# Are cancer rates increasing? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [March 22, 2012, 12:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-cancer-rates-increasing/616490 "2012-03-22T12:41:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![WarmNPrickly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/d78d45/32.png) [@WarmNPrickly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WarmNPrickly)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2012, 12:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-cancer-rates-increasing/616490/1 "2012-03-22T12:41:18Z")
I get mixed answers depending on the source. Herbalist websites insist that it has gone up dramatically, while equally reliable yahoo answers says rates have actually been going down, but we are no longer dying of cholera and things like that so more people are living long enough to get cancer. What are the real statistics on this? ---
**Author:** ![Laggard](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9de053/32.png) [@Laggard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Laggard)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2012, 12:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-cancer-rates-increasing/616490/2 "2012-03-22T12:59:54Z")
> [@WarmNPrickly](#): > > I get mixed answers depending on the source. Herbalist websites insist that it has gone up dramatically, ? Well it’s an herbalist website. 😕 ---
**Author:** ![KarlGauss](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/karlgauss/32/3713_2.png) [@KarlGauss](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KarlGauss)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2012, 1:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-cancer-rates-increasing/616490/3 "2012-03-22T13:15:58Z")
[Here, everything you could ever want to know about cancer rates](http://www.cancer.gov/statistics/finding). And, from there, it seems [overall rates are slightly down or stable at worst](http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/all.html#incidence-mortality). Remember, too, that not only are people living longer and thus allowing cancer to develop when it would not have in earlier generations but, increasing age, itself, is a risk factor for cancer. Moreover, we are much better at detecting early and subtle cancers nowadays than in the past. Unless controlled for, that would tend to make rates seem to be increasing. ---
**Author:** ![Bridget\_Burke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7cd45c/32.png) [@Bridget\_Burke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bridget_Burke)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2012, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-cancer-rates-increasing/616490/4 "2012-03-22T13:29:23Z")
**KarlGauss** –How dare you actually offer a link to real, scientific knowlege! ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2012, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-cancer-rates-increasing/616490/5 "2012-03-22T13:34:19Z")
Also the [CDC report](http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/dcpc/research/articles/arn_7507.htm) ([the full report](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3086878/?tool=pubmed)) > [@](#): > > Rates of death in the United States from all cancers for men and women continued to decline between 2003 and 2007, the newest reporting period available. … The incidence rates (the number of people who get cancer out of every 100,000 people) for all types of cancers combined decreased, on average, a bit less than 1% per year between 2003 and 2007. The exceptional group, kids: slightly higher incidence although dath rates from cancer decreasing as well. > [@](#): > > Childhood cancer incidence rates continued to increase slightly. Death rates in this age group (birth to age 19) continue to decrease. Lots of reliable info out there. ---
**Author:** ![WarmNPrickly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/d78d45/32.png) [@WarmNPrickly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WarmNPrickly)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2012, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-cancer-rates-increasing/616490/6 "2012-03-22T14:37:34Z")
> [@Laggard](#): > > Well it’s an herbalist website. 😕 I did not wish to poison the well. My opinion is likely similar to yours. My question comes from [this website](http://www.alternative-cancer.net/?hop=mtresearch). The claim down the left of the page is, IMO ludicrous. Cancer’s Grim Rise in the USA alone 2010: 1 in 3 \* 1980: 1 in 7 1950: 1 in 12 1900: 1 in 100+ \*\* - Per Nat.Cancer Inst. - - Conservative estimate ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2012, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-cancer-rates-increasing/616490/7 "2012-03-22T16:03:16Z")
Oh the twisted grain of truth, as noted by those Yahoo answers. Average [life expectancy](http://demog.berkeley.edu/~andrew/1918/figure2.html) in 1900 was 46.3 males and 48.3 females. By 1998 it had increased to 73.8 and 79.5 respectively. [Median age of cancer diagnosis](http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2003/results_single/sect_01_table.11_2pgs.pdf) is 67. Yup, an era that had less than half of those born make it to 50 had few make it long enough to get cancer. So those ludicrous figures are, in isolation, not too far off. [Cause of death](http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/statab/lead1900_98.pdf) in 1900 was pneumonia followed by TB with cancer down at number 8, about 4% of all deaths. In 1998 pneumonia was bumped down to number 6, TB not on the top ten, and heart disease is number one with cancers in the number two spot, about 23% of all deaths. ---
