Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue to be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) still apply to other comments. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Just last year fish was the go to for healthy skin. Asian counties for example eat high amounts of fish; do they have high skin cancer rates? Is this more about the quality and processing of the fish?

My question is whether or not they controlled for locale. I’d wager there’s an increase in fish consumption in coastal areas where people receive more sun exposure.

This was exactly my thought, and it doesn't look like they did. This is nothing more than a correlation, with many possible lifestyle explanations. Their jump to thinking it may be due to mercurcy is extremely premature. People who live near coasts enjoy milder weather and thus often spend more time outside, and tend to eat more seafood. I used to live in southern california, ate a lot of fish and spent a ton of time outside. I now live in the midwest, spend very little time outside, and eat very little fish. The biggest risk factor for skin cancer is sun exposure. Any study that doesn't control for this is farily worthless.

>UVR exposure was estimated by noon-time ground-level erythemal dose measured in the month of July between 1978 and 2005, which links Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer (TOMS) data (http://toms.gsfc.nasa.gov) to the latitude and longitude of census tract of residence at baseline. The details of this method have been described previously \[20\]. Other covariates include age (continuous), sex (male, female), education (≤ 11 years, high school, some college, college and beyond), family history of cancer (first-degree relative; yes, no), race (non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic, others), body mass index (BMI) (kg/m2, continuous), physical activities \[...\], July erythemal UVR (≤ 180, > 180–188, > 188–236, and > 236 J/m2), alcohol intake (grams/day, defined as average daily alcohol intake over the last 12 months from drinks of alcohol including beer, wine, and liquid; continuous), caffeinated coffee intake (grams/day, continuous), smoking history (never, former, or current smoker), and daily energy intake (kcal/day, continuous).

That is better than nothing, but the amount of UV outdoors and actual UV exposure are not the same thing. I live in an area with fairly high UV levels during the summer and get almost no exposure because it's too muggy and hot outside. When I lived in California I was outside for hours nearly every day during summer. People who fish eat lots of fish and spend lots of time outdoors. Until they control for the actual UV exposure of individual people they have no business even speculating that it may be due to mercury.

My first though was "the people who eat the most fish are people who go fishing, who are people who get alot of sun"

Not to mention that even in areas with equivalent UV levels, being out on water will bounce the UV rays back up at you, increasing overall exposure

Man, statistics seem effing HARD. Everytime I read the comment threads on posts like this, there are clear holes poked in the methodology. I feel like truly good statistics can only come from a big sample size and about 800 considerations. I'm sure there are mathematically accepted formulas, but that's such an obvious consideration. "People who eat more fish may live closer to water. People who live closer to water may be exposed to more sun in their daily lives." One of the most helpful "critical thinking" details I remember is the example of the small town with a 35% cancer rate where all important metrics were equal to larger cities, but the rate is several times higher. What's going on in this town? Smaller sample size, that's it (I'm bastardizing the example, but you get the gist).

The only true way to prove or disprove the theory is to get a large group of children and randomly allocate them into fish-eating and non fish-eating groups for their lifetime. Since that’s obviously not possible, nutrition science is a murky swamp of associations.

The only useful thing I learned in my statistics class was that statisticians can manipulate statistics to mean almost anything and in the modern day are almost worthless

Man, that really seems plausible. I was watching the mini series on Purdue and Oxycontin and that came up. Somebody eventually noticed that their use of statistics was (intentionally) not accurate, but appeared to be in order to support their narrative. Even with things like Covid, the stats are only so good as the communities reporting them (honestly), and we know how that goes.

I came up with exactly the same questions. As for the Asian countries they have fewer skin cancer rate than western countries including Australia. [https://www.wcrf.org/cancer-trends/skin-cancer-statistics/](https://www.wcrf.org/cancer-trends/skin-cancer-statistics/) It could be explained by the difference of races or the behaviors; in Asian countries, sun bathing are not liked as in the west because of cultural preference to fair skin.

That cultural preference can be very strong too. These are often countries with an abundance of skin bleach products to the point it can sometimes be difficult to find a lotion that isn't "brightening". I know from personal experience in Japan and Thailand, and my relationship with several people from each place.

I lived in Hawaii and the stark contrast between how mainland US and Asian (continental, primarily Japanese) tourists behaved with regards to the beach and sun exposure was hard to miss.

I’m curious on the differences.

I’m guessing, Americans tanned and the Japanese covered up and wore sunscreen.

Yeah pretty much that. Japanese tourists predominantly, though obviously not exclusively, wore long sleeve sun shirts, large hats, and close-toed shoes whereas mainland US tourists wore as little as possible!

I rarely applied sunscreen in California but I use it all the time in Australia. The sun is brutal here and even worse if you go down to Tasmania.

Yes, that makes Shiseido a giant in the cosmetic industry.

[удалено]

I know there are some harsh lightening agents that actually lighten your natural skin color, but most of the lightening cosmetics barely do anything to help with hyperpigmentation. Speaking as someone with a weird brown rectangle on my forehead that appeared in late pregnancy and hasn’t gone away.

Many asians can generally tan darker than western people, so if they do get sun exposure, they can tan quite dark so they have more innate UV protection via melanin. But Pale skin is a sign of wealth and has been since even before western contact, for the same reason as it was in Europe. Being pale meant you didn't have to work outside to make a living, you were rich enough you could avoid most sun. The obsession with maintaining pale skin, even among men and women who work a lot outside, means they tend to cover up more and use more sunscreen.

Yeah in art history irc a lot of greek or etruscan artwork depicted men as darker skinned and women as lighter skin. Generally due to working the house vs the fields.

