Thread

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

296 points · 158 comments · colinprince

toasty228 · 1790687453 · focus · HN ↗
<a href="https://www.oatext.com/which-environment-makes-cancer.php" rel="nofollow">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%+
1. mapontosevenths · 1790691962 · focus · HN ↗
  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.
  1. scottLobster · 1790692535 · focus · HN ↗
    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.
  2. jurgenburgen · 1790692639 · focus · HN ↗
    > 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.
    copperx · 1790693694 · focus · HN ↗
    > If you have a healthy lifestyle you would need to live for multiple centuries to reach 100% likelihood.
    This kind of comment lowers the level of discourse dramatically.
    epihelix · 1790693865 · focus · HN ↗
    > If you have a healthy lifestyle you would need to live for multiple centuries to reach 100% likelihood.
    Well, 100% likelihood is a bit silly, but the point of the person you were responding to is true -- we will all eventually die of something, and if it's not heart disease or dementia, it will almost certainly be cancer.
    The question shouldn't be "will I get cancer?"; it should be, "how long do I want to live a happy, healthy, active, independent lifestyle for?" If you exercise, eat a healthy diet, don't become overweight and keep your blood pressure low, you'll maximise your changes for living well, for as long as possible.
    lunchbucket · 1790694778 · focus · HN ↗
    The risk is compounding, so no, centuries is not on the table without fully swapping bodies.
  3. toasty228 · 1790693309 · focus · HN ↗
    It's also important to note that getting a random cancer at 80+ sucks orders of magnitude less than going out at 45 from colon or throat cancer in every measurable metrics you can come up.
    devmor · 1790694924 · focus · HN ↗
    I would heavily disagree with this - it depends entirely on the cancer you get. If it's something slow growing that would take a decade plus to kill you, sure - just trying to treat it would be worse than letting it ride.
    But my father died of cancer nearing age 80, (most likely mesothelioma, though we didn't do heavy tests as it was discovered late), and it was incredibly painful and miserable for him. He had fast growing tumors in his ribs, forcing bone to spike out and hit his lungs, the tumors that grew in his lungs caused constant pneumonia and kept leaving him unable to get enough oxygen to his brain to communicate for hours at a time.
    toasty228 · 1790695079 · focus · HN ↗
    Would he have had a better time at 45 not seing you growing and missing 35 years of life?
    I'm not saying it's good to get cancer when you're old, I'm just saying if you had the choice no one would chose to get it earlier.
    devmor · 1790700071 · focus · HN ↗
    Sure, but like - no one wants to die like that. It's horrible. He was begging us to let him die at the end.
    BizarroLand · 1790707185 · focus · HN ↗
    I feel your pain, I really do, but I think you missed the point. In almost any metric, if you have to die, it is better to die after having lived a full life than it is to die young.
    devmor · 1790707950 · focus · HN ↗
    I used to believe this without a shadow of a doubt, but without the choice to go out on your own accord, I don't know if I do any more after what I saw.
    AdrianB1 · 1790712605 · focus · HN ↗
    Why don't you have the choice?
    [deleted] · 1790707366 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
    ahelwer · 1790697087 · focus · HN ↗
    Unfortunately a lot of us will die in comparable ways if we are lucky enough to get that old. My grandmother was healthy & mentally with it until stroking out in her garden one day at the age of 90. That is the best any of us can hope for and the reality will almost certainly be far more painful and prolonged.
    devmor · 1790700004 · focus · HN ↗
    No, I don't think most people die in excruciating pain.
    overtone1000 · 1790701481 · focus · HN ↗
    It depends on mechanism, but many cancer patients do deal with a great deal of pain, especially near the end of the disease process. I am sorry for your experience. It is not uncommon.
    HoldOnAMinute · 1790703639 · focus · HN ↗
    It is inhumane that we don't offer every possible option to those who are suffering.
    overtone1000 · 1790705121 · focus · HN ↗
    It is unfortunately a complicated situation that often doesn't have a perfect solution. Without trying to cover every possibl nuance, I'll just say that many end-stage patients have pain so refractory that sufficient doses of pain medication are effectively lethal. This is usually offered, but obviously not everyone accepts.
