The Daily Mail’s List of Things That Give You Cancer: From a to Z
anorak.co.uk
anorak.co.uk
One answer could be that we're just far removed from the environment that our desires were calbirated for, but it seems strange that it's just so consistent.
I don't remember reading about anything preventing cancer that people just naturally like to do/eat. Maybe it's also publication bias in the news and the "postman biting the dog" being more newsworthy than the "dog biting the postman" (Hungarian saying, not sure if it exists in English).
It's not that healthy behaviors can't be pleasurable, but they are rarely pleasurable in the way that kills you.
Also evolution can make some very crude selections - https://www.quora.com/Why-do-women-have-periods-What-is-the-...
And the things we don't like and are also bad, no one does them.
So neither category gets any notice. It's only in the other situations that you need to take extra notice.
But actually it’s not dildos, it’s HPV, and it can be transmitted by sharing dildos. But it can also be transmitted with sexual intercourse, so they should list it under sex. And while we’re continuing to go further away from the actual cause, we might as well say human interaction or just plain being a human.
This kind of work makes people say “everything gives you cancer, so therefore I won’t care about any one thing,” which ignores the fact that you can absolutely dramatically change your risk profile one way or another based upon your actions... as well as what’s legal to be sold. We shouldn’t look at this as an excuse for asbestos to be legal again, for example.
It's just saying that the sun is brighter in the afternoon than in the morning, so sun-bathing in the afternoon increases skin cancer risk more than in the morning.
Then I closed the tab.
California Prop 65 List [1]: 614 (excludes delisted entries, 'type of toxicity' contains "cancer")
Daily Mail: 169
[1] September 2019 version. https://oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65/proposition-65-list
You know what? I'll say it plainly: It's an idiot's paper. It's clickbait in physical form. It is not on a critical thinker's go-to list of newspapers.
It is written by probably intelligent (albeit morally compromised) people to appeal to the racists and the reactionaries. It has an unashamedly strong conservative bias. One week it will tell people that red wine causes cancer, and the next week it will tell people that red wine cures cancer. It will tell you that Conservatives are being compassionate in slashing funds for the disabled, while Labour is communist for wanting to raise even a penny in taxes.
It's because of its readership that we should all be wary of the damage that the Daily Mail can do. The only time you'll see language that might challenge a 5-year-old is on one of these cancer scares, mostly so that "the man down the pub" will switch off and avoid further research.
Alcohol and sausages (processed red meat) for example are on the WHO list if memory serves
The Roast potatoes link (you say tommmmmmmmmatoe, I say potarrrrto or something) works and so do some of the others.
Broccoli can be pretty dangerous if not handled correctly.
And some things may simultaneously increase and decrease your risk of cancer at the same time. Coffee and sunlight probably fall into that category.
That said, it's all about quantifying the change in risk and deciding if that's worth it or not. (Easier said than done.)
I've also seen predictions that global warming would cause both more, and fewer, hurricanes.
We need one of those sites for global warming, because people blame absolutely everything on global warming (with zero scientific study). It's always "here's something that is different, yup, must be global warming".
(This isn't a dig on science, actual scientists would never do that - they are far more careful on blaming specific things.)