Hmmm…they make up term Invasive Cancer and then seek to find it. Invasive Cancer does have a medical definition, but it seems unrelated to anything in this study~cr
Mary Ann Liebert, Inc./Genetic Engineering News
Publishing state-of-the-art studies of innovative solutions to problems in air, water, and land contamination and waste disposal.
Credit
Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., publishers
New Rochelle, NY, December 2, 2019–In a new study, researchers provide conclusive evidence of a statistical relationship between the incidence rates of invasive cancer in a given area in the U.S. and the amount of precipitation and climate type (which combines the temperature and moisture level in an area). The researchers recommend additional studies to understand how environmental factors such as precipitation and temperature are linked to cancer rates. The current study is published in Environmental Engineering Science, a peer-reviewed journal from Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., publishers. Click here to read the full-text article free on the Environmental Engineering Science website through January 2, 2020.
The article entitled “Precipitation and Climate Zone Explains the Geographical Disparity in the Invasive Cancer Incidence Rates in the United States,” was coauthored by Vishal Shah, Randall Rieger, and Liang Pan, West Chester University of Pennsylvania. The researchers reported that in the United States, counties with high precipitation and cold climate have statistically significantly higher invasive cancer incidence rates. They emphasize that precipitation, moisture, and temperature might not be direct causes of increased cancer rates, but may instead increase exposure to carcinogens by acting as carriers, or increase the generation of naturally occurring carcinogens.
“This is an important study with findings that illustrate for the first time the statistical connection between natural factors and cancer rates in the U.S.,” says Catherine A. Peters, PhD, Editor-in-Chief of Environmental Engineering Science and Professor, Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Princeton University.
###
About the Journal
Environmental Engineering Science, the official journal of the Association of Environmental Engineering & Science Professors, is an authoritative peer-reviewed journal published monthly online with open access options. Publishing state-of-the-art studies of innovative solutions to problems in air, water, and land contamination and waste disposal, the Journal features applications of environmental engineering and scientific discoveries, policy issues, environmental economics, and sustainable development including climate change, complex and adaptive systems, contaminant fate and transport, environmental risk assessment and management, green technologies, industrial ecology, environmental policy, and energy and the environment. Tables of content and a sample issue may be viewed on the Environmental Engineering Science website.
About the Association
The Association of Environmental Engineering and Science Professors (AEESP) comprises faculty members in academic programs throughout the world who provide education in the sciences and technologies of environmental protection. The mission of AEESP is to assist its members in the development and dissemination of knowledge in environmental engineering and science. AEESP seeks to strengthen and advance the discipline of environmental science and engineering by providing leadership, promoting cooperation amongst academics and others within and outside the discipline, and serving as a liaison between its membership and other professional societies, governmental agencies, industry and nonprofit organizations.
About the Publisher
Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., publishers is a privately held, fully integrated media company known for establishing authoritative peer-reviewed journals in many promising areas of science and biomedical research, including Industrial Biotechnology, Sustainability: The Journal of Record, and Environmental Justice. Its biotechnology trade magazine, GEN (Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News), was the first in its field and is today the industry’s most widely read publication worldwide. A complete list of the firm’s 90 journals, newsmagazines, and books is available on the Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., publishers website.
‘Invasive’ cancers linked to ‘wet’ water? Why repeat yourself twice over unnecessarily?
To be absolutely blunt, colder and wetter areas of the world of much higher rates of alcohol abuse, end of story.
…and I would think obesity
You can throw in exposure to radioactive radon gas where cold weather residences commonly include basements excavated into rocky ground.
Because it’s in the Department of Redundancy Deparment Departmental Procedure Manual and Guide to Departmental Process and Procedure
Not repeating themselves, Invasive cancer means it’s spread beyond the layer of tissue in which it developed and is growing into surrounding, healthy tissues. Also called infiltrating cancer.
I think this is sort of like the term “acoustic guitar”. Before there were electric guitars, acoustic guitars were just guitars. In cancer, there is controversy over something called DCIS – ductal carcinoma in situ, a form of breast cancer. Some argue that “in situ” carcinomas aren’t cancer because they haven’t spread out of the milk ducts, but the cells are virtually indistinguishable from cells that have spread out of the milk ducts. I would think then that the term “invasive cancer” is just cancer as we would think of it in the vernacular.