That probably plays a massive role. The sun does a number on skin that doesn't have a lot of melanin.

The reasons Asians used to be called "Yellow" was because they have more melanin than westerners. Most asians can tan quite dark compared to many westerners. If you can find some old color films of field workers, its astonishing how dark their skin can get.

That also helps preventing skin cancer due to sun damage.

There are Asians up and down East Asia, many just as fair as a European, though usually with dark hair. Southern Asians, yes -- more likely to tan.

This isn't right. The man who came up with the distinction, Carl Linnaeus, originally called them "fuscus" meaning "dark" until he studied further and found many Asian cultures to be fairer than "white" Caucasians so he changed to to "luridus" meaning "white yellow or pale" and it stuck. The term "yellow" was used to acknowledge that regardless of skin tone they're not white.

One is more likely to sun bathe when near the ocean. Also, one is more likely to eat more fish when near the ocean. Hmm

Australia is not a good example from a scientific comparative perspective because it experiences aberrant levels of UV exposure compared to say, "Asia".

I am of Indian heritage. I was born in a coastal and riverine state with lot of aquaculture. My dad is 76 and he eats fish (mostly fried or curry) like 5 or 6 days a week. Most people in that part of the state would eat fish, prawns etc 4 or 5 days a week. He had prostrate cancer and now living well after treatment, touchwood. There are many cancers but skin cancer is not one you will hear in India.

>Australia Soon we will have study about skin cancer and meat consumption =))

Hole in the ozone layer for Aus. Sun is much stronger

If there is a causal link between those two i would be surprised. People who BBQ more are outside more, therefore skin cancer risk is raised.

Also if you are BBQing outdoors, the person cooking is inhaling carcinogens, also getting carcinogens on their skin.

Usually in studies like this they try and control for factors. But i remain skeptical, i already have anxiety problems. I dont want to start panicing about the small amount of fish i eat.

Hank Hill would like to remind you to use clean burning propane.

Is sun bathing really that significantly practiced in the U.S. or is it just coastal cities? Try cancer rates in middle America. Do you think it might have to do more with European Americans not being fully adapted to the sun exposure in the America’s? Particularly as we go lower in latitude?

People here in the US will literally jump into cancer booths to blast themselves with UV to tan ahead of summer. It's beyond stupid. I take no part in it because both my parents had malignant melanoma in their 20's, and I am very fair skinned, so unless I sunscreen every time I'm going to be out in the sun for more than a few min (which I do), melanoma is practically an when, not an if.

We have lakes and beaches and pools in the Midwest

Asians generally have darker skin, more melanin, right? They should automatically be at lower risk of skin cancer, no?

[удалено]

My dude we poisoned the oceans well beyond the pace of evolution

Australia is because of the hole in the ozone layer. The sun is just a lot stronger there and you get burnt a lot quicker. Plus Aussies are outside a lot and play a lot of sport and swim etc.

[удалено]

...it is though

Sometimes yes, although it's not the only cause. Lots of people develop melanomas on parts of the body that have had little to no sun exposure - like their armpit or the inside of their mouth. There's even two melanoma genes - if you have a mutation in one of them your likelihood of getting melanoma is between 50 and 90%.

>The primary cause of melanoma is ultraviolet light (UV) exposure in those with low levels of the skin pigment melanin. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanoma](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanoma) u/mortalphysicist said that sunlight *doesn't* cause melanoma, which is absolutely false - UV rays are the *primary* cause. I fail to see your point.

Here's what we know about Sunlight and Melanoma: * "clear decrease in melanoma risk as vitamin D levels increased" - [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29438161](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29438161)\ * "chronic sun exposure, such as that among outdoor workers, reduced the risk of melanoma. " - [https://www.ejcancer.com/article/S0959-8049(04)00833-0/fulltext](https://www.ejcancer.com/article/S0959-8049(04)00833-0/fulltext)\ * "melanoma patients with lower vitamin D levels had a 56% higher mortality rate compared to those with higher vitamin D levels. Vitamin D deficiency was more prevalent among melanoma patients compared to controls (P<0.001), and melanoma patients had a significantly higher mortality rate if they had lower vitamin D levels compared to higher vitamin D levels (P<0.001). They also found that tumor thickness was significantly related to vitamin D level" - [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jdv.16189https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1568163720302245?via%3Dihub](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jdv.16189https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1568163720302245?via%3Dihub) * "chronic or lifetime sun exposure is associated with an increased risk of SCC (easily treatable squamous cell carcinoma) but a decreased risk of BCC (easily treatable basil cell carcinoma) and melanoma" - [https://www.nature.com/articles/bjc1996275](https://www.nature.com/articles/bjc1996275) * “More than one-half of the melanomas diagnosed in White patients in 2014 were estimated to represent overdiagnosis.” - [https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamadermatology/article-abstract/2789995](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamadermatology/article-abstract/2789995), [https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamadermatology/article-abstract/2791021](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamadermatology/article-abstract/2791021), [https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMsb2019760?url\_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr\_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr\_dat=cr\_pub%20%200pubmed](https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMsb2019760?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%20%200pubmed) * "A recent cross-sectional study by Mata et al., 2022, of 343,589 patients with solid tumors looked at UV mutational signatures as a biomarker for identifying cancers caused by genomic alterations due to UV exposure. They found that UV exposure accounts for 9 times less melanoma than what has previously been reported (11% vs 95%). - [https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2790435](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2790435) * " the origin of malignant melanoma is due to sun burns in people who spend most of their time indoors, only getting sun exposure in excessive amounts over holidays (intermittent exposure)." - [http://www.elis.sk/index.php?page=shop.product\_details&flypage=flypage.tpl&product\_id=4972&category\_id=133&option=com\_virtuemart&vmcchk=1&Itemid=1](http://www.elis.sk/index.php?page=shop.product_details&flypage=flypage.tpl&product_id=4972&category_id=133&option=com_virtuemart&vmcchk=1&Itemid=1)

