I think Cecil is misinterpreting life expectancy at birth. The fact that the average as of death was 25 or 30 does not mean that everyone lived a healthy life until they all dropped dead on their 25th or 30th birthday. Most of the people who die today, but much more so in the past, were infants and children. People who survived infancy and childhood lived almost as long as we do, as you can verify by looking the age specific death rates in the past and present.
The age adults died had to be longer than the life expectancy at birth in order for them to be able to take care of all the children they had.
From what I’ve been able to find, it seems like the claim that infant mortality accounts for an overwhelming percent of the difference between modern and ancient life expectancy, at least with regards to ancient Egypt, is wrong. I haven’t found anything authoritative to cite, but here’s a brief article from Livescience. The relevant paragraph:
So infant mortality is a factor but you still have a bunch of people dying as very young adults. Also, there are many articles that talk about the health of individuals buried in a cemetery at Amarna. I haven’t found one that gives the distribution of the estimated ages of the bodies. But archaeologists are apparently able to see that even the young often had scurvy, rickets, and general malnutrition. I haven’t found anything that indicates that you could expect to live into your 70’s if you made it past infancy in ancient Egypt.
As noted by Mithras, even if you survived to age 21 in olden times (for example, the 17th century), your odds of living to a ripe old age weren’t so hot.
A lot of skin cancer arises in people in their 70s-90s, many of whom in earlier days would have succumbed to infections, trauma and chronic illnesses before developing skin malignancies.
People, you’re overlooking the most important thing about today’s column.
Who’s the illustrator? Because it sure doesn’t look like Slug’s work!
This is true, but it might not have been so much more than that…
It’s true that the average life expectancy was only 25 to 30 with most of the victims dying of childhood diseases. Once you got past 12 years of age, your chances of living to a ripe old age increased significantly. However, even after childhood, most males still lived rather shortened lives due to violence. (Christopher Marlow never made it to his 30th birthday because he was allegedly stabbed over a bar bill. And, this was during the Age of Reason!).
Even if you managed to outwit childhood scourges and avoid violent people who don’t like your face, you still managed to live only to a ripe old age of maybe 50 or 60, still a bit too young to die from skin cancer.
Even if cancer rates were higher today for each age bracket, it would still be a rare disease since the population was so skewed to such a young age.
You’re right, it looks different, but it’s still signed Slug Signorino. Note the chicken scratches at the bottom of the illustration.
What, so the ozone layer depletion in the last half century or so had/has nothing to do with it? Just a scare tactic? those bastards
Big no. In some times and places, violence was a pretty significant drain on life expectancy, but constant warfare is more a feature of tribal societies; civilized ones tend to have a war every so often, and most such societies manage to get by without people stabbing each other on a daily basis. Murder, as such, has probably never in the history of the world significantly changed demographics of any society.
Disease, and specifically pneumonia, is a more likely killer and can easily carry people aged 50-70. Today we have treatments, but in societies with enough disease transmission vectors that people didn’t become immune (which includes pretty much anyplace that trades with neighboring villages let alone cities) it’s a serious threat, and can attack people year after year. Add in seasonally poor nutrition and lack of good healthcare for other injuries that might weaken the body and that’s probably what kills “naturally”.
It has had an effect on those areas under the southern ozone hole, but there isn’t a huge population living in those areas.
It looks like a Slug to me!
See Steve Pinker’s work:
So much for the civilized world
It appears Mr Adams (or his flunkies) were too busy to do much research on this topic.
For one thing, chronic sun exposure is protective (if anything) for melanoma. It’s not a risk factor for it.
The association between UV exposure and melanoma is quite interesting, but there is agreement in the literature that, while intermittent sun exposure might increase a risk of melanoma, chronic sun exposure helps prevent it (or, at least, doesn’t change your risk at all).
From the first cite:
“Analytic epidemiologic studies have shown only modest risks related to sun exposure in melanoma development; three systematic reviews have demonstrated similar estimates for the role of intermittent sun exposure (i.e., odds ratios [ORs] of 1.6 to 1.7). Chronic sun exposure, as observed in those occupationally exposed to sunlight, is either protective or without increased risk for the development of melanoma.”
From the second cite:
“Chronic exposure, indicated by days of outdoor activity during adolescence and by occupation in recent adult life, was associated with significantly reduced risk.”