Association does not prove causality. Is there anyone who passed 6th-grade “science” and doesn’t know this yet? I hope no one’s going to bother seriously debating this specious piece of headline-grabbing directed at the utterly ignorant.
I’ll bet they are also almost certainly just data mining for statistical correlations. The FDA frowns on pharmaceutical companies doing this, for good reasons.
It looks like they numbered their climate zones backwards. Zone 2 includes most of Florida, southern Texas, and southern California-
” The classification of the zones is as follows: 1, very cold; 2, cold; 3, marine; 4, mixed humid; 5, mixed dry; 6, hot humid; and 7, hot dry ”
Southern Texas and San Diego definitely aren’t “cool” in the weather sense.
I know it’s probably a mixup, but presenting a paper with major blunders does not instill confidence. There are SO MANY other variables linked to temperature it is just silly. All the cancers included have multiple, poorly understood, and related initiators. The statistics of the study are obviously not strong enough to assign anything causal to the parameters when so many other parameters are ignored.
yeah its utter crap. just like another similar headline grabbing claim that particulate matter 2.5micron is now said to be linked to liver bladder and a whole other range of cancers
with NOT a shred of factual evidence at all
abc science show ran some woman from america making these outrageus claims she admitted the ways it is supposed to happen havent been found! but insists its the cause.
there is some linkages to lung/heart effects which the EPA did tests on people without their consent some yrs ago
and their claims while maybe showing some evidence, pretty much fall on their faces as if this was true then the entire asian european and usa major cities would have far far more lung n heart related deaths
people living along main roadways and close to huge powerlines already proven higher rates, hardly surprising theyre also poorer. income has a direct health affect
the rest ,like this, is total rubbish
Colder at high latitudes, also less sunshine = less Vitamin D = more cancer (and more MS). There. Mystery solved.
The climate pseudo-science’s invasive buffonery seems to have passed a point of no return.
Imagine being a business owner, and discovering that some of your employees do this quality of work. I fully realize that in academia accurate results absolutely don’t matter. However, in business they mean everything.
In the CAGW business and its satellite industries ( science communication, climate science publications, eco terrorist organisation administration, msm alarmism etc) that quality of work is a KPI, an essential metric of suitability for the task.
Invasive cancer commonly referred to as a malignant tumor — The ability to invade and destroy surrounding tissue. Contrast with benign tumor, which remains localized.
Not to be confused with metastatic tumor. Metastatic tumors can spread to new locations or new tissues to form disseminated, secondary tumors, aka metastases. Malignant tumors can be metastatic, but not necessarily. Example is basal cell carcinoma, a malignant skin can which spread laterally destroying adjacent healthy skin but is not metastatic. Whereas a melanoma skin cancer is principally deadly for it commonly aggressive metastatic nature.
From their methods:
recorded for all newly diagnosed invasive cancer (referred to in this study as total invasive cancer), breast and ovarian cancer (among females), lung and bronchus cancer, colorectal cancer, and prostate cancer (among males)
They appear to be using the term ‘invasive’ to mean ‘metastatic’. Don’t think they had any one familiar with medical terminology on the team.
Breast cancer rates are now massively inflated by breast tumor detection rates.
Contrary to what the “cancer experts” said, a localized tumor could stay localized and harmless for years.
In fact many people are concerned that the medical procedures, like pressing breasts and then a biopsy could actually cause tumors to wake up and become harmful.
invasive is a much sexier term than metastatic – most people would have to look up the latter.
Reason enough
As far as precipitation and cold climate, higher exposure to environmental carcinigens could conceivably be a causal factor. Mercury, lead, arsenic, radium all could higher in local water supplies, but except for arsenic, most are highly water insoluble.
A more likely reason though for higher malignancy rates could be Vitamin D deficiency resulting in impaired immune function. Vitamin D formation occurs on sunlight exposure, which would necessarily be lower in cold, wet climates. There are epidemological and biological studies that support the vitamin D-cancer link.
