http://www.ucsf.edu/news/2016/11/404931/broad-new-partnership-launches-plan-reduce-cancer-san-francisco
Is it something to do with the old construction, or is it the air, or is it lifestyle? I was under the impression that most San Franciscans (including myself) lead an active healthy life(style).
Cancer is basically the most likely thing to kill you besides heart disease. A physically active population will have less death by heart disease and thus more by cancer (because something has to kill you). So perhaps there's just less heart disease in SF.
They say things like "rates are soaring" without saying how much and if it's different than national averages.
This article has very little substance and is basically stating the fact that a lot of people get cancer. IIRC, any given person today has a 25% chance of getting cancer in their lifetime.
So don't worry: if you exercise and eat right, cancer will eventually get you wherever you live.
(I should acknowledge the obvious of some environments are literally carcinogenic, so if you live in a coal mine, 19th century London, or modern Beijing, there's more cause for concern)
For anyone looking to learn more about cancer and its history, the book The Emperor of All Maladies is very good.
True, and I'd take it a step further: Cancer is one of the two fundamental failure modes of the human body. (The other one being death by senescence, where cells self-terminate as they reach the Hayflick limit - which they do in order to reduce the chances of a cancerous mutation.)
The "real" story is SF has a lower rate of death from heart disease (which is the leading national killer) than usual. And for reference, heart disease and cancer nationally are almost neck and neck (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm)
So yeah, it's a useless story.
The linked article is light on stats and heavy on rhetoric. Maybe they're using it to drum up funding?
[0]: http://www.sfhip.org/index.php?module=Indicators&controller=...
Risk factors, San Francisco is post industrial city with a significant number of minorities, many foreign born.
Which brings up liver cancer. My understanding is liver cancer is highly correlated with hepatitis B and C. A lot of South American and Asian emigrants have been exposed to hepatitis B in their native countries. And they are thus at higher risk. Hepatitis C is common among IV drug users. SF has a long standing problem with IV drug use[1].
Also long standing population of heavy drinkers which also is associated with cancers of various types.
Possible there is a legacy population of people exposed to industrial carcinogens. And maybe some legacy carcinogens. Scuttlebutt is people living close to the old unremediated industrial areas have more health problems. Course they also tend to be poor which is a risk factor itself.
[1] Once found five 20 something white guys in suits passed out on Natoma Street at three in the afternoon. Two in front of my door and three farther down the block.
Wow. Castro? That's pretty crazy.
Exactly! And the comments speak for themselves.
I could use another brogrammer to verify some of what I'm seeing. I expected I could just mention this to a researcher and be done, but I'm being attacked for mentioning possibilities.
There was a catalyst in 1975 when vaxx rates doubled and kept doubling every 5 years, the graphs reflect that, imho. Other countries data should confirm or deny.
Correlation Z: Rates of cancer have increased at the same time as the number of articles claiming vaccines cause autism have increased.
Given the tone of what you wrote in the linked thread, I think that the redditors there showed surprising civility.