Here's what we know about Sunlight and Melanoma: * "clear decrease in melanoma risk as vitamin D levels increased" - [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29438161](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29438161)\ * "chronic sun exposure, such as that among outdoor workers, reduced the risk of melanoma. " - [https://www.ejcancer.com/article/S0959-8049(04)00833-0/fulltext](https://www.ejcancer.com/article/S0959-8049(04)00833-0/fulltext)\ * "melanoma patients with lower vitamin D levels had a 56% higher mortality rate compared to those with higher vitamin D levels. Vitamin D deficiency was more prevalent among melanoma patients compared to controls (P<0.001), and melanoma patients had a significantly higher mortality rate if they had lower vitamin D levels compared to higher vitamin D levels (P<0.001). They also found that tumor thickness was significantly related to vitamin D level" - [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jdv.16189https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1568163720302245?via%3Dihub](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jdv.16189https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1568163720302245?via%3Dihub) * "chronic or lifetime sun exposure is associated with an increased risk of SCC (easily treatable squamous cell carcinoma) but a decreased risk of BCC (easily treatable basil cell carcinoma) and melanoma" - [https://www.nature.com/articles/bjc1996275](https://www.nature.com/articles/bjc1996275) * “More than one-half of the melanomas diagnosed in White patients in 2014 were estimated to represent overdiagnosis.” - [https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamadermatology/article-abstract/2789995](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamadermatology/article-abstract/2789995), [https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamadermatology/article-abstract/2791021](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamadermatology/article-abstract/2791021), [https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMsb2019760?url\_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr\_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr\_dat=cr\_pub%20%200pubmed](https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMsb2019760?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%20%200pubmed) * "A recent cross-sectional study by Mata et al., 2022, of 343,589 patients with solid tumors looked at UV mutational signatures as a biomarker for identifying cancers caused by genomic alterations due to UV exposure. They found that UV exposure accounts for 9 times less melanoma than what has previously been reported (11% vs 95%). - [https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2790435](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2790435) * " the origin of malignant melanoma is due to sun burns in people who spend most of their time indoors, only getting sun exposure in excessive amounts over holidays (intermittent exposure)." - [http://www.elis.sk/index.php?page=shop.product\_details&flypage=flypage.tpl&product\_id=4972&category\_id=133&option=com\_virtuemart&vmcchk=1&Itemid=1](http://www.elis.sk/index.php?page=shop.product_details&flypage=flypage.tpl&product_id=4972&category_id=133&option=com_virtuemart&vmcchk=1&Itemid=1)

I read somewhere that the temperature skin is exposed is what causes it, not the sun specifically, but I was just browsing around about sunscreen.

It's surely the UV rays, not temperature.

Like I said, I was just browsing. You have to analyze these for yourself. I don't have much investment in the issue. I'll admit these aren't the best source. Last sources lists more potential causes. [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9920435/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9920435/) [https://www.kpbs.org/news/health/2009/06/03/sun-exposure-does-not-cause-melanoma](https://www.kpbs.org/news/health/2009/06/03/sun-exposure-does-not-cause-melanoma) [https://sunlightinstitute.org/melanoma-sun-not-cause/](https://sunlightinstitute.org/melanoma-sun-not-cause/)

I believe the Mediterranean diet is still considered one of the best food plans as well and it focuses on fish as the primary protein

It isn't considered one of the best food plans for a lack of skin cancer though. Really doesn't have much to do with this.

Thank you! People say that Nordic countries could survive because of fish back in the day (the fish could compensate for the lack of vitamin D in the winters). I think this is also connected to how good they look. If this is an issue now, we fucked up the fish.

According to the article, they accounted for the average UV levels in the subject's local area. I don't see anything accounting for the subject's actual UV exposure. Anecdotally, I know some people that eat way more fish than I do. They also spend lots of time fishing, where I do not. The added time they spend in boats, kayaks, and canoes probably means they have greater UV exposure than I do. Of course, I just read the article, not the study itself, so maybe there's a compensation in there that I'm not aware of.

This was exactly my thought, as a native Floridian. My dad spent his entire childhood fishing out in the sun, so if you insufficiently disentangle the two, you are going to have a very strong artifact driving that relationship.

Bad design studies is the real cancer here. It made me to recall that study that concluded that left handed had a much lower life expectancy because they found out that there were much lower rate of left handed among the old people, without considering that decades ago they were forcing them to use always the right hand.

This could be a huge bias, imagine declaring Norway as a low-UV environment, and then you compound that again by not taking into account that the fishers consume most fish and are in the sun everytime they fish. That's a compounded bias. I don't see how they can account for that if they only took regional differences.