Air pollution levels in building interiors are often so high that if your house was a city, it would be in a perpetual state of crisis. So, cold, wet environments encourage people to “cocoon” and increase their exposure to a variety of toxins. My guess, anyway.
Indeed, black molds are well feared for both an ability to produce spores leading to fungal infections (blastomycosis, fro example) but also mycotoxins. Black toxic mold produces trichothecene mycotoxins which are one of the most toxic and resilient types of mycotoxins. These mycotoxins can be found throughout all parts of a black toxic mold colony as well as on the airborne spores of black toxic mold.
Additionally, formaldehyde is released from many carpets and building materials.
https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/ehhe/trailerstudy/pdfs/FEMAFormaldehydeFactSheet.pdf
As for molds, mycotoxins are a threat for animals and humans via their immunosuppressive properties which synergizes with then with spore germination (leading to active fungal infection or respiratory tracts). And immunosuppression leading to cancer occurrence are causative linked.
throw in the chemical scents so popular now in candles melts or gels and the 2k or more home cleaning chem blends , personal care items etc etc. I have friends whos homes I go to visit, I sit outside when I visit due to the overpowering perfumes they use.
and I dont have allergies or asthma I just find it nauseatingly smelly
It is nothing more than data dredging or as we call it data butchery.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_dredging
Real science has been trying to filter this garbage out, which like attribution statistics has crawled like a cancer into medicine because it’s journal standards are lax.
The more articles like this trash are published the more these medical field fall into joke status.
G’day LdB – unfortunately, it’s not a joke. The work is being done under the magic name of “Climate”, and they use the standard phraseology “More research is needed”. It’s called ‘job security’…..
First thing I thought of: vitamin D.
Excerpted from article:
Are you curious about the “cancer rates” in your state or county?
If so, then look no farther than this “interactive” map, to wit:
State Cancer Profiles – create dynamic views of incidences of cancer
http://statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov/map/map.noimage.php
This screams ‘confounding factors’ at me.
Alternatively, doesn’t this show that dryer and warmer is healthier? Global warming, bring it on.
It is actually more likely to be absolutely nothing it’s just data dredging and failing at science 101.
“……..15 states were randomly selected for statistical analysis: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Georgia, Iowa, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin….In population-based studies using aggregate data such as this one, it is not possible to control for all of the possible confounding variables, both measurable and unmeasurable, which might explain the association that has been shown. However, in this study, the variables that seem to be the most likely confounders, age, gender, and ethnicity, were controlled…..Although the possible mechanisms of action on how precipitation and climate zones may be linked to invasive cancer rates is unclear,…..This study conclusively shows that there is a statistical relationship between incidence rates of cancers in a given area and the amount of precipitation and climate type. Further studies are urgently needed…”
While they have a couple of interesting points they need re-education. Lesson number one—Statistical and Biological Significance are not the same thing. I have been told with good authority that studies like this are very common in schools of education.
Correlation is NOT causation.
“Cancer” is not a single disease – it is a host of diseases, and virtually every biologic system, if not body part, in a human body has its very own type of cancer with its own independent profile of symptoms.
There is also this massive and longstanding fallacy that cancer is primarily “caused” by environmental exposures, rather than by simple, internal genetic mutations built into the human genome and cell structures that have zilch to do with environmental exposures.
Humans and our direct ancestors occupy and have occupied every climatic zone that exists, and has ever existed for millions of years. We are the most adaptable species on the planet. We also suffer from numerous diseases, just as does every other species, that tend to hurt and/or kill us eventually should we live long enough.
Focusing on “climate change” (as in global warming) as a cause of disease is simply silly propaganda, nothing more or less, since it is a proven fact, via history and archaeology and paleontology, that humans do vastly better (longer, healthier lives) when it is relatively warmer than when it is relatively colder. Today, the human population is the highest its ever been, with human longevity the longest it’s ever been, with human health, as measured in mortality and morbidity, is the highest quality its ever been – at precisely the same time that the climate alarmists claim we’re killing the planet.
Poppycock!
