Cancer in kiddies – can’t see that this works

Modern life is killing children with the number of youngsters diagnosed with cancer rising 40 per cent in the past 16 years because of air pollution, pesticides, poor diets and radiation, scientists have warned.

New analysis of government statistics by researchers at the charity Children with Cancer UK found that there are now 1,300 more cancer cases a year compared with 1998, the first time all data sets were published.

The rise is most apparent in teenagers and young adults aged between 15 and 24, where the incident rate has risen from around 10 cases in 100,000 to nearly 16.

OK, in last 18 years. And as we’re talking kiddies it can’t be long term onset from something decades ago. So, the explanation:

Dr Denis Henshaw, Professor of Human Radiation Effects at Bristol University, the scientific adviser for Children with Cancer UK, said air pollution was by far the biggest culprit, accounting for around 40 per cent of the rise, but other elements of modern lifestyles are also to blame.

Among these are obesity, pesticides and solvents inhaled during pregnancy, circadian rhythm disruption through too much bright light at night, radiation from x-rays and CT scans, smoking during and after pregnancy, magnetic fields from power lines, gadgets in homes, and potentially, radiation from mobile phones.

Which if these have increased since 1998?

Yeah, it’s the radiation from mobile phones thing again. this particular researcher has form here too…..

27 thoughts on “Cancer in kiddies – can’t see that this works”

  1. A bigger pile of old cobblers would be difficult to compile, in all honesty. He did leave out Sun spots, chemtrails and astrology from this fiction, but no doubt has done enough to secure funding from those of feeble mind.

  2. I don’t think there has been enough research into second hand drinking. If plod can detect alcohol on your breath, it stands to reason that the air around drinkers must have a higher alcohol content than that around teetotallers.

    Obviously it is too early to draw trends (other than wrt xenophobia), but in coming years, Brexit will certainly be a major cause of things that are not nice.

  3. Light has increased. The move from incandescent bulbs to CFL and LED lighting makes for cheaper, brighter, bluer light. And yes, smartphones at bedtime are a part of this (if not in the way that the crackpots suggest), but so are bigger and brighter tv screens, more abundant outdoor lighting, etc.

    In other words, a real effect that hasn’t caught on with the general public (light pollution) could be creating an effect that can be attributed to a fictional condition that gets a lot off press (electromagnetic sensitivity, or whatever they’re calling it this year)

  4. The supposed reasons for this supposed increase are a grab bag of eco-freak health nut shite. CTs and x-rays?

    What utter deceitful verbal cock rot on skates.

    The sooner spouting this kind of scaremongering bullshit is made a gross misconduct sacking offence the better.

  5. So Much For Subtlety

    I think the increase in cancers is clearly linked to the rise in young adult fiction. Can it be any coincidence that as children read about vampires and the like, cancer rates rise?

    Just to be safe I suggest a ban on J K Rowling, also on the Twilight and Hunger Games series and anything by Veronica Roth. It is better to be safe than sorry.

  6. I agree with MagnusW – it’s almostvcertainly got a lot to do with lack of excercise.

    As has the rise in obesity in all age groups. The switch away from old fashioned standing up jobs doing something useful to the modern sitting down jobs doing something completely pointless as often as not.

  7. Pesticide use overall may not have increased, but the specific mix of pesticides changes over time, so the use of one particular pesticide will certainly have increased. It’s still mere correlation, not causation.

    The more useful correlations are between the kids themselves: are they mostly suffering a specific form of cancer, are they disproportionately obese, are they of a particular ethnic background, do they live in areas with radon, etc? Trying to correlate anything with the last 25 years of technological change is nigh impossible.

  8. It’s an absolutely vintage piece of correlation grabbing. As mentioned above, all that’s missing are chemtrails, crop circles and the Tory Party.

  9. I’m reasonably familiar with the origins of childhood cancers. Apart from possibly chemicals in pregnancy, none of the ’causes’ listed are causes of childhood cancers.

    Most are genetic, many due to specific chromosomal translocations, some things previously not thought to be ‘cancer’ now are thought to be cancer-like. We are better at finding stuff as well.
    Pile of bollocks, please fund me attempt.

  10. @Rational Antichrist,

    Detection rate won’t play a huge part here for the simple reason that cancer only rarely goes totally undetected. Kiddie-specific cancers, especially the leukaemia-type ones, tend to be particularly spectacularly easy to spot. Cancer might be detected later or sooner after onset, but it’s (for everyday values of “always”), always detected before something else kills you.

  11. “Air pollution? How about the London smogs? Why wasn’t childhood cancer more common in 1950’s London?”

    I’m no expert.. but in our dumbfuck rush to curtail CO2 emissions haven’t we rushed to diesel engines that produce way to much NOx which genuinely is an air pollutant?

  12. Professor of Human Radiation Effects seems like an awfully specific title. Wouldn’t a professor of medical physics be a more objective source?

  13. So Much For Subtlety

    Bloke in Germany – “Detection rate won’t play a huge part here for the simple reason that cancer only rarely goes totally undetected.”

    That is only half the story though. A lot of cancers are over-diagnosed with a lot of suspicious growths being detected and classified as cancer when they probably aren’t cancer. Breast and prostate cancer both suffer from this problem.

    “Cancer might be detected later or sooner after onset, but it’s (for everyday values of “always”), always detected before something else kills you.”

    Not for prostate cancer. Virtually all elderly men have it. Most of them die of something else.

  14. Dear Mr Worstall

    Additional to comment by Andy September 4, 2016 at 10:43 am, if those who survive childhood cancers due to genetic conditions have children, will those children not have a higher disposition to childhood cancers?

    DP

  15. The use of math, “accounting for around 40 per cent of the rise,” implies precision. No such precision exists (at least he didn’t use a decimal point, though that would have been funny).

    The data suggests that the reduction of air pollution has led to an INCREASE in childhood cancers. We must free VW to make all the pollution they want to. It’s for the children.

  16. DP,

    The extent to which the probability may increase from one generation to the next will depend on the contributions of each parent.

    I have often said (though I don’t claim originality) that if you wish to live a long life, choose your parents carefully.

  17. Bloke in Costa Rica

    A rate of 10 per 100000 to 16 per 100000 is a relative risk of 1.6. That’s not very startling on the face of it. Of course it’s a big population, so RRs that small could be statistically significant at whatever confidence limit they’re using (epidemiologists have form here). I’m still pretty dubious this is a big enough effect to get agitated about.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *