Slashdot Mirror
A Medical Mystery of the Best Kind: Major Diseases Are In Decline (nytimes.com)
Slashdot reader schwit1 quotes an article from the New York Times: Something strange is going on in medicine. Major diseases, like colon cancer, dementia and heart disease, are waning in wealthy countries, and improved diagnosis and treatment cannot fully explain it...it looks as if people in the United States and some other wealthy countries are, unexpectedly, starting to beat back the diseases of aging. The leading killers are still the leading killers -- cancer, heart disease, stroke -- but they are occurring later in life, and people in general are living longer in good health.
The Times cites one researcher's pet theory that the cellular process of aging itself may be gradually changing in humans' favor.
The Times cites one researcher's pet theory that the cellular process of aging itself may be gradually changing in humans' favor.
Previous generations worked with asbestos without precautions they would have to have today, had lead in the petrol, and eat food with additives that are now banned. Not to mention rarely using sunscreen and smoking more. It's hardly a surprise that things are improving.
My pension plan is in even worse condition now...
Sig ?
During the cell division process radiation in these bands help tighten up the telemerese at the end of DNA. Every time the cell replicates the first few hundred basepairs come untangled, frayed and do not replicate well. But our DNA has very long sections on either end to cushion for the loss. Eventually the cushion is lost and actual genes start getting messed up and lost. That is how ageing happens. The radiation in these bands have positive effect in reducing the amount of fraying during cell replication.
Watch out pseudo scientists. Like real science, pseudo science is also cuts both ways. One can use it to spread fear and paranoia about any new technology or it can be used to ascribe totally unwarranted benefits to new things too.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
The average person now receives more radiation from medical treatment and diagnosis than the average person ever received from atmospheric testing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation#Atmospheric_nuclear_testing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation#Medical
Police violence, rape and autism only appear to have increased recently. The evidence shows they haven't.
What seems to be happening is that they are reported/accounted/diagnosed better. You hear more about them thanks to new channels. Violence against blacks in many areas of the US (as well as violence against minorities in general worldwide) has been common and stable over the recent past (correcting for the general drop in violence in industrialized countries since the late 70s that many attribute to removal of lead in gasoline). The general media had mostly ignored some of those issues. But they can't do so anymore now because of the prevalence of cell phones (video evidence), citizen reporting (blogs, twitter, facebook, etc) and new ways of organizing movements online.
Note that I chose those three exemples because of their clear recent increase in reporting and news coverage. For what it's worth (and will do to my karma) I support #BLM, social justice movements and I am convinced vaccines have nothing to do with autism.
If he explores all forms and substances Straight homeward to their symbol-essences; He shall not die.
This brings up an idea that my wife pointed out. In recent history, there has been an increase in the rate of transgendered individuals. This has resulted in political polarization, where some people are demonizing them and others are saying that body dismorphic disorder is somehow a good thing. Both are wrong. People with body dismorphic disorder have every right to their dignity and to manage and adjust their bodies as they see fit. However, that doesnâ(TM)t mean there isnâ(TM)t an external cause, and we think a major factor is all of these hormines being pumped into the water supply.
It's a better theory than most people think. Physicists and biologists have been pointing out how similar plastics are to hormones since forever. There has been a rise in gynecomastia which cannot be explained solely by obesity, strongly supporting this theory.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
You're eating far healthier than your "all natural" ancestors did 150 years ago. Look up ergotism, something we don't even know anymore used to be a real problem less than a hundred years ago. Refrigeration was unknown a century ago and only half a century ago it became widespread. "Best before" used to be "oh it doesn't smell TOO bad, if we cook it it just might be ok". Drinking water is ... hell, even the crap that comes out of the taps in the south east of the US is better and less contaminated than most of the stuff our ancestors pumped out of wells they dug themselves.
And we actually have LESS pollution today than we had 100-150 years ago, when nobody gave a shit that untreated sewage was dumped into the rivers and seas where we get our fishes from. What we see in China today was very real over here with us not that long ago. Smog you can cut with a knife, kids that have lungs like someone dying from lung cancer after a life of heavy smoking, rivers you can't put your booted foot into fearing that not only the boot would be gone if you leave it in too long. That was the reality in our industrial centers in the 1800s.
The "good old times" were much, but certainly not healthy!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Another reason for having "more" transgendered people is simply that they now dare to actually come out instead of just living a lie and maybe, MAYBE, having a little private secret where they can at least for themselves, when nobody is looking, be themselves.