**Author:** ![Surreal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/eada6e/32.png) [@Surreal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Surreal)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2012, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-cancer-rates-increasing/616490/8 "2012-03-22T16:32:33Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Oh the twisted grain of truth, as noted by those Yahoo answers. > > Average [life expectancy](http://demog.berkeley.edu/~andrew/1918/figure2.html) in 1900 was 46.3 males and 48.3 females. By 1998 it had increased to 73.8 and 79.5 respectively. > > [Median age of cancer diagnosis](http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2003/results_single/sect_01_table.11_2pgs.pdf) is 67. > > Yup, an era that had less than half of those born make it to 50 had few make it long enough to get cancer. > > So those ludicrous figures are, in isolation, not too far off. [Cause of death](http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/statab/lead1900_98.pdf) in 1900 was pneumonia followed by TB with cancer down at number 8, about 4% of all deaths. In 1998 pneumonia was bumped down to number 6, TB not on the top ten, and heart disease is number one with cancers in the number two spot, about 23% of all deaths. “Average age” is essentially meaningless in this case since the age distributions aren’t Gaussian. Plenty of people were living into their 70s back then but few of them got cancer. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2012, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-cancer-rates-increasing/616490/9 "2012-03-22T17:06:51Z")
You will hear stats like “women’s odds of developing breast cancer are 1 in 9.” Yes, it is if she lives to be 85. At any age below that, odds are much much lower. Or consider prostate cancer. Most types, as diagnosed, the question is whether it’s worth treating. If it’s diagnosed at age 75 and (like many prostate cancers) it’s often so slow-moving the person may still have 20 or 30 years, why bother destroying their remaining quality of life? Odds are they’ll die from something else before that. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2012, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-cancer-rates-increasing/616490/10 "2012-03-22T17:08:35Z")
Not Gaussian != meaningless. However I am having a hard time making meaning of your post. I suspect that of the less than 50% in 1900 who made it past 50 or 60 a large percent made it as long as those who make past 50 or 60 today do. I think that same suspicion _may_ be part of your point. But are you trying to claim that of those 70 (oh say the median cancer diagnosis age of 67) and above in 1900 fewer had cancer than those who are of that age today? If so I humbly request a real cite for such a claim. ---
**Author:** ![Surreal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/eada6e/32.png) [@Surreal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Surreal)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2012, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-cancer-rates-increasing/616490/11 "2012-03-22T17:49:37Z")
Lots of evidence suggests that cancer is largely a modern disease. Here’s an excerpt from Nature Reviews Cancer: [http://www.nature.com/nrc/journal/v10/n10/abs/nrc2914.html](http://www.nature.com/nrc/journal/v10/n10/abs/nrc2914.html) > [@](#): > > In industrialized societies, cancer is second only to cardiovascular disease as a cause of death. The history of this disorder has the potential to improve our understanding of disease prevention, aetiology, pathogenesis and treatment. **A striking rarity of malignancies in ancient physical remains might indicate that cancer was rare in antiquity, and so poses questions about the role of carcinogenic environmental factors in modern societies**. Although **the rarity of cancer in antiquity remains undisputed** , the first published histological diagnosis of cancer in an Egyptian mummy demonstrates that new evidence is still forthcoming. ---
**Author:** ![WarmNPrickly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/d78d45/32.png) [@WarmNPrickly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WarmNPrickly)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2012, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-cancer-rates-increasing/616490/12 "2012-03-22T18:08:06Z")
I don’t think anyone here is disputing that, but I don’t think it says what you think it says. We know that cancer was not diagnosed as often a long time ago. But is that because people were dying of other things first? Is it because cancer wasn’t even diagnosed when it was the cause of death? Given that many carcinogens were present in ancient times as was ionizing radiation, I think the claim that cancer is exclusively a modern disease is not very intelligent. ---
**Author:** ![Surreal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/eada6e/32.png) [@Surreal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Surreal)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2012, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-cancer-rates-increasing/616490/13 "2012-03-22T18:16:30Z")
> [@WarmNPrickly](#): > > I think the claim that cancer is exclusively a modern disease is not very intelligent. Right back atcha. ---
**Author:** ![Surreal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/eada6e/32.png) [@Surreal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Surreal)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2012, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-cancer-rates-increasing/616490/14 "2012-03-22T18:21:03Z")
> **[Hunter-Gatherers--Examples of Healthy Omnivores](https://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-8b.shtml)** > > Hunter-gatherers following traditional lifestyles are remarkably healthy, with little chronic disease. After adopting Western diets, health decreases. > [@](#): > > Cancer. As Eaton et al. [1994, p. 361] note: > > Medical anthropologists have found little cancer in their studies of technologically primitive people, and **paleopathologists believe that the prevalence of malignancy was low in the past, even when differences in population age structure are taken into account (Rowling, 1961; Hildes and Schaefer, 1984; Micozzi, 1991).** > > Eaton et al. [1994] also analyzed the factors involved in women’s reproductive cancers and developed a model that indicates that up to the age of 60, **the risk of breast cancer in Western women is 100 times the risk level for preagricultural (e.g., hunter-gatherer) women.** > > Cancer in Africa. The famous medical missionary, Dr. Albert Schweitzer, writing in Berglas [1957], reports the following [Berglas 1957, preface]: > > \*\*On my arrival in Gabon, in 1913, I was astonished to encounter no cases of cancer. I saw none among the natives two hundred miles from the coast.