The cover says it all – “Association of Environmental Engineering and Science Professors”. Another ivory tower printing press for “peer-reviewed” nonsense.
Same quality of science that gave us the false saturated fat-cardiac disease conclusion, the DDT scare, the 2.5 PPM regulations and the false CAGW/policy-driven science fraud. Until those involved in science careers actually practice science with integrity, we will continuously be exposed to misleading and headline-grabbing scares that have no basis in reality. This type of study doesn’t deserve the electrons it takes to code the punctuation.
Correction: “2.5 PPM” should be “ PM 2.5”
Ha I was curious what the context with 2.5 PPM was about. Say no more!
Also mods, why are half my comments routinely rejected?
So, in just the last four days, we’ve seen WUWT website reporting on articles claiming the following effects of “climate change”™:
— causes premature births in humans (Dec 2)
— has caused polar bears to start hunting beluga whales (Dec 1)
— is, and will increasingly be, a major driver of mass migration from the global South to the global North (Dec 1)
— is making horses fatter (Nov 30)
and now we add this new claim of:
— enhances invasive cancer, at least in the US (Dec 3).
In this regard, it is clear that one thing is accelerating with regard to “climate change” but it is not related to any physical parameter of climate.
Alarmism sells. It provides click bait stories on the internet, easy scares stories in journalism rags, and is an ever valuable source of rent for rent-seekers. And then there are the ambulance chasers going after talcum powder and glyphosate to fund their 2nd and 3rd vacation homes and new Mercedes SUV’s.
As the Goodies would say
“Nine out of ten doctors agree that when you don’t eat Sunblest natural bread, you’ll get squashed by elephants!”
“Mind you, it did take us a while to find the right nine doctors”
In this case, if you believe them, global warming would reduce invasive cancer rates but I don’t see that making a headline
Their description of Figure 2: “The United States is divided into seven climate zones. The classification of the zones is as follows: 1, very cold; 2, cold; 3, marine; 4, mixed humid; 5, mixed dry; 6, hot humid; and 7, hot dry (Fig. 2)” is exactly the opposite of Figure 2 itself, which shows climate zone 1 as hot and dry, 2 as hot and humid, etc.
It would have been a surprise if they hadn’t discovered a link. The paper says:
Climate zone: when i = 1 to 7, β2i is the coefficient for the respective climate zone i. For example, when i = 1, β21 is the coefficient for climate zone 1.
Such pseudo coding clearly biases their multiple linear regression equation. Normally the sum of pseudo codes should be zero. Similar problems with other coefficients.
Failed stats, stupid outcomes.
Looks like pseudescientific spurious regression to me.
https://www.svds.com/avoiding-common-mistakes-with-time-series/
The problem first became clearr to me after reading William Briggs’ “Arcsine Rule” post here:
https://wmbriggs.com/post/257/
“Correlation is not causation.” – unknown
Science long ago proved that a severe lack of vitamin D leads to higher rates of all cancers due to its impact on the immune system. Colder climates with higher precipitation result in less exposure to sunshine and therefore lower levels of vitamin D.
Geographic area’s with higher rates of radon gas also beget higher rates of cancer. As others noted above, environmental factors due to colder wetter weather make for different levels of known (and perhaps unknown) carcinogens with longer periods of indoor environments, so perhaps more exposure to radon gas. And including as Joel noted, lack of Vitamin D due to lack of sunshine. Perhaps depression also caused by gloomy wet weather is a factor. I know my arthritis can reach crisis levels for me when there is inclement windy, cold wet weather. All these would be contributing factors and not causative so minute changes in climate from one geographic area to another is probably a stretch to meet the need for CO2 induced extortion causing everything bad. (especially on scientific truth and our finances being taxed on account of weather)
Here in BC many people outside the cities heat with wood – some with wet wood, and some across the bay seem to burn old tires from the smoke. Half the time in winter there is no wind and going outside is choking. In cities all the better off areas have fireplaces that make many weekend evenings toxic for dog walkers. Parts of Montreal have now outlawed wood burning.
Wood smoke is more toxic than cigarette smoke.
Humans evolved with wood smoke; our lungs are pretty adept with ‘self-cleaning’. We have been making fire for a long, long, long, long time.
Wood* burning being “more toxic” than directly inhaling cigarette smoke is bereft of facts.
*never burn treated lumber
You got it, ….. Dergy.
Human evolution took a great step forward when they learned to burn dead biomass for warmth and for cooking their food.
Thus humans have been breathing, inhaling the smoke from burning biomass (wood, leaves, grass, brush, tobacco, etc.) for maybe a million years or so, ……. and like 75% of the world’s population continued living in a “smoke filled” environment up until the circa 1950’s when NG and electric cookstoves and heating stoves and furnaces became the norm. And 20+% of the world’s population is still living in “smoky” environments and lung cancer was no more prevalent 1,000 or 10,000 years ago than it is today.
Iffen the smoke from “burning biomass” is as cancer-causing as the wackos and funded interest people claim, ……. then all native Americans would surely have died off long before any Europeans came ashore. And European deaths due to lung cancer should have been far greater than what was caused by the Black Plague.
Could immigration of mostly brown(er) people cause higher incidence of MS?
Earthling2 says, “Geographic area’s with higher rates of radon gas also beget higher rates of cancer.”
Actually, for residential concentrations of radon, this is still controversial:
“In all, as a result of our meta-analysis of the combined cohort, we conclude that the analysed data concerning radon concentrations below ~1000 Bq/m3 (~20 mSv/year of effective dose to the whole body) do not support the thesis that radon may be a cause of any statistically significant increase in lung cancer incidence.”
Meta-analysis of thirty-two case–control and two ecological radon studies of lung cancer
Ludwik Dobrzyński, Krzysztof W Fornalski, Joanna Reszczyńska
Journal of Radiation Research, Volume 59, Issue 2, March 2018, Pages 149–163, https://doi.org/10.1093/jrr/rrx061
Not to mention that radon is produced by the decay of uranium– so if you’ve got radon, you’ve got uranium nearby. The whole radon removal thing is a boondoggle encouraged by the lobbyists poised to profit by the regs.
Cancer is 90% dumb chance and only 10% “caused” by something (environmental exposure +/- genetic predisposition). Even heavy smokers only have a 10-15% risk of developing a smoking-related ca.
Speaking of correlation studies: nearly 100% of colon cancer victims admit to having swallowed small amounts of saliva periodically throughout their lives.
I have always been mighty curious as to how they “correlated” cervical cancer with cigarette smoke.
To me, there is an obvious correlation but ……..
Cancer is caused by biological wee beasties, so cold wet climate correlates well to people in malls and other enclosed spaces swapping said wee beasties.
As to wee beasties:
Cervical cancer? HPV virus. Stomach cancer? H. Pylori
The number of cancers being discovered as related to biological causes — as opposed to assertions of proximity to pesticides — grows annually.
Maybe by the time I keel over the world will recognize that the cancer culprit is the same as infectious disease, not corporations.
Leukemia has been linked (with small but significant increase) with nuclear plant construction: too much people together, too many germs.
The report under discussion may seem like a silly indictment of climate mania, but remove any suspicion of “climate change is bad” and what’s left is actually reasonable science. I’m sure the authors were politically compelled to speak of potential increased carcinogens because the medical world literature seems predisposed to blame corporations and pesticides etc (pick any sort of industrial or chemical agent) as carcinogenic which itself is mere association. and oftentimes assertion — no different than assertions of climate change being settled science.
Yet if you ignore the “ok so maybe it’s carcinogens somehow magically activating” what’s left looks precisely like what one would see if looking at a measles outbreak, where is it likely, etc.
So maybe this wasn’t bad science after all.
Cancer has many causes, and every cancer in every person is a somewhat different disease, because cancer results for a series of mutations/ damage to DNA in a single cell that fails to then undergo programmed cell death, or apoptosis.
But even at that point the immune system can and usually does eliminate the damaged cell or cells before they can multiply and cause a cancer.
Even people with advanced stage cancers sometimes have the immune system kick in, sometimes after all hope was lost for a cure or remission, and when this happens, the entire malignancy can be eliminated permanently in a very short amount of time.
The key is the immune system.
There is a fine balance required to allow the body to respond to dangerous pathogens and things like cancer, but not trigger autoimmune conditions in which the immune system attacks a persons own tissues or organs.
There are a huge number of factors that regulate the immune system, including a dizzying and ever expanding (our knowledge of them that is) array of chemicals called cytokines…things like interferons, inte4rleukins, tumor necrosis factors (TNF alpha is a critically important one) and many others, each of which has numerous types.
The ways in which each of these interact with various immune system cells and receptors is staggeringly complex, and the subject of much ongoing research.
Vitamin D is critically important, and the extent of the role it plays, including calcium absorption, is likely been long underestimated and unappreciated by medical science and nutritionists.
The amount of the vitamin produced in the skin during Sun exposure dwarfs the small amount that has long been deemed adequate. That amount, 400-800 i.u., is enough to prevent rickets, but that is about all.
The amount we get from Sun exposure is far higher, and humans evolved out of doors where nearly everyone got plenty of Sun.
White skin is almost surely a necessary adaption to the low amounts of light that people in northern areas of Asia and Europe were exposed to upon the migration away from the origin points of our species.
Dark skin at a northern latitude where it is very cold and there is very little sunlight to begin with, would prevent enough vitamin D from being made in the skin for optimal survival.
Coming soon.. Absolute positive proof that “climate change” causes:
Male pattern baldness
Warts, verrucas and bunions
Ingrowing toenails
Pressure sores
Tooth decay
Tinnitus
Hemarrhoids
Tapeworms
.. and of course, the common cold.
You left out “The heartbreak of psoriasis.”
Apophenia.
No. Incidence of many cancers is associated with inadequate levels of Vitamin D. See this for breast cancer: https://www.grassrootshealth.net/project/breast-cancer-prevention. See this for other cancers: https://www.grassrootshealth.net/blog/lower-type-1-diabetes-cancer-rates-associated-higher-uvb/
Cold and rainy weather diminishes sun exposure and production of Vitamin D in the skin. Dietary sources are negligible unless you eat lots of fatty fish.
It’s become a fad to test for Vit D over the last decade or so. Many studies have been done during this time but none have shown any influence of supplements on outcomes. Sick people don’t go out in the sun as much as healthy people as a general rule. Pretty obvious. But that won’t get you more research funds.
Supplements are not enough typically, and may not be taken regularly.
People are notoriously bad at self reporting compliance.
And the active form that occurs in the skin from UV exposure is not the same as putting a pill of it into your stomach.
We are evolved to get Sun on our skin, not to taking pills.
Sweeping Statement Much ?
Whilst I would agree with you that there is no incontrovertible proof on the issue at this time, mainly due to the lack of studies, and the dazzling complexity of Bio Chemistry, it does seem that Vitamin D plays a very much bigger part in overall health than merely preventing bendy legs ?
Here in the UK, we have gone from GP’s chasing you out of their surgeries with a stick for suggesting supplementation, to the present time where additional Vitamin D is routinely prescribed. Clearly the lack of the vitamin, or the supplementation of it is Not going to be a magic bullet against genetic transcription errors, but it just might turn out to be a player in the chain of events ?
Could be as well to keep an open mind, especially when we remember that the link between Vitamin C and Scurvy could still face challenges into the early years of the 20th century. 🙂
Less than one hour of Sunshine on bare skin produces over 20,000 iu of vitamin D.
RDA of the vitamin is a tenth of that…just enough to prevent rickets, but drastically inadequate for good overall health.
Being in the Sun longer than about 20 minutes/day provides no additional Vitamin D supposedly, because at a certain point the UV is breaking it down as fast as it is being produced.
Wearing sunscreens has never been shown to decrease rates of skin cancer, and staying out of the Sun may be the worst advice ever in the history of medical science.
Think about this: People with a tan look healthier than people who are pale and sallow.
We are adapted by evolution to be able to spot healthy people who will make good genetic partners.
Most traits associated with being attractive are also closely correlated to being healthy…heathy teeth and hair, straight posture, symmetrical features, etc.