I don't think that it's really more people being that way. It's just more people daring to not pretend they aren't.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The thing is, in evolutionary terms the genes that kill you before procreation are actively selected against; yet those that kill you just as reliably later in life are passed on.
Well not exactly.
The prevalence of senility in all the other apes (except humans) begs to differ.
I'm not saying that Richard Dawkins is wrong, I'm just saying that he's simplifying a little bit for the purpose of an explanation, but reality always more complex in the tiny details.
The thing is, we human have invented one peculiar concept: the grandmother.
In most other species of apes, individuals don't serve a purpose once they're past their reproductive age. On the countrary, they are using up valuable resources that might be put to better use by the young and the individual that still reproduce (in the same pack/tribe/etc.)
Thus in most other species of apes, senile degenerescence seems to be actually the norm.
Past a certain age (not far from the end of reproductive life) most apes turn senile rather quickly.
There's a small advantage if individuals don't live too long after they stop reproducing, because it leaves more food for the younger individuals of the pack/tribe (individuals who share the same genetic mix - being the same extended family - and thus this is the special form of 'sacrifice' which might actually get selected for. Unlike 'lemmings suicide' urban legend). A gene leading to such situation will be selected for, because it leads to an increased number of individual carrying a copy of the gene, by optimising which individual keep reproducing.
Compare the situation with humans:
disease like Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, vascular dementia, Huntington's and other neurodegenerative and senile diseases are *diseases*. I.e.: special conditions that only affect a small proportion of the population.
Most individual go through their later years *without suffering* from any of the above (in stark contrast of the remaining apes).
Why so? Grand mothers (and grand parents in general).
In human specie individual who are past their reproductive age will help raising the youngest generation (their grand children and grand nephews).
They take care of the youngs and, once language has been developped, they can also pass their knowledge by telling stories giving explanations...
Even if an individual isn't reproducing anymore, and even if an individual isn't in their prime anymore, these individuals are *still* very valuable for the pack/tribe.
Thus there's a very light incentive to select for individual who can stay functionnal in their late years. Even if they don't directly pass copies of their own genes anymore, they do help indirectly the survival of the rest of the pack/tribe and thus helps indirectly that the extended family grows (which shares genes with them).
(it's similar to the type of indirect help that you see in a beehive/anthill. Most individual are infertile worker. But because they are all very closely related, by helping they increase the survival chance of other individuals carrying the same genes even without reproducing.)
So if you have children at 40 (disregarding the complications and risks) it's likely that they won't inherit genes that are likely to kill them in their 30s. Thus the population in western "1st world" countries is aging, having children later and this may also be a contributing factor to the phenomenon.
Also the *reason* while parents decide to have children later in life also plays a role.
Most of such parent usually decide to reproduce later in life because of *career* reasons: They want to be in a better paying position to be better able to afford the children.
This has the direct effect on the availability of healthcare and eraly diagnostics.
But has again a very slight effect on the family structure.
Chance are high that both parent will try to get back to their highly paid position after the birth, and thus grand parents might also again play a very
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Basically everyone in the world is living longer. World is better for humans. Has been for decades. Better, in war, in disease, in nutrition. The surprise is that the doom-and-gloom press is surprised. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Gently reply
I know, right? Back in my day, 3 year olds looked 18.
When I was four, my dad used to send me to the store for a case of Schlitz and a carton of Chesterfields. And give me the keys to the car.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Or it could be lack of lead in our gasoline, or any of a number of other pollutants that have been removed. Or reduced sulfur rain. Or maybe it is the effect of Flintstone vitamins between the ages of 5-10 with long term effects. Every once in a while we see a new report that says 'Substance X causes 20% increase in Disease Y', which nobody had noticed before, or 'Eating more Z reduces chance of Disease D'. It would not be surprising if some substance (or potentially a mix of substances that interact in unknown ways) that were a contributing factor to many diseases. It will take many, many years of statistical studies to identify the relationships. Look how long it has taken for someone to figure out that BPA should not be used to make bottles you drink out of.
In addition to the idea that maybe we need better statistical understanding of environment on the human body, we also should be very careful with what pollutants we are putting into the environment. To pick a hot topic, what is the long term effect of microbeads in health care products, or fracking chemicals? We really, really don't know. This sort of thing should lead to a surplus of caution.
The more people I meet, the better I like my dog.