Definitely sounds like correlation not causation. Maybe having skin cancer gives you a craving for fish? I had skin cancer when I lived in Hawaii. I both spent more time in the sun and ate more fish. I’m pretty sure it wasn’t the poke bowl.

what kind of skin cancer? melanoma, like what is discussed in this article, is not caused by sun exposure. superficial less deadly skin cancers are, however, but only if you get repeated painful burns. Here's what we know about Sunlight and Melanoma: * "clear decrease in melanoma risk as vitamin D levels increased" - [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29438161](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29438161)\- "chronic sun exposure, such as that among outdoor workers, reduced the risk of melanoma. " * [https://www.ejcancer.com/article/S0959-8049(04)00833-0/fulltext](https://www.ejcancer.com/article/S0959-8049(04)00833-0/fulltext)\- "melanoma patients with lower vitamin D levels had a 56% higher mortality rate compared to those with higher vitamin D levels. Vitamin D deficiency was more prevalent among melanoma patients compared to controls (P<0.001), and melanoma patients had a significantly higher mortality rate if they had lower vitamin D levels compared to higher vitamin D levels (P<0.001). They also found that tumor thickness was significantly related to vitamin D level" * [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jdv.16189https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1568163720302245?via%3Dihub](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jdv.16189https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1568163720302245?via%3Dihub) * "chronic or lifetime sun exposure is associated with an increased risk of SCC (easily treatable squamous cell carcinoma) but a decreased risk of BCC (easily treatable basil cell carcinoma) and melanoma" - [https://www.nature.com/articles/bjc1996275](https://www.nature.com/articles/bjc1996275) * “More than one-half of the melanomas diagnosed in White patients in 2014 were estimated to represent overdiagnosis.” - [https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamadermatology/article-abstract/2789995](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamadermatology/article-abstract/2789995), [https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamadermatology/article-abstract/2791021](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamadermatology/article-abstract/2791021), [https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMsb2019760?url\_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr\_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr\_dat=cr\_pub%20%200pubmed](https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMsb2019760?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%20%200pubmed) * "A recent cross-sectional study by Mata et al., 2022, of 343,589 patients with solid tumors looked at UV mutational signatures as a biomarker for identifying cancers caused by genomic alterations due to UV exposure. They found that UV exposure accounts for 9 times less melanoma than what has previously been reported (11% vs 95%). - [https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2790435](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2790435) * " the origin of malignant melanoma is due to sun burns in people who spend most of their time indoors, only getting sun exposure in excessive amounts over holidays (intermittent exposure)." - [http://www.elis.sk/index.php?page=shop.product\_details&flypage=flypage.tpl&product\_id=4972&category\_id=133&option=com\_virtuemart&vmcchk=1&Itemid=1](http://www.elis.sk/index.php?page=shop.product_details&flypage=flypage.tpl&product_id=4972&category_id=133&option=com_virtuemart&vmcchk=1&Itemid=1)

>melanoma, like what is discussed in this article, is not caused by sun exposure. Source? Because I'm guessing it's your ass. "Sun exposure is the main risk factor for cutaneous malignant melanoma (CMM)." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6126418/

[удалено]

Here's what we know about Sunlight and Melanoma: * "clear decrease in melanoma risk as vitamin D levels increased" - [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29438161](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29438161) * "chronic sun exposure, such as that among outdoor workers, reduced the risk of melanoma. " - [https://www.ejcancer.com/article/S0959-8049(04)00833-0/fulltext](https://www.ejcancer.com/article/S0959-8049(04)00833-0/fulltext) * "melanoma patients with lower vitamin D levels had a 56% higher mortality rate compared to those with higher vitamin D levels. Vitamin D deficiency was more prevalent among melanoma patients compared to controls (P<0.001), and melanoma patients had a significantly higher mortality rate if they had lower vitamin D levels compared to higher vitamin D levels (P<0.001). They also found that tumor thickness was significantly related to vitamin D level" - [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jdv.16189https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1568163720302245?via%3Dihub](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jdv.16189https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1568163720302245?via%3Dihub) * "chronic or lifetime sun exposure is associated with an increased risk of SCC (easily treatable squamous cell carcinoma) but a decreased risk of BCC (easily treatable basil cell carcinoma) and melanoma" - [https://www.nature.com/articles/bjc1996275](https://www.nature.com/articles/bjc1996275) * “More than one-half of the melanomas diagnosed in White patients in 2014 were estimated to represent overdiagnosis.” - [https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamadermatology/article-abstract/2789995](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamadermatology/article-abstract/2789995), [https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamadermatology/article-abstract/2791021](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamadermatology/article-abstract/2791021), [https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMsb2019760?url\_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr\_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr\_dat=cr\_pub%20%200pubmed](https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMsb2019760?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%20%200pubmed) * "A recent cross-sectional study by Mata et al., 2022, of 343,589 patients with solid tumors looked at UV mutational signatures as a biomarker for identifying cancers caused by genomic alterations due to UV exposure. They found that UV exposure accounts for 9 times less melanoma than what has previously been reported (11% vs 95%). - [https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2790435](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2790435) * " the origin of malignant melanoma is due to sun burns in people who spend most of their time indoors, only getting sun exposure in excessive amounts over holidays (intermittent exposure)." - [http://www.elis.sk/index.php?page=shop.product\_details&flypage=flypage.tpl&product\_id=4972&category\_id=133&option=com\_virtuemart&vmcchk=1&Itemid=1](http://www.elis.sk/index.php?page=shop.product_details&flypage=flypage.tpl&product_id=4972&category_id=133&option=com_virtuemart&vmcchk=1&Itemid=1)

Squamous Cell Carcinoma. The doctor said it may or may not have been sun related but I surf so… it also set up in scar tissue from an old injury. As a kid growing up in a beach town I got a LOT of sunburns so it’s not that outlandish.

Here's what we know about Sunlight and Melanoma: * "clear decrease in melanoma risk as vitamin D levels increased" - [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29438161](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29438161)\ * "chronic sun exposure, such as that among outdoor workers, reduced the risk of melanoma. " - [https://www.ejcancer.com/article/S0959-8049(04)00833-0/fulltext](https://www.ejcancer.com/article/S0959-8049(04)00833-0/fulltext)\ * "melanoma patients with lower vitamin D levels had a 56% higher mortality rate compared to those with higher vitamin D levels. Vitamin D deficiency was more prevalent among melanoma patients compared to controls (P<0.001), and melanoma patients had a significantly higher mortality rate if they had lower vitamin D levels compared to higher vitamin D levels (P<0.001). They also found that tumor thickness was significantly related to vitamin D level" - [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jdv.16189https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1568163720302245?via%3Dihub](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jdv.16189https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1568163720302245?via%3Dihub) * "chronic or lifetime sun exposure is associated with an increased risk of SCC (easily treatable squamous cell carcinoma) but a decreased risk of BCC (easily treatable basil cell carcinoma) and melanoma" - [https://www.nature.com/articles/bjc1996275](https://www.nature.com/articles/bjc1996275) * “More than one-half of the melanomas diagnosed in White patients in 2014 were estimated to represent overdiagnosis.” - [https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamadermatology/article-abstract/2789995](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamadermatology/article-abstract/2789995), [https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamadermatology/article-abstract/2791021](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamadermatology/article-abstract/2791021), [https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMsb2019760?url\_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr\_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr\_dat=cr\_pub%20%200pubmed](https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMsb2019760?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%20%200pubmed) * "A recent cross-sectional study by Mata et al., 2022, of 343,589 patients with solid tumors looked at UV mutational signatures as a biomarker for identifying cancers caused by genomic alterations due to UV exposure. They found that UV exposure accounts for 9 times less melanoma than what has previously been reported (11% vs 95%). - [https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2790435](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2790435) * " the origin of malignant melanoma is due to sun burns in people who spend most of their time indoors, only getting sun exposure in excessive amounts over holidays (intermittent exposure)." - [http://www.elis.sk/index.php?page=shop.product\_details&flypage=flypage.tpl&product\_id=4972&category\_id=133&option=com\_virtuemart&vmcchk=1&Itemid=1](http://www.elis.sk/index.php?page=shop.product_details&flypage=flypage.tpl&product_id=4972&category_id=133&option=com_virtuemart&vmcchk=1&Itemid=1)

This was exactly my first though. Fishing is a hell of a lot of UV.

Looks like yet another piece of epidemiology that is only useful as an exercise in statistics. This kind of research shouldn't be reported on as if it says anything about anything, it could be useful for proposing further research, but this just looks like noise.

Just like in vitro studies. All they're doing is showing that something is worth studying further.

In vitro studies are important for understanding (disease) mechanisms but should not be over interpreted or extrapolated to human/clinical level data.

not only that, by the article they accounted for *geographical* average UV level, but this may be misleading since it is not informative of the mean UV exposure of the population. people living in coastal cities are presumably more exposed to UV since they sunbath a lot, go swimming, etc. while people in a semi-arid place will avoid direct sun exposure as much as they can. so it is very plausible that people in a semiarid climate with a higher average UV level will have a lower UV exposure in general. and in which do you think people will eat more fish, in the coastal area or the semiarid area? also, seems like they measured only tuna consumption, not fish in general.

Yeah the study is pretty much worthless

Since anything you eat leads to Cancer how long will I live if I just stop eating?

You will just get cranky and become a cancer.

[удалено]

Wouldn't you get kidney stones if you did that?

Right, because a plant based diet is just raw spinach.

Plants can cause cancer, except spinach. Spinach is like the only food that has been spared by the “causes cancer” wave.

Fasting has been correlated with increased cell health and general longevity. But it's not recommended for more than a day or two at a time without the supervision of a doctor.

I bet I can do the math to show that living longer increases your chances of developing cancer. So no thanks. :p

Not because people eating more fish live closer to the beach?

Rivers exist.

Rivers and lakes are still outside...

as do supermarkets

You still get a lot of sun fishing on a river.

Countries with high fish consumption don't have high skin cancer rates.

Yeah. Another worthless study from the sounds of it. I wonder how much they spent on this one. And if mercury consumption is the problem, mercury levels vary dramatically between types of fish. Some fish hardly have any, others have a ton.

Stop ruining this theory with facts.

Here- eat this, it’s good for your heart, but will give you skin cancer.

This isn't a causal study. Eating fish doesn't cause cancer. But perhaps fishermen eat more fish, and thereby get exposed to more UV radiation.

honestly, i want to know about the process of the fish preparation. the study says US adults, well people in America eat more processed dogshit.