\*\*I can not, of course, say positively there was no cancer at all, but, like other frontier doctors, I can only say that if any cases existed they must have been quite rare. > Williams [1908] reports that cancer is extremely rare among Australian aborigines and in the aboriginal peoples of Africa and also North America. (Note the date of the citation: 1908, a time when there were far more hunter-gatherers than there are today.) > > Cancer among the Inuit. **Stefansson [1960] describes the search of George B. Leavitt, a physician on a whaling ship, who searched for cancer among the Inuit of Canada and Alaska. It took him 49 years, from 1884 to the first confirmed case in 1933, to find cancer.** (Stefansson [1960] describes a possible but unconfirmed case of cancer in 1900, and Eaton et al. [1988] describe cancer in a 500-year-old Inuit mummy.) > Schaefer [1981] reports that **breast cancer was virtually unknown among the Inuit in earlier times, but was one of the most common forms of malignancy by 1976**. ---
**Author:** ![Surreal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/eada6e/32.png) [@Surreal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Surreal)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2012, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-cancer-rates-increasing/616490/15 "2012-03-22T18:27:31Z")
> [@WarmNPrickly](#): > > I think the claim that cancer is exclusively a modern disease is not very intelligent. Of course I never stated cancer is “exclusively” a modern disease. Try to read for comprehension next time. ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2012, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-cancer-rates-increasing/616490/16 "2012-03-22T18:43:07Z")
I don’t think what surreal is saying I’d surprising. Risk factors for breast cancer include alcohol consumption, obesity, having children late or not at all, low levels of physical activity…that doesn’t sound like the profile of women in a hunter gatherer society. However, I don’t think it implies what some people use it to imply…that it’s chemicals in our food, for instance. ---
**Author:** ![Surreal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/eada6e/32.png) [@Surreal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Surreal)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2012, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-cancer-rates-increasing/616490/17 "2012-03-22T19:11:48Z")
More here: [http://nourishedmagazine.com.au/blog/articles/cancer-disease-of-civilisation](http://nourishedmagazine.com.au/blog/articles/cancer-disease-of-civilisation) > [@](#): > > Dr. Samuel King Hutton was a board member in the management from London of the Moravian Mission to Labrador during the first half of the twentieth century. Writing of the Labrador Eskimos in **1925** , he says: > > _“Some diseases common in Europe have not come under my notice during a prolonged and careful survey of the health of the Eskimos. O **f these diseases the most striking is cancer. I have not seen or heard of a case of malignant new growth in an Eskimo.** In this connection it may be noted that cookery holds a very secondary place in the preparation of food – most of the food is eaten raw, and the diet is a flesh one; also that the diet is rich in vitamins”_. > [@](#): > > In **1915** , Dr. Frederick L. Hoffman wrote an 826page volume, The Mortality from Cancer Throughout the World6 Under ‘Cancer among Primitive Races’ Hoffman reports that: > > _“The rarity of cancer among native races suggests that the disease is primarily induced by the conditions and methods of living which typify our modern civilization . . . **cancer is exceptionally rare among the primitive peoples**. . .’”_ ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2012, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-cancer-rates-increasing/616490/18 "2012-03-22T19:38:07Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Not Gaussian != meaningless. > > However I am having a hard time making meaning of your post. > > I suspect that of the less than 50% in 1900 who made it past 50 or 60 a large percent made it as long as those who make past 50 or 60 today do. I think that same suspicion _may_ be part of your point. But are you trying to claim that of those 70 (oh say the median cancer diagnosis age of 67) and above in 1900 fewer had cancer than those who are of that age today? > > If so I humbly request a real cite for such a claim. Infant mortality was higher back then; look at where the arithmetic mean lies if you have two peaks in your distribution, one near the head and one near the tail. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2012, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-cancer-rates-increasing/616490/19 "2012-03-22T21:06:23Z")
I suspect that it is indeed true that cancer was rare in Paleolithic times and perhaps even in many if not most ancient cultures (and many “native” cultures); those were however not the time priods being discussed. The claim was being made comparing 1900 America to more recent years. 1900 was a period after the industrial revolution and before any environmental controls, with huge amount of indoor and occupational soot and other exposures to what we now know are major carcinogens. Feel free to look up in present times the rates of cancers among those who cook over charcoal fires in their homes. If anything the last cites provided document that cancer was not such a rarity in the West in that time period if one lived long enough to get it. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2012, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-cancer-rates-increasing/616490/20 "2012-03-22T23:24:14Z")
> [@Derleth](#): > > Infant mortality was higher back then; look at where the arithmetic mean lies if you have two peaks in your distribution, one near the head and one near the tail. Yes. Which does not change the fact that people were more often dying before they were old enough to get cancer, often infancy of pneumonia, influenza, diarrhea, etc. Again, the fact that the distribution was not Gaussian does not change that fact. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-cancer-rates-increasing/616490.md?page=2)