Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


'tidal Wave Of Cancer' Will Sweep The Globe In Next 20 Years, Warn Who Scientists

Recommended Posts


Immediate action is required to combat a ‘tidal wave of cancer’ that will sweep the globe in the next 20 years, scientists at the World Health Organisation have warned.

The number of new cancer cases worldwide in a single year will rise by 70 per cent from 14.1 million in 2012 to 24 million in 2035, the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) said in their latest World Cancer Report.

The future global burden of cancer will increasingly shift to poorer countries, WHO said, but it added that half of all world cancers are now preventable with existing medical knowledge and expertise.

Annual deaths from cancer will almost double in the same time period from 8.2 million to 14.6 million.

One of the report's editors, Dr Bernard Stewart from the University of New South Wales in Australia, said that modifications to human behaviour, such as reducing alcohol consumption, would play a “crucial role in combating the tidal wave of cancer which we see coming across the world”.

"In relation to alcohol, for example, we're all aware of the acute effects, whether it's car accidents or assaults,” he said. “But there's a burden of disease that's not talked about because it's simply not recognised, specifically involving cancer.

Clearly they should just ban alcohol. :ph34r:

How about putting more tax on it?

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Watched the Michael Moseley thing 'pills, puss and poison' -said about elimination of smallpox - which killed 300m people in the 20th century.

There'll always be something to die of.

Just make it a good death.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

But is it an above (cancer) inflation rise?

id like to know how they work it all out...Clients for the super accurate precision engineered famous Bloo Loo trend extender.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly they should just ban alcohol.

Doing so may well have resulted in significant public health benefits. There is evidence for liver cirrhosis cases having fallen significantly during the 1920s in the US, although the other health benefits that would be delivered by reduced alcohol consumption are very difficult to predict, beacuse, largely for political reasons, no attempt was made to understand them from a public health standpoint.

When Prohibition ended, and experiments in economic regulation—including regulation of alcohol—under the National Recovery Administration were declared unconstitutional, the federal government banished public health concerns from its alcohol policy, which thereafter revolved around economic considerations.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

A "tidal wave of apathy" has swept over me. Older people may have more heath issues, due to being, well a bit older!

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   206 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?

      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.