Modern life is killing our children: Cancer rate in young people up 40 per cent in 16 years

The article is about an alarming increased rate of Cancer in the UKs young people. When reading the story I was reminded of something published on Drudge (?) last month about a group of US citizens who were being tested for something but it was found that over 90% also had glyphosate in their urine (think round up made by Monsanto). The article does go into potential reasons for the increased cancer rate and just about blames everything to include hair dryers and the dreaded barbecue... The article is from the UK Telegraph so maybe one of our UK members can let the rest of us know if it is just tabloid story or is factual ?

As far as the Glyposate just do a web search for "Glyphosate found in Urine" and you will come up many articles saying; " Glyphosate, the most used herbicide in the world, has been found in the urine of 93 percent of the American public".... Hopefully most know by now that Glyphosate is supposedly carcinogenic. I wonder if the chemical is used as widely in the UK as it is in the states on their food crops ?

Sarah Knapton, Science Editor

3 September 2016 • 9:30pm

Modern life is killing children with the number of youngsters diagnosed with cancer rising 40 per cent in the past 16 years because of air pollution, pesticides, poor diets and radiation, scientists have warned.

New analysis of government statistics by researchers at the charity Children with Cancer UK found that there are now 1,300 more cancer cases a year compared with 1998, the first time all data sets were published.

The rise is most apparent in teenagers and young adults aged between 15 and 24, where the incident rate has risen from around 10 cases in 100,000 to nearly 16.

www.telegraph.co.uk...

a reply to: 727Sky

I think there could be any number of reasons for the jump in figures, including poor diet and lack of exercise etc.

What was alarming for me was one day I walk into a donut shop and there are pictures of all these bald little kids. Then I realized that it was an ad to try and get people to donate to a cancer hospital of foundation. I never seen so many little kids getting cancer. I said to myself this could not have always been the case, and your article supports that.

Some additional reasons I believe can cause this are chemicals put into personal hygiene products and soaps as well as artificial fragrances.

a reply to: 727Sky

Detection rates have gone up in the past 16 years. Thats all there is to it.

originally posted by: Nexttimemaybe
a reply to: 727Sky

Detection rates have gone up in the past 16 years. Thats all there is to it.

No.. There is more poison in foods these days plus mobile phones, wifi etc..

Detection rates is irrelevant because if someone has cancer they have cancer.. There is clearly a rise in deaths related to cancer.
And to be honest most people I know that have died in recent years have all been cancer related..

So life expectancy goes up but at the same time cancer in young people goes up. Does that mean in 20 years time if the cancer rate continues to increase life expectancy goes down? I guess we'll find out in 20 or so year's.

originally posted by: justneo
So life expectancy goes up but at the same time cancer in young people goes up. Does that mean in 20 years time if the cancer rate continues to increase life expectancy goes down? I guess we'll find out in 20 or so year's.

Maybe they have changed the way they figure life expectancy (like they figure unemployment in the states)... If you and others live to a ripe old age then that is considered the average life expectancy. But if you die at a young age you don't count...just like the 93 to 98 million unemployed in the states that don't count for employment figures... There was a time when you could kinda believe what was published and the integrity of the news sources... Maybe even then they were mostly B.S. but at least they covered their shenanigans better IMO.

a reply to: 727Sky


The logic for this argument is fairly simple. The human body is not designed to counter inorganic compounds, it has enough to do with the natural environment. "Better living through chemistry" is, in the long run, a fallacious statement.

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum
a reply to: 727Sky

I think there could be any number of reasons for the jump in figures, including poor diet and lack of exercise etc.

Cancer is a result of mutations of DNA during cell division, not 'lack of exercise'.

You could be MR. Olympus, but living in the nuclear exclusion zone or drinking frack waste water will increase your odds of developing tumors just the same.

More and more, diet (as in what we ingest) is becoming more problematic. The newer studies of lab rats and glycosphate (Round Up) are more disturbing.

To see what the longer term effects of too much agent orange in ones diet, see Vietnam birth defects and their relation to the use of agent orange as jungle defoliant during the Vietnam War.

Link to RT story about Round Up (glycosphate) used in GMO grain.

Birth defects from "Agent Orange" in Vietnam

a reply to: 727Sky

That could be very well true, on the other hand I can't help but think that over the past let's say 50 or so years We as humans through various technologies have added to the years we get to live but in the last 10-20 years through other various technologies like GMOs, electronics etc have some what reversed those added years we have gained.

Just like to much of anything will eventually kill you.

a reply to: 727Sky

Google glyphosate breast milk.

articles.mercola.com...

The crap is in "everything".

If the government says it's safe and approves it, it must be OK, right? Personally I believe most of our modern problems are related to the government allowing it to happen for a nice piece of the money action. If the government has it's finger in the pie, you can be pretty sure it's made of poison.

Sweat every day. It's the alternative pathway for removing all the damned petrochemicals. I'm either sweating at the day job, working out, or at least running a very hot bath every day to sweat out and prevent bioaccumulation.

Is no only cancer, but also diseases that once used to be limited to the elderly in the adult population, like high blood pressure and diabetes.

Diseases like diabetes used to be rare in children unless they were born with insulin deficiency.

Now type 2 diabetes is becoming an epidemic.

Is all linked to the diet and lifestyle of modern humans today.

originally posted by: Nexttimemaybe
a reply to: 727Sky

Detection rates have gone up in the past 16 years. Thats all there is to it.

Maybe that was sarcasm, otherwise, that's a ridiculous statement. Were we still blaming demons for cancer 16 years ago?

A 40% increase is bad also, but sounds worse than it is. I don't know the rate of cancer in kids, but if it's 0.5%, that would mean the rate has gone up to 0.7%.

If I had to guess a single factor, my guess would be less sunlight, more sunblock, though it's probably safe to say diet, herbicides, pesticides, more engineered hardwood flooring off-gassing into closed-window environments and more are all contributing factors.

Vietnam, Agent Orange and Monsanto - the gift that keeps on giving.

Now if only the 'standard of care' government sanctioned treatment wasn't also just as toxic, and possible alternative and benign treatments weren't banned and ridiculed. Because maybe, just maybe, we could have learned by now that a synergistic combination of nutrition and supplements could whack away at metabolically flawed cancer cells whilst strengthening normal cells, without doing any harm to the body.

It would also be nice if medical examiners would cite the real cause of death on all those certificates - death by chemo poisoning, death by radiation poisoning, death by 'whoops we were trying to kill the cancer but we killed the patient'.

Or maybe we should change in which column we put those death rates - if someone is poisoned from birth by their father or grandfather's exposure to Agent Orange, is that a war related death? After all, our culture hardly cares about those; just another cost of doing business the flag-waving way.

a reply to: 727Sky

The article is from the UK Telegraph so maybe one of our UK members can let the rest of us know if it is just tabloid story or is factual ?

its the telegraph, so its wrong.
or the torygraph as its called here.

Sad what we do to earth and life on it

originally posted by: Nexttimemaybe
a reply to: 727Sky

Detection rates have gone up in the past 16 years. Thats all there is to it.

So what're you saying, that doctors weren't as capable of detecting cancer in 1998? Seriously, get real.

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum
a reply to: 727Sky

I think there could be any number of reasons for the jump in figures, including poor diet and lack of exercise etc.

Cancer is a result of mutations of DNA during cell division, not 'lack of exercise'.

There's plenty of evidence that suggests exercise can protect you from cancer, the below link goes into a bit of detail.

Obviously, there are never any guarantees but diet and exercise are good places to start. The main problem is, too many people don't know what a healthy diet is.

articles.mercola.com...