This leads the cynical among us to realize it must be overprotective mothers and sunscreen lotion that is giving you melanoma. There is certainly no evidence that chronic exposure to UV does. Maybe rich white folk get intermittent exposure because they can afford the beach vacations, and that’s why we have this perceived notion that UV causes melanoma when it’s really just a risk of white skin and UV itself is actually protective. 
So…get your kid outside, throw away his umbrella, and keep him outside.
(Disclaimer: I have no idea if this is good advice. But it is as supported clinically as the advice to avoid melanoma by avoid the sun.)
And one more cite. Just to pile on.
I agree with your assessment. Get out in the sun and stay there if you can. I was shocked in Nepal to see mothers putting mustard oil all over their children and sticking them out in the sun for an hour. I thought, “that’s torture”; “the baby will die of dehydration.” Never happened. All that happened was the babies got nice and brown and soaked up lots of vitamin D while contently sleeping away.
I think also that people dieing due to accidents were more common. I look at old farm equipment and see the open belts and moving gears and see many chances for accidents. Cars seem to also be more dangerous.
Plus if someone did get hurt, I can see dieing from an infection. So lets say you spend your day chopping wood. Well eventually the axe will slip and you put a nasty gash in your leg. That wound can easily get bad and lead to blood poisoning or death if not treated.
And then their are fires. Those old wooden houses were tinderboxes and they used candles and lanterns for light and burned wood or coal for heat. I know a family just a few years ago up in South Dakota, living in an old farmhouse, a fire killed 4 kids.
Chronic expose to sun is a risk factor for non-melanoma skin cancers. Of course, those don’t kill people in modern western countries, and they tend to develop late in life, so they probably didn’t kill a lot of people before modern medicine, either.
Yeah, melanoma is mostly associated with sun burn, not from living in the sun.
For shame, Cecil. You are wrong on two counts. First, while you are correct that UV radiation is important in the initiation of developing cancerous cells, it is not the primary cause of progression to tumors. Second, there is definitely something we can do to prevent melanoma tumors. The incidence of melanoma (and almost all cancers) has been increasing dramatically, but it’s not primarily because of carcinogens. It has much more to do with the foods we eat and lack of exercise. In the case of melanoma we can look at epidemiologic studies to support this. For example, China has 40 times less melanoma than the U.S. This is not because of a lack of sun exposure and certainly not due to less pollution. The major difference between China and the U.S. is our diet. Research has shown clearly that intake of animal proteins and processed sugars and foods are closely associated with developing cancers of many types, including melanoma. While carcinogens clearly influence the development of cancer cells, they are much less likely to survive and replicate if one partakes of a plant based, whole grain diet. Interestingly, Chinese immigrants to the U.S. develop the same disease patterns as other Americans within 3 generations so genetics is not as important as we think. Another thing to note: most of the well preserved skeletons archeologists study are of very wealthy individuals whose tombs and remains were treated very respectfully. They are the ones who often show evidence of tumors. Guess what kind of diet they often ate. One rich with animal proteins which only they could afford. Food for thought, Cecil.
My maternal aunt and grandmother died as a result of a fire - my aunt had finished filling a kerosene lamp and hadn’t noticed that some had dribbled onto the oilcloth table covering, she lit the lamp and a fire resulted. My aunt died in the fire, and my grandmother shortly after from injuries [this was back in the depression, and it would have been possible to happen last week - my Mom’s Amish that runspringa’d]
First of all, cancer incidence overall in the U.S. has been dropping, not “increasing dramatically”.
Diet (and notably, obesity) plays a role in increasing susceptibility to some cancers. And melanoma is significantly more common in the U.S. compared to China. But it has not been shown that diet protects the Chinese from melanoma or that the Chinese are protected from cancer in general by what they eat.
*"Cancers of the lung, breast, and gastrointestinal region, including those of the stomach, liver, esophagus, and colorectum, are more commonly seen in China than in the USA. *
If the Chinese diet was so wonderful, you’d expect them to have much lower rates of stomach cancer, for instance. Instead, incidence is markedly higher.
Melanoma incidence is actually increasing in China, and there’s a role for genetics. I doubt it’s all because they’re eating out at McDonald’s more.
The increase in skin cancer is directly connected to the increased use of sunscreen.
While sunscreen does protect people in the short-term, it gives them a false sense of security. Once the protection runs out, the ingredients of sunscreen actually increase the odds of cancer.
“The notion that sunscreen can increase damage to skin caused by UV rays is startling, says a spokeswoman for the Skin Cancer Foundation.”
Look at this chart:
http://arizonaadvancedmedicine.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/melanoma3.gif