    The truly sad cases are those in which the patient no longer has decision-making capacity and it falls on a family member to make such decisions. When you aren't the one experiencing the pain, it's much harder to weigh that decision rationally. This is why so many providers push patients to establish legal documentation of their end-of-life wishes.
    jobs_throwaway · 1790698077 · focus · HN ↗
    That sounds far better than dying at 45 unless you have an extraordinarily unpleasant life in the interim
    devmor · 1790699982 · focus · HN ↗
    I don't think I want to die in excruciating pain and confusion at any age, personally.
    alpinisme · 1790700348 · focus · HN ↗
    I think the original point was that cancer 80+ is better than cancer at 45, so you should still try to avoid habits that make it more likely earlier, even if the chances remain 100% at sufficient time scales
    jobs_throwaway · 1790707468 · focus · HN ↗
    Of course not. But if you are given the choice of it at 45 or 80, which are you taking?
    devmor · 1790707751 · focus · HN ↗
    If I had to die like what I saw, to live to 80? I'd take quickly at 45, I think.
    jobs_throwaway · 1790709838 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]
    dolebirchwood · 1790711804 · focus · HN ↗
    What an absolutely obnoxious way to respond to someone who was willing to share his experience about a subject as personal and painful as losing his father to cancer.
    jobs_throwaway · 1790779970 · focus · HN ↗
    I don't think it's obnoxious at all to point out that forgoing nearly half your lifespan in order to avoid a painful death implies that you don't value your life much
    drfloyd51 · 1790713407 · focus · HN ↗
    Fortunately this is a false choice.
    I think 78 and fine is better than 45 and 80 in pain.
    But in this country we are so adverse to giving someone agency over how their life ends.
    Because it’s not good Business.
    sfn42 · 1790769766 · focus · HN ↗
    I don't understand what you think this conversation is about. It's not "die quick and painless at 45 or excruciatingly painfully at 80" it's just 45 or 80. Nobody said anything about excruciating pain except you.
    Do you think your dad would prefer to die exactly the same way at 45 instead? No? Great, conversation over.
    seizethecheese · 1790715378 · focus · HN ↗
    Maybe it’s that I have young kids, but even knowing my death at 80 would be horrible, I’d choose that over a painless death at 45 in a heartbeat. I’d beg and pray for that outcome.
    [deleted] · 1790872606 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
  4. yubblegum · 1790696107 · focus · HN ↗
    > 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.
    Hmm, that actually parses for me as "it is not important to note" since the 100% assertion doesn't apply to most of us as we won't live that long.
    What applies to most of us is that certain behaviors can dramatically increase your chances of getting cancer.
  5. pstuart · 1790699292 · focus · HN ↗
    This is guaranteed for men. You'll either die from or with prostate cancer if you make it that far.
  6. devin · 1790699914 · focus · HN ↗
    I hear you, but I also think it is this kind of attitude that leads a lot of otherwise intelligent people to not even try. I've talked to people who listened to the Maintenance Phase episode on the complexities of calories in/calories out take the information as an excuse for not even attempting to try to improve their weight problem.
    yesco · 1790708196 · focus · HN ↗
    I think this is one of those areas where the translation from research to the public ends up too precise on the details, beyond the cognitive load most people are willing to commit to it day to day.
    In the same spirit of upāya from Buddhism, I like to compress this type of topic into a simpler model, even if imperfect.
    Here's how I model cancer, and how I judge whether something is likely to give me cancer, without trying (and failing) to memorize a million risk factors individually:
    You are a collective of cooperating cells. When cells rebel, the order that holds your body together collapses, and you get cancer. Cells generally don't want to rebel. They're content as long as they get their energy, their paycheck.
    But what about activities that cause frequent cell death? A sunburn, smoke in your lungs, alcohol in your bloodstream, radiation (essentially atomic shrapnel flying through your tissue). Anything that causes inflammation, especially chronically. When cells die before their expiration date, the survivors have to keep dividing to replace them, and they start to get pretty mad about it. Maybe even rebellious.
    With every round of division, they are in essence "evolving" away from their cooperative nature to cope with a hostile environment. A cell doesn't care whether the collective lives or dies, and it doesn't have the capacity to reason about that in the first place.
    So the question becomes: are you keeping your cells safe? Are your activities hurting them? If they're not happy, they'll rebel, and you'll die.
    This is where the model earns its keep. Take obesity. It's on every risk list, but excess fat isn't what makes cells rebel. The real culprits are the conditions obesity creates: chronic inflammation, more cells that need to be maintained and replaced, a body that is generally harder to live in.
    Weight loss is on the list because it's the easiest way to fix those conditions, not because thinness is protective in itself. Once you see that, you don't need the list. Anything that makes your cells' lives harder, day after day, is raising your odds, whether or not anyone has published a paper on it yet.
    The math is real, but a model like this tells you which variables you actually control.
    sizzle · 1790747953 · focus · HN ↗
    So make GLP1 free for the masses if it eliminates obesity mortality rate
    mapontosevenths · 1790710668 · focus · HN ↗
    > Couldn't your odds of developing a cancer be sloped to effectively zero if the odds are such that you are very likely to die of something else?
    Are you sure that people should try? Will they live longer, or happier lives if they do?
    From 1900 to 1950 the average US life expectancy went from about 47 to roughly 68. Penicillin and sanitation did most of that.