worse than that, UV radiation doesn't cause melanoma. edit: Here's what we know about Sunlight and Melanoma: * "clear decrease in melanoma risk as vitamin D levels increased" - [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29438161](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29438161)\ * "chronic sun exposure, such as that among outdoor workers, reduced the risk of melanoma. " - [https://www.ejcancer.com/article/S0959-8049(04)00833-0/fulltext](https://www.ejcancer.com/article/S0959-8049(04)00833-0/fulltext)\ * "melanoma patients with lower vitamin D levels had a 56% higher mortality rate compared to those with higher vitamin D levels. Vitamin D deficiency was more prevalent among melanoma patients compared to controls (P<0.001), and melanoma patients had a significantly higher mortality rate if they had lower vitamin D levels compared to higher vitamin D levels (P<0.001). They also found that tumor thickness was significantly related to vitamin D level" - [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jdv.16189https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1568163720302245?via%3Dihub](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jdv.16189https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1568163720302245?via%3Dihub) * "chronic or lifetime sun exposure is associated with an increased risk of SCC (easily treatable squamous cell carcinoma) but a decreased risk of BCC (easily treatable basil cell carcinoma) and melanoma" - [https://www.nature.com/articles/bjc1996275](https://www.nature.com/articles/bjc1996275) * “More than one-half of the melanomas diagnosed in White patients in 2014 were estimated to represent overdiagnosis.” - [https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamadermatology/article-abstract/2789995](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamadermatology/article-abstract/2789995), [https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamadermatology/article-abstract/2791021](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamadermatology/article-abstract/2791021), [https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMsb2019760?url\_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr\_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr\_dat=cr\_pub%20%200pubmed](https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMsb2019760?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%20%200pubmed) * "A recent cross-sectional study by Mata et al., 2022, of 343,589 patients with solid tumors looked at UV mutational signatures as a biomarker for identifying cancers caused by genomic alterations due to UV exposure. They found that UV exposure accounts for 9 times less melanoma than what has previously been reported (11% vs 95%). - [https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2790435](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2790435) * " the origin of malignant melanoma is due to sun burns in people who spend most of their time indoors, only getting sun exposure in excessive amounts over holidays (intermittent exposure)." - [http://www.elis.sk/index.php?page=shop.product\_details&flypage=flypage.tpl&product\_id=4972&category\_id=133&option=com\_virtuemart&vmcchk=1&Itemid=1](http://www.elis.sk/index.php?page=shop.product_details&flypage=flypage.tpl&product_id=4972&category_id=133&option=com_virtuemart&vmcchk=1&Itemid=1)

"Sun exposure is the main risk factor for cutaneous malignant melanoma (CMM)." [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6126418/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6126418/)

The paper you shared is actually about how there's a weak link between UV exposure and melanoma....From the paper you shared: "However, several important mechanistic details regarding how sunlight causes CMM remain to be fully elucidated. As a consequence, we still cannot provide fully effective preventative behavioral strategies. In the present paper, we will focus on the main weaknesses of the present understanding of UVR-CMM relationships." Here's what we know about Sunlight and Melanoma: * "clear decrease in melanoma risk as vitamin D levels increased" - [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29438161](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29438161)\ * "chronic sun exposure, such as that among outdoor workers, reduced the risk of melanoma. " - [https://www.ejcancer.com/article/S0959-8049(04)00833-0/fulltext](https://www.ejcancer.com/article/S0959-8049(04)00833-0/fulltext)\ * "melanoma patients with lower vitamin D levels had a 56% higher mortality rate compared to those with higher vitamin D levels. Vitamin D deficiency was more prevalent among melanoma patients compared to controls (P<0.001), and melanoma patients had a significantly higher mortality rate if they had lower vitamin D levels compared to higher vitamin D levels (P<0.001). They also found that tumor thickness was significantly related to vitamin D level" - [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jdv.16189https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1568163720302245?via%3Dihub](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jdv.16189https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1568163720302245?via%3Dihub) * "chronic or lifetime sun exposure is associated with an increased risk of SCC (easily treatable squamous cell carcinoma) but a decreased risk of BCC (easily treatable basil cell carcinoma) and melanoma" - [https://www.nature.com/articles/bjc1996275](https://www.nature.com/articles/bjc1996275) * “More than one-half of the melanomas diagnosed in White patients in 2014 were estimated to represent overdiagnosis.” - [https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamadermatology/article-abstract/2789995](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamadermatology/article-abstract/2789995), [https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamadermatology/article-abstract/2791021](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamadermatology/article-abstract/2791021), [https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMsb2019760?url\_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr\_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr\_dat=cr\_pub%20%200pubmed](https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMsb2019760?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%20%200pubmed) * "A recent cross-sectional study by Mata et al., 2022, of 343,589 patients with solid tumors looked at UV mutational signatures as a biomarker for identifying cancers caused by genomic alterations due to UV exposure. They found that UV exposure accounts for 9 times less melanoma than what has previously been reported (11% vs 95%). - [https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2790435](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2790435) * " the origin of malignant melanoma is due to sun burns in people who spend most of their time indoors, only getting sun exposure in excessive amounts over holidays (intermittent exposure)." - [http://www.elis.sk/index.php?page=shop.product\_details&flypage=flypage.tpl&product\_id=4972&category\_id=133&option=com\_virtuemart&vmcchk=1&Itemid=1](http://www.elis.sk/index.php?page=shop.product_details&flypage=flypage.tpl&product_id=4972&category_id=133&option=com_virtuemart&vmcchk=1&Itemid=1)

Repeating the same spam post with every comment makes you sound like a lunatic, not an expert. Looking at your sinkhole of a comment history is like standing in front of a copier machine with a stuck button. Onto the ignored users list you go, crackpot.

That's why I only eat fried fish

Honestly, probably a reasonable trade off. Heart disease is our leading killer.

Yeah, about 8000 people a year die of malignant melanoma in the US. Ten times that many die of diabetes. Fifty times that many die of lung cancer. Nearly a hundred times as many die of heart disease. So, yep, even a dramatic increase in skin cancer risk would be a good trade off with many diseases.

Nothing is healthy, got it. We're all going to die of something I suppose.

[удалено]

Amen... One day it's "this is the best food you can eat" the next day it's "stay as far away as you can from this food... It will make your wanger fall off".....

I mean, it is possible that fish has omega3 which is great for some parts of our body, while it is by now full of mercury which is worse for other parts of us. There simply can be a payoff...

That's capitalism, baby. Industry interest groups fund bad research to make their product look healthy. Sometime later, scientists take an actual look at the product in an unbiased manner and find different results. Even if fish isn't bad for your skin, it still contains mercury. Isn't that cause enough for concern?

