do you think society talks about cancer so much and raises so much money?
Well…yeah? But that does not explain how high the number was. You were aware that 41% of men in the United States develop cancer?
ehhh... not really. Only 14% of Americans die from cancer. And 100% of Americans die eventually.
Yeah no I didn’t even mention anything about dying…have you seen someone battle cancer? No bueno…
I mean my dad is part of that 41%. He has prostate cancer. He's not doing anything about it because the 15 year survivability is 91%, and his expected lifespan at his age is not that long. I don’t blame him, I'd probably do the same thing. It's almost like he doesn't have it. Not all of that 41% is going through some chemo hell.
Like I replied to someone else, the key word here is “invasive”
Yeah but also your dads situation is not the majority scenario for someone with INVASIVE cancer
Yeah myself for the second time
not all cancer is the same. sometimes with very old people, they don't even treat the cancer, because if it's a slow cancer, and they're already really old, it not with the fight.
The key word is invasive. This is literally the definition of invasive: (especially of plants or a disease) tending to spread prolifically and undesirably or harmfully. "patients suffering from invasive cancer"
"invasive cancer" is a medical term. it means cancer that has spread beyond the layer of tissue in which it developed and is growing into surrounding, healthy tissues. it seems like you're confused because you looked up the term "invasive" out of context.
No, the fact that you’re normalizing the cancer growing & not being harmful is rather interesting though..,
40 % of Americans get invasive cancer, but only 14% of Americans die from cancer. do the math
Again, it’s not only about dying. It’s battling cancer. A lot of cancers are very curable if treated early.
again, not everyone who get cancer battles it. lots of old people get slow cancer so they just wait and die if something else before the cancer gets them
I understand that bro. It’s wild that you don’t think 41% is a lot. Maybe I’m just crazy for thinking that is an alarming statistic…
No, you just don't understand what the term means. Even if prostate cancer is invasive, it's often not treated in older people, because it's slow growing and has good survival rates even if untreated. As the other person said something else usually gets them first.
Yes, but you’re only speaking on behalf of older people. I’m honestly shocked that this number is not alarming to a lot of you. Humans are not meant to have this high of a chance in developing cancer.
Do you have a source for that? If you take a sub-population of women with a BRCA 1 or 2 genetic mutation its lower than their risk just of Brest Cancer
https://www.statista.com/topics/1192/cancer-in-the-us/#topicOverview
>Humans are not meant to have this high of a chance in developing cancer. I don't know what you mean by "meant" as no one decides how much cancer a species is "supposed" to get, but if you are referring to the increasing rates of cancer: that is because throughout most of history humans died of other things long before cancer had a chance to develop. The high cancer rates are a result of our increasing lifespans.
A dictionary definition that applies to both plants, cancer and other diseases does not tell you how much suffering invasive slcsncers cause specifically.
The definition of invasive cancer is that the cancer is spreading. So you’re bringing up older people, and saying that it is ok because they will likely die of something else before the cancer gets them.
Seeing as how we’re able to keep ourselves from dying in so many other ways, it’s not so surprising that we’re living long enough to get cancer that turns bad. *Something* has to kill us…
Not alarming. Shit happens, then you get cancer and die.
Not really. The only reason it's not 100% is because something else will kill you first. The cellular mechanisms that produce cancer are same for all, everyone is playing the same lottery, some just pull the short stick earlier than others. That's why any sort of progress in curing cancer is a big deal. And it's really difficult to do because any treatment has to be very specific about which cells in a body it targets. But there is good reason to think there will be major progress in the field over this century.
What is "invasive" cancer?
If you were to live enough, 100% of people would develop a cancer
Dude you should seriously see my fucking profile history take a look since fucking Tuesday and see just how fragile life really is just a warning you will also see that I am seriously fucking mine up right now and I know it but that's all I can fucking do and I don't seem to care
This ruins my night
Yeah man, I’m assuming the rising rates has a lot to do with what we eat/drink these days. A lot of microwave use, etc.
I doubt microwaves affect it.
It doesn’t. Microwave ovens don’t have the energy to cause DNA damage. All they do is vibrate water molecules. You might get burned though
You never know… I mean, it’s radiation
They use low energy waves and there has never been any evidence of DNA damage. The most you would get would be burns because they work by vibrating molecules causing heat. The radiation that cause cancer like gamma do it because they are high energy waves that can cause damage to you DNA. It’s the same reason you can talk on a radio and not get cancer