1 in 8 cancer cases worldwide are caused by infections, study finds

ccolinprince about 2 hours ago 18 commentsRead Article on cbc.ca

FR version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion Sentiment

38% Positive

Analyzed from 730 words in the discussion.

Discussion (18 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

toasty228•about 2 hours ago

https://www.oatext.com/which-environment-makes-cancer.php

Always a good read, most cancers are environmental, and most of these are caused by obesity, bad diet and smoking/drinking, fix these four things in your life and you reduce your chances of getting cancer by 50%+

epihelix•3 minutes ago

And not just cancer. Top risk factors for dementia and heart disease are also diet, obesity, blood pressure, and lack of exercise.

Basically, live healthily, and you'll have a (much!) happier and longer life.

mapontosevenths•20 minutes ago

I don't think that anything you said is wrong, but I also think it's important to note that on a long enough timeline your odds of getting cancer are 100% regardless of the way you live.Most people just don't live that long.

The things you mention here make it happen sooner, but no amount of healthy living lowers your risk to zero and I think that's important to note when you say things like "cancer is caused by".

Cancer is caused by math. This stuff just steepens the slope.

jurgenburgen•9 minutes ago

> I don't think that anything you said is wrong, but I also think it's important to note that on a long enough timeline your odds of getting cancer are 100% regardless of the way you live.Most people just don't live that long.

“Most people just don’t live that long” is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. If you have a healthy lifestyle you would need to live for multiple centuries to reach 100% likelihood.

scottLobster•11 minutes ago

Cool, let's make that timeline a step function with the risk of cancer being effectively zero until 200 years of life and cure cancer.

lanfeust6•about 1 hour ago

What's interesting is how low alcohol ranks compared to obesity and diet. It makes the recent moral panic following loose interpretations of the Lancet study seem hypocritical, if not misguided. If anything deserves a "may cause cancer" sticker, it's nitrate-ridden processed meat.

ryan_n•26 minutes ago

Nitrate ridden processed meat already has a “may cause cancer” sticker on it (unless you mean a literal sticker warning when you buy meat from stores?):

https://progressreport.cancer.gov/prevention/diet_alcohol/re...

https://publications.iarc.who.int/Book-And-Report-Series/Iar...

esperent•7 minutes ago

[delayed]

tarentel•14 minutes ago

I like to drink. With that being said, there are a lot of downsides to alcohol other than an increased risk of cancer. Also, alcohol can lead to obesity and a bad diet. Is it ever healthy to drink? I do not know. I am going to do it anyway though.

esperent•3 minutes ago

[delayed]

purpleflame1257•35 minutes ago

Recent demographic shifts have given rise to a vocally anti-alcohol contingent in large parts of the Western world. There's substantial motivated reasoning.

graemep•31 minutes ago

Its not demographics, its American cultural influence.

Frieren•18 minutes ago

> HPV vaccine hesitancy in Europe: side effects, uncertainty, and mistrust > When individuals mistrust those communicating about vaccines, perceiving, for instance, that they are not being fully transparent about the potential side effects of the vaccine, it can affect their confidence in the HPV vaccine even if they have received information confirming that the vaccine is safe and effective > This was seen with the rapid spread of You-Tube videos of young girls believing to have been affected by HPV vaccination in Denmark, Japan, Colombia, Ireland and the UK.

Governments around the world are losing citizens trust. And that has terrible consequences. Trust is hard to earn and easy to lose. And the rise of far-right contrarian governments that use fear to destroy trust in institutions and gain votes are the main cause. Billionaires financing far-right governments end costing the lives of their citizens that will have poorer physical health.

We may know how to reduce the risk of cancer. We may have vaccines for that infections. But if governments care more about power than serving citizens all that knowledge is for nothing.

- https://www.hpvworld.com/articles/hpv-vaccine-hesitancy-in-e...

etcetcetcetceta•13 minutes ago

Suspect this is caused by demographic shift, don't know any people who have even the remotest HPV vaccine hesitation over the past twenty plus years.

Know that it is common among certain demographics though.

ck2•16 minutes ago

well they are finding forever-chemical and micro-plastics in all freshwater in the USA now and even in ALL mother's milk

so safe bet that cancer rates are never going to be lower than they are today

remember US also just deregulated all pollution from power plants, funded re-starting coal plants and dropped car engine efficiency requirements

oh they are also trying to double oil-fracking output which toxifies groundwater and air for miles around it with offgassing

every rocket launch and deorbit by starlink et all also put toxic pollution into the atmosphere

so next decade should end well for cancer rates

scottLobster•9 minutes ago

You can't be worried about fracking and coal at the same time in the US. The former is the reason for the latter's demise

samso26•40 minutes ago

The striking part is that many infection-linked cancers already have prevention or treatment options,but access and uptake are uneven. That makes this partly a delivery problem: vaccines, screening,and treatment only reduce cancer burden when people can actually get them. i’d be interested to see the estimates broken down by how much could be prevented with tools we already have versus infections where theres still no effective intervention.

neom•18 minutes ago

Almost all your comments are flagged. Get yer clanker off HN buddy.