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.

Comments

Environmental impacts?

[Chrisq]

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.

Re:Environmental impacts?

[Mr0bvious]

will contribute positively in ALL, 100%, of aspects of life.

Citation required.

Re:Environmental impacts?

[Isca]

In addition, the largest drop has been people under 50. People under 50 have never been exposed to above ground nuclear tests. Those stopped in 1963. And for the last decade at least, most urban areas of the country have not even allowed smoking in bars and restaurants, and we've had very effective maintenance medicines for common high blood pressure issues, heart related conditions, type 2 diabetes and others. These conditions being controlled help keep our bodies healthier and most likely allow our own immune systems to fight off more serious conditions.

Re:Environmental impacts?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a theory that I first heard from Richard Dawkings about how to most reliably raise the average age of human population. In short, have children as late as possible (in the 30s and 40s to begin with, increasing with future generations). 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. 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.

Re:Environmental impacts?

[Salgak1]

. . . the fact that above-ground testing ceased, does not mean that remnants of the radiation are still not out there. The overall radiation background is still higher, that's why Low-background Steelis valuable for certain types of test instruments.

Which, in turn, brings up a possible explanation: Could this be the result of radiation hormesis?

Re:Environmental impacts?

[Anonymous Coward]

Vegetarism is on the rise, which also

will contribute positively in ALL, 100%, of aspects of life.

Citation required.

Former vegetarian here, under treatment for acromegaly, iron deficiency, and vitamin D deficiency at the moment, with a higher than normal risk of diabetes and the need to shed some weight.
I agree, a BIG FAT citation required.

Shit...

[zm]

My pension plan is in even worse condition now...

It is cell phone towers and remote control

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

The reduction in diseases coincides with the rise of cordless phones and cell phones. The 900 MHz baby monitors and cordless phones first and then the 5.8 GHz cordless phone spectrum were phased in. Then came the cell phones and the IR remote control became ubiquitous and some remotes started using the 900 MHz and 5.8 GHz band (through the wall remotes for TiVo in another room).

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.

Incorrect.

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Not on my channel they aren't

[jeffasselin]

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.

Re:No smoking and clean water

[Beezlebub33]

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.