    From 1950 through present day we added another 10 years. What most folks don't realize is that:
    - 70% of those gains, or 7 out of the 10 extra years, came from cardiovascular health. Mostly because we got better at surviving heart attacks, and people smoked less.
    - 19% came from infant mortaility gains (2 of the remaining 3 years of gain).
    - 11% came from EVERYTHING ELSE that people did to become "healthier." So 1 year.
    The US spends $5.3 trillion per year on healthcare, give or take. That's about $15.5k per capita every year. It's roughly 20% of the total GDP of the United States. That's 2 out of every 10 productive dollars going towards healthcare.
    In exchange for 20% of every hour you work for your entire adult life you get 1 extra year at the end of your life.
    In exchange for constantly worrying, exercising, staying up to date, eating right, etc you buy yourself one year more of life, and it's not even going to be a GOOD year. It's going to be one more year of being 80+ years old with everything hurting and constant medical needs.
    Is it really worth 20% of the money you make every year for you entire life to live one extra, shitty, year?
    I just don't think people have done the math on this one.
    skrtskrt · 1790711407 · focus · HN ↗
    Not only is this utilitarian nonsense, the "math" here is full logical nonsense.
    It shocks me how anyone could string this pile words together and think they sound like anything at all.
    > "2 out of every 10 productive dollars"
    As if those dollars have anything to do with the time people work, or that they would get those dollars and time back by not caring about health.
    As if the tiny portion of those dollars that actually gets spent on patient healthcare isn't dominated by end of life care.
    The US healthcare system spend is so far divorced from whatever idea of "productive dollars" anyone has when it's 60-80% admin cost. The US should not even be mentioned in any conversation about the ROI of health spend.
    mapontosevenths · 1790713376 · focus · HN ↗
    > The US should not even be mentioned in any conversation about the ROI of health spend.
    I would agree with at least this part, if I didn't live here. I'm reminded of the MRI post from a few days back. I think the stat was that Boston had more MRI's than all of Canada combined.
    How much healthier are people the United States than Canada - for all that extra spend? I'm fairly certain the number is negative.
    EDIT - I googled it. The Canadian life span is four years higher than the average American and they're healthier than the average American when they get there. So, yes, the number is negative.
    willhslade · 1790765085 · focus · HN ↗
    Massachusets has more MRIs than Canada.
    mapontosevenths · 1790798844 · focus · HN ↗
    Thank you.
    throwaway2037 · 1790817808 · focus · HN ↗
    Wild, I looked it up. It is true. LLM tells me:
    > Canada has a total of 432 MRI machines according to the latest official national survey. > Per capita: An average of 10.8 units per million people, which is well below the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) average of 19.4.
    And Massachusetts (specifically Boston and Cambridge) has an insanely high concentration due to multiple medical schools and several very large hospital systems.
    Real question and no trolling to Canada: How does Canada have such good healthcare, but so few MRIs? My point: Canada is certainly rich enough to buy and operate more. Do they not need them? Does the US just have way too many? (That is my guess.)
    willhslade · 1790866684 · focus · HN ↗
    A few things. 1) Canada is not as wealthy, per capita, as the USA. Per Google: > The GDP per capita in the United States is roughly $94,400 USD, compared to Canada's roughly $60,300 USD (as of 2026 estimates), creating a significant and widening economic gap.
    2) Canadian healthcare spends less per capita. Per Google: > The United States spends roughly double per capita on healthcare compared to Canada. Cost Comparison Per Capita • United States: Approximately $14,885 USD per person. • Canada: Approximately $7,301 USD per person (varies by estimates, with public-only spending around $5,000 USD). • Percentage of GDP: The U.S. spends about 17.2% of its GDP on healthcare, while Canada spends about 11.3%.
    3) The USA believes in diagnostic testing at a higher level than Canada. Per Google: > Utilization and Intensity: The U.S. tends to utilize higher volumes of intensive diagnostic testing and specialized medical interventions.
    4) Related: hospitals are private in the USA, and they buy MRI machines to bill for high-margin diagnostic tests. As you noted, the Boston CMA is a world leader in healthcare and education, and thus has a higher concentration of MRI machines.
    5) Canadian healthcare simply is not as sophisticated as the health care in the USA. There have been multiple episodes of high profile / wealthier Canadians going to the US to skip waiting for treatment and getting procedures that are just not available in Canada at the present time.
    So it's great, it's saved my life a couple times, but it's not a 1-1 drop in for American healthcare. Every system has trade offs, that's the lesson of engineering.
    [deleted] · 1790872226 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
    throwaway2037 · 1791128719 · focus · HN ↗
    I am not wholly convinced by your reply. If Canadian medical staff are paid proportionally less that US medical staff, then difference in PPP matters little.
    > Canadian healthcare spends less per capita.
    Due to FX rates and PPP, probably Japan spends the least in G7, yet their public healthcare system is globally outstanding. It has superb quality in the largest cities and surrounding areas (Tokyo, Yokohama, Osaka, Nagoya, Fukuoka, Sapporo), on par with UK's NHS, which the global "gold standard" for cost effectiveness. The key: Don't let medical staff income get out of control. Ignoring truly exceptional medical staff (brain surgeons, etc.), most people in medicine should earn slightly more than middle class. If you can maintain it, then you can really control medical costs. The US is wildly out of control if compared to G7 (and close relatives, like Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Korea, etc.).
    oarfish · 1790711544 · focus · HN ↗
    Well at least exercising will actually add life to your years and not just years to your life.
    mapontosevenths · 1790713045 · focus · HN ↗
    This I can get behind. Quality of life is worth something. Is it worth 20% of the GDP? No, but it's not where we spend those healthcare dollars anyhow. We spend them on trying to extend the lifespan by one miserable year via end of life care, mostly.
    nezi · 1790712114 · focus · HN ↗
    There are a lot of medical problems that can make life miserable that won't kill you that are excluded from your simple objective of "how many years am I breathing."
    devin · 1790712373 · focus · HN ↗
    So is this what you tell yourself to justify sitting in your chair eating doritos and mountain dew while blasting cigs and chugging beers?
    What are you even talking about?
    mapontosevenths · 1790713978 · focus · HN ↗
    I'm saying two things:
    1) Worrying about your health is mostly useless and probably won't move the needle much unless you have obvious problems.
    2) The United States spends 20% of it's GDP to accomplish nothing. That 1 year of life expectancy gain is probably within the margin of error. Certainly modern healthcare can help at the individual level, but the society is so sick that any gains are washed away by the noise and we spend a truly enormous amount of money to get nowhere.
    Our worry costs us a fortune, and generally just doesn't accomplish anything worthwhile.
    devin · 1790716340 · focus · HN ↗
    "unless you have obvious problems" is doing a _ton_ of work. Most people _do_ have _obvious_ problems. Their weight, their cholesterol, their alcohol use, and on and on.
    Saying "if you're healthy you shouldn't worry about your health" is a meaningless thing to say. The point is that most people _do_ have obvious room for some kind of health improvement, and as other commenters have pointed out, if it's not in the clear "this will help me live an additional N years" way, then very likely it is in the "this will make my life suck less as I age" way. Eg; Being able to walk up a flight of stairs without getting deeply winded.
    bad_haircut72 · 1790755850 · focus · HN ↗
    On your deathbed will you look back and say "I wish I had gotten more treadmill time in"?
    devin · 1790795620 · focus · HN ↗
    You can see my reply to a sibling, but: no, of course not.
    However, would I regret not being fit enough to go for a hike in my 60s? That's another story, and it is one which many do have the ability to intervene on.
    Treadmill time as an enabler of other experiences may well be worth keeping, even if the time spent on it doesn't satisfy some imagined "will I think of it on my deathbed as time well spent?" bar. I imagine there are a great many things I won't think about on my deathbed which on their own are unremarkable or even gasp not very fun, but that is of course not a reliable measure of whether something is worth doing.
    mondocat · 1791164135 · focus · HN ↗
    If I’m dying an early preventable death, I might.
    throwaway2037 · 1790817508 · focus · HN ↗
    > It's roughly 20% of the total GDP of the United States.
    As of 2025, it is more like 18%. For other highly developed nations, the average is about 12.5%. I think a lot of that difference can be explained by the very high salaries paid to medical workers compared to those other highly developed nations.
    > In exchange for 20% of every hour you work for your entire adult life you get 1 extra year at the end of your life.
    This isn't a very apt comparison. Think about it a different way: How much can I keep if I give up that single year of life?
  7. goodmythical · 1790701028 · focus · HN ↗
    Couldn't your odds of developing a cancer be sloped to effectively zero if the odds are such that you are very likely to die of something else?
    A person drunk driving at twice the speed limit in moderate traffic on a dark and rainy night without their lights on in an old vehicle with shoddy breaks and no traction control while not wearing a seatbelt and texting their ex probably has a near zero chance of developing a cancer given their near 100% chance of dieing in the next few moments.
    mapontosevenths · 1790708976 · focus · HN ↗
    > Couldn't your odds of developing a cancer be sloped to effectively zero if the odds are such that you are very likely to die of something else?
    Suicide is at once the worst and most effective cure for cancer.
  8. Aurornis · 1790702484 · focus · HN ↗
    When we talk about factors that reduce cancer rates we normally talk about like-for-like, adjusted for age.
    Discussing lifetime risk of cancer without accounting for years lived is not useful.
    I don't think it's helpful to point out that everyone gets cancer on a long enough timeframe, because that wasn't what the conversation was ever about.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.