225
submitted 4 months ago by boem@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] AsherahTheEnd@lemmy.world 62 points 4 months ago

I hate cars as much as the next sane person. That being said... Is there anything that doesn't potentially cause cancer anymore? It makes it hard to take seriously, because if I did then I'd be paranoid about everything and my anxiety would be fucking overwhelming. Seems every day we find something seemingly harmless can cause cancer and it feels almost surreal.

[-] SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world 47 points 4 months ago

It puts it in the same category as aspartame and mobile phones. That's below the category with sunlight in it.

[-] TallonMetroid@lemmy.world 36 points 4 months ago

That's because pretty much everything does cause cancer eventually. That's just a consequence of how cellular division works. The trick is knowing how much exposure to any given thing is needed to cause cancer, and whether you're likely to reach that threshold before you die of anything else.

[-] orclev@lemmy.world 18 points 4 months ago

Yeah, living causes cancer. The real question is, how much does something increase your risk of developing cancer. If it's less than the increase from walking around outside for a few hours on a bright day you can pretty safely ignore that. As long as you're not eating the interior of your car I doubt this poses a significant risk.

[-] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 4 months ago

The article states its a 400% increase......

[-] orclev@lemmy.world 12 points 4 months ago

Well it says people with a high blood concentration of these chemicals have a 4x increase vs. those with a low concentration. That sounds bad but it might not be. If your odds of developing cancer in the low concentration group are 1 in a million, then your odds in the high concentration group are only 1 in 250,000 which isn't exactly great but isn't terrible either. On the other hand if your odds in the low group are 1 in 10,000, then in the high group it's now 1 in 2,500 which is pretty bad.

All that is also ignoring that the article never directly says cars are responsible, only that the chemicals are present in them, and that people with a high blood concentration of those chemicals have a higher risk. Time is also never discussed. Does it take 80 years of near constant exposure to reach "high blood concentrations", or are we talking like 5 years? The article is just too nebulous and vague. It shows some correlations, but seems to fall short of both causal links and quantifying the actual risks.

[-] laurelraven@lemmy.blahaj.zone 26 points 4 months ago

Anxiety is known to the State of California to cause cancer

That's one of those facts that is made worse by knowing it.

this post was submitted on 08 May 2024
225 points (97.1% liked)

Technology

58123 readers
4039 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS