
The Daily Mail’s List of Things That Give You Cancer: From a to Z - mr_toad
https://www.anorak.co.uk/288298/tabloids/the-daily-mails-list-of-things-that-give-you-cancer-from-a-to-z.html
======
snthd
[https://kill-or-cure.herokuapp.com](https://kill-or-cure.herokuapp.com)

~~~
bonoboTP
A kind of random thought: why could that be that most things that prevent
disease are of the sort that requires discipline and effort (exercise, bland-
tasting food), while things that we naturally like (lots of fat, sugar, salt,
alcohol, cigarettes and sitting on the couch) cause health problems? I mean,
I'm not interested in some deep metaphysical moral lesson of how one must work
for things that are desirable. I mean how does such a situation come about
evolutionarily? It seems like we're attracted to things that harm us and that
needs serious explanation.

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).

~~~
schwartzworld
Too much of anything is unhealthy. Too much exercise can hurt or kill you, but
most people don't exercise that much because it stops feeling good.

It's not that healthy behaviors can't be pleasurable, but they are rarely
pleasurable in the way that kills you.

~~~
tidenly
It's also worth noting that, while things like overexercising will quickly set
off alarm bells to us in various ways that stop it from feeling good, items
that were scarce or not about in abundance long ago like sugar, fats and
tabbaco never got the evolutionary "that's enough now" blocker put in on them
as overconsumption of those wasn't really a thing.

------
azinman2
I don’t understand what their point is. The list is quite disingenuous and
intellectually lazy. For example, “Dildos give you cancer” according to
[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2611376/These-
toys...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2611376/These-toys-arent-
sharing-How-sex-aids-spread-cancer-causing-HPV-virus-partners.html)

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.

~~~
undecisive
Not sure whether you're talking about the Daily Mail or the Anorak website?
Certainly everything you say is absolutely true about the Daily Mail, the
sensationalist misattribution appeals to their fanbase.

------
RcouF1uZ4gsC
Is this longer or shorter than the California Prop 65 list?

~~~
haser_au
Shorter.

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](https://oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65/proposition-65-list)

------
undecisive
For those unfamiliar, the Daily Mail (as a brit) is notorious for being
sensationalist and playing on the most base fears of the intellectually
ungifted.

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.

------
Havoc
At least some of those seem credible to me?

Alcohol and sausages (processed red meat) for example are on the WHO list if
memory serves

------
magerleagues
There is an unclosed </a> tag that breaks all the links past NUTELLA. Also...
broccoli??

~~~
gerdesj
Web pages can catch cancer and you've just found a sufferer. It may be
coincidence that "obesity" is the first broken entry. I clicked on the obesity
entry and ... "Nutella gives you cancer. ..." Yes - you are right it is
broken, technically as well as contentwise.

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.

------
treebornfrog
There should be more sites like this that index the nonsense these mainstream
publications report.

~~~
tptacek
Did you just refer to The Daily Mail as a "mainstream publication"?

~~~
big_chungus
Mainstream does not imply respectable. Many "tabloid-esque" publications (e.g.
buzz feed) are not reputable and publish low-quality, poorly-sourced,
salacious stories. Sometimes, they publish something good; it's the broken
clock being right.

------
yarrel
The ingtersection of this and their list of things that cure it is not the
empty set.

------
qrbLPHiKpiux
On a long enough timeline the survival for everyone drops to zero.