It makes no sense that a person with a tan would look healthier/more attractive than w/o if it was not an adaptive trait.
How do you know that diminished vit D levels in chronic disease isn’t a normal compensatory maneuver that minimizes the deleterious effects of the illness? …They noticed that villages with the most dogs & cats had the most Black Plague. Killing the dogs & cats made things worse. …Beware of actions taken based only on correlation studies.
You are correct; e.g. hyperthyroidism can be brought on by autoimmune difficulties and in many cases vitamin d is prescribed 50,000 units per week. The body’s use of vitamin d is in fact compensatory as you describe. No amount of supplements etc can prevent or cure a viral or cancerous infection in the body consuming enough resources to overload the immune system thus subsequently overwhelming the thyroid.
McGinley: If only it were so simple as to take this magic supplement or vitamin and/or promote “healthy” and “natural” activities that are held to be proper and then all diseases would be preventable. It doesn’t work that way. Hyperthyroidism [used in the example above] is observed in plenty of people who work outside for a living and eat sensibly.
I use hyperthyroidism as an example because it’s relatively common and has no correlation to food security — i.e. the example can’t be discounted as being an artifact of socioeconomics, isn’t limited to shut-ins, has no relation to geography, etc. There are plenty of other similar examples.
Vitamin D !
The link between Vitamin D, which we Hoomons can only make for ourselves via sunlight, and Cancer, or rather the lack of sunlight on the skin leading to a low level of the secosteroid has long been out there. Obviously it could be a scam, as no medical bodies have accepted any link between Vitamin D levels and the occurrence of cancer. But there do seem to be a number of Not Quack types pursuing the idea. So basically, all this report has done is to take an ongoing debate, look at it through the other end of the telescope, and add the tag CC.
Thing is, how funny would it be if the Sun, via Vitamin D production, were actually proved to be a factor in the biggest medical Holy Grail remaining. Could make you wonder what else it affects, the Climate maybe ? 🙂
I was about to make the same comment.
The link is vitamin D…nothing to do with temp or humidity except indirectly, because places that have more rain and are colder also have less Sun and hence people there get less vitamin D.
Number one way to live longer?
Move where there is more Sun.
BTW…vitamin D improves overall health including cardiovascular health, not just cancer rates and such.
In fact, the effect is likely due to a healthier immune system.
W/o vitamin D, we cannot absorb calcium properly, and calcium is critical for cell health for many reasons.
All sorts of conditions have higher incidence in people who do not get out in the Sun.
Last week ‘Climate Change’ caused less rain, more droughts and fires, this week it causes more rain, floods and Cancer. Talk about versatile.
LMAO. That thought string is always going through my head. Whatever “bad weather” is in the headlines, it’s always supposedly “caused by “climate change,” even though the things *supposedly* caused by it are often diametrically opposed to one another.
The people who did this study must be very poorly read.
Any anthropologist could have told them 50 + years ago that people in northern latitudes and cloudy climate had to evolve lighter skin in order to survive the migration away from Africa and the Middle East.
Less Sun over the course of a year, and the populations in those places have progressively lighter skin.
In equatorial regions, light skin allows to much damaging UV to enter the skin cells and that is dangerous for other reasons…so people that lived for long periods of time where there is more Sun have darker skin.
I hate to argue religion, but– better check out the relationship of the pineal gland (activated by light exposure) and general cancer rates https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK6233/ The implications for the original article being discussed are obvious. Vit D is just along for the ride.
BTW- melanoma is almost unheard of in dark skinned people– a classic case of the interaction of the right (?wrong) genetic milieu and environmental exposure, and the role of natural selection in survival.
The publication is open access i.e. the authors pay to have the article peer reviewed and published.
Obviously, only papers meeting the stringent standards of the publication and pass peer reviewed are published.
When and only when the paper is accepted does the author need to pay the article publication charge.
Enough said.
Hmm … I wonder if there is also a “statistical connection” between increased cancer rates in the US and fewer tobacco smokers?
Or how about more states legalizing pot?
Sanctuary cities?
Windmills?
Vegans?