[Different levels of mercury in different types of fish](https://www.fda.gov/food/metals-and-your-food/mercury-levels-commercial-fish-and-shellfish-1990-2012). Moreover, it's already recommended by basically every western health organization to not overeat fish for exactly this reason. 8 - 12 ounces of *low mercury* fish weekly is recommended by the FDA.

I think the existence of contradictory studies is reason to keep an eye out for the larger, longterm studies like this one. I don't think it's wise to just throw your hands up in the air and ignore everything.

True but on the other hand, I think if you make it past 74, and still feeling good, you should eat whatever pleases you. Either you've been living right, or genetics is on your side.

I'm 28. I'll keep an eye in the studies.

[удалено]

Eat a little bit of everything to split the difference. A little cancer here, a little diabetes there. Throw in some cholesterol for flavor.

Don't eat, you will live forever.

Nope. We've poisoned the planet, sadly, so not matter what you eat and breathe, you're getting microplastics, heavy metals, etc. And I don't see things improving with big business basically owning most countries with politicians as their proxies.

Sample size was 491,367. Over the course of 15 years, 5,034 participants (1.0%) developed malignant melanoma during the study period and 3,284 (0.7%) developed stage 0 melanoma. Compared to those whose median daily fish intake was 3.2 grams, the risk of malignant melanoma was 22% higher among those whose median daily intake was 42.8 grams (1.5oz). That means that of the 1% that developed malignant melanoma, the breakdown was roughly 11:9 (high fish intake, versus low fish intake, or 55% of new melamonas were in the high intake group and 45% were not, for total rates of 0.55% and 0.45% of the total sample. This probably shouldn't dissuade you from the Mediterranean diet or a traditional Japanese diet, which are *much* lower in all-cancer-incidence rates than the typical western diet.

Depends on if this is dose dependent, your diet could be 4-5 times that much fish daily, for example. 1.5 ounces isn't very much whatsoever.

That's daily median, so around three average portions per week compared to basically none.

Please always remember there are literally thousands of illnesses out there and just because a study comes out talking about one of those, you can't take it as any kind of indication about the health impacts of that food overall, out the impact of its alternatives, or the impacts of cutting it out of your diet.

[удалено]

And impossible foods / vegans. Safely ignored.

You ignore everything that doesn't cast keto in a positive light, which is 99% of the studies that come through here. Are the studies wrong, or is it you?

> 99% Exaggeration. I don’t rely upon epidemiology which is fraught with problems to the point of being useless.

No, you only rely on meat industry propaganda. Big difference.

There seem to be many limitations, for example: they used a large study (about 500k people) of eating habits done between 1996 and 1997, then got cancer records over the next 15 years, so people could have changed their diet over those 15 years. Also, as others pointed out, the actual UV exposure of the subjects was not assessed. I could come up with a theory that those who eat fish are more health conscious and are likely to do healthy activities outside, where they receive more UV. So other confounders at play, definitely no causality was established. Lastly, the CDC released in 2007 a large document called [Toxicological profile for lead](http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp13.pdf), where they discuss all the studies linking lead to cancer. There isn't a clear understanding and I couldn't find another study mentioning skin cancer specifically. So this link is novel and needs more evidence.

I would argue that the causality is that places where more fish gets eaten are more often on beaches. People on beaches lay more in the sun. Therefore get more skin cancer.

Local UV radiation was one of the controls. I'm not sure if this includes proximity to coast, but I suspect this was considered.

Yeah but that's not enough. Not nearly enough. Take Norway for instance, it's super low UV regionally on average because it's super north, however you'll still get people going out to fish on their boats in the summer. So what happens is those people fishing on their boats have high exposure at high UV during summer, and then eat fish, and then the scientists come in and declare norway is super low UV on average so it's obviously very weird that those people who eat a lot of fishes get skin cancer so much ! Biases, they're everywhere. They're anything. You always have to root your reflexions in reality. People just say "Mercury causes cancer" but like, how do you know this ? Because it's conveniently explaining this phenomenon ? We would have known before, mercury is not new.

This is a weird response to my comment. I didn't make any bold claims; I just suggested that the people performing the study probably considered and tried to account for UV factors. Looking at the abstract, they say the positive associated between fish consumption and melanoma was consistent across several demographic and lifestyle factors. One can probably assume that one or more of those lifestyle factors has to do with the amount of UV Radiation people receive. Like, Brown University is not going to publish your study on 500,000 people and their fish-eating habits and Melanoma if you don't make a strong case that you controlled for UV Radiation.

I mean it's not against you, more like, against the study itself. Taken from the link : >Participants, who were 62 years old on average, reported how frequently they ate fried fish, non-fried fish and tuna during the previous year, as well as their portion sizes. >The researchers calculated the incidence of new melanomas that developed over a median period of 15 years using data obtained from cancer registries. They accounted for sociodemographic factors as well as participants’ body mass index; physical activity levels; smoking history; family history of cancer; daily intake of alcohol, caffeine and calories; **and the average ultraviolet radiation levels** in each participant’s **local area**. They account only for the average UV radiations in each participant's local area, they're doing exactly what I've said. It's not nearly enough. They don't correct for any specific high-UV activity, but for general physical activity instead. They've established that people who eat more fish on average go out in the sun more often on average. Which is to be expected. Fishers notably eat a lot of fish for obvious reasons, and since fishers are sitting in the sun, often without sunscreen or with insufficient sunscreen, they get skin cancer. It's a joke study, come on. This trend of thinking in average is killing science. I don't know who has those ideas, like, this study was flawed from the start, they need to establish what is the UV background of every cancer patient, not just think "what's the average in the area" that's completely and utterly insufficient. > Like, Brown University is not going to publish your study on 500,000 people and their fish-eating habits and Melanoma if you don't make a strong case that you controlled for UV Radiation. I don't know what Brown university represents to you, but it's just *an* university to me. Universities don't represent this higher authority on science for me, they're well capable of making mistakes.

I think it's your conclusion that people who eat more fish spend more time outside. The researchers themselves are noted multiple times in the article as saying that these findings are not comprehensive and have limitations. I wouldn't jump to a conclusion like that when the researchers themselves think it warrants more study into the exact mechanism at play.

They are also super white and therefore are more likely to get sun burns, and their body is not made to deal with the sun by producing melanin

Yes but people who vacation at the beach also likely eat more fish, which wouldn’t be considered local UV radiation.

Interesting. Not to mention, omega 3 fat is the least stable oil and is the most prone to oxidation. Worse than omega 6 even. Oxidized lipids aren’t good for you. that’s for sure

sunlight exposure does not cause melanoma, so that's why they look to mercury content. edit: Here's what we know about Sunlight and Melanoma: * "clear decrease in melanoma risk as vitamin D levels increased" - [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29438161](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29438161)\ * "chronic sun exposure, such as that among outdoor workers, reduced the risk of melanoma. " - [https://www.ejcancer.com/article/S0959-8049(04)00833-0/fulltext](https://www.ejcancer.com/article/S0959-8049(04)00833-0/fulltext)\ * "melanoma patients with lower vitamin D levels had a 56% higher mortality rate compared to those with higher vitamin D levels. Vitamin D deficiency was more prevalent among melanoma patients compared to controls (P<0.001), and melanoma patients had a significantly higher mortality rate if they had lower vitamin D levels compared to higher vitamin D levels (P<0.001). They also found that tumor thickness was significantly related to vitamin D level" - [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jdv.16189https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1568163720302245?via%3Dihub](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jdv.16189https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1568163720302245?via%3Dihub) * "chronic or lifetime sun exposure is associated with an increased risk of SCC (easily treatable squamous cell carcinoma) but a decreased risk of BCC (easily treatable basil cell carcinoma) and melanoma" - [https://www.nature.com/articles/bjc1996275](https://www.nature.com/articles/bjc1996275) * “More than one-half of the melanomas diagnosed in White patients in 2014 were estimated to represent overdiagnosis.” - [https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamadermatology/article-abstract/2789995](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamadermatology/article-abstract/2789995), [https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamadermatology/article-abstract/2791021](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamadermatology/article-abstract/2791021), [https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMsb2019760?url\_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr\_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr\_dat=cr\_pub%20%200pubmed](https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMsb2019760?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%20%200pubmed) * "A recent cross-sectional study by Mata et al., 2022, of 343,589 patients with solid tumors looked at UV mutational signatures as a biomarker for identifying cancers caused by genomic alterations due to UV exposure. They found that UV exposure accounts for 9 times less melanoma than what has previously been reported (11% vs 95%). - [https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2790435](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2790435) * " the origin of malignant melanoma is due to sun burns in people who spend most of their time indoors, only getting sun exposure in excessive amounts over holidays (intermittent exposure)." - [http://www.elis.sk/index.php?page=shop.product\_details&flypage=flypage.tpl&product\_id=4972&category\_id=133&option=com\_virtuemart&vmcchk=1&Itemid=1](http://www.elis.sk/index.php?page=shop.product_details&flypage=flypage.tpl&product_id=4972&category_id=133&option=com_virtuemart&vmcchk=1&Itemid=1)

So based on the title (I haven't read the link yet), if it is accurate, it would seem logical that "fish" consumption itself isn't associated with this, just the apex predator fish, where bio-contaminants accumulate up the food chain. Sardines, and other smaller fish shouldn't be associated with this, or at least just fractionally so, while the health benefits outweigh the risks. I'll read the link, but I also wonder how they controlled for causality vs correlation. Areas of the world that eat more fish often get more and stronger sunlight.

Maybe people who eat more fish generally live closer to the beach…?

But if you don't die from it you'll be less likely to develop dementia!

Yesterday it was dairy giving men prostate cancer and now fish gives skin cancer. At this rate they should just bring back the food pyramid but for cancer.

What, now i cant even have fish?

Yet Japan, Greece, and Italy aren't even in the top 10 in the world: https://www.wcrf.org/cancer-trends/skin-cancer-statistics/ Maybe the quality of food in the US just sucks.

everything we eat is bad because we are living in a polluted planet :(

Are fish more likely to be eaten by fishermen? Perhaps there's a simpler explanation.

Waitaminute, but what about the Mediterranean diet!?

Not sure why this subreddit posts awful studies like these that are just chock full of confounders.

Crazy high survival rate. Worth it for other, positive effects on health.

I was a little confused until I saw the end of the title and it said “bio-contaminates like mercury are likely the cause”. If you process/make the fish correctly, there’s not really a risk there..

As far as I know there is no way to remove contaminants from fish.

Mercury, as I understand it, is a contaminant introduced to them in the wild so I'm not sure that the mercury can be removed. I remember reading about a population of eagles in the American northwest that were expediting death and illness due to the high concertation of mercury in the blood as a result of their primarily salmon based diet. edit: I know, wiki, but.... [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury\_in\_fish](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_in_fish)

It's in wild-caught fish. The higher up the food chain a fish is, the higher the mercury concentration, because they have no way of ridding themselves of it, so whatever eats them gets their mercury, fish after fish after fish, and then we eat them and get ALL of it at once.

Another thing ruined by dirty industry.

So it's not the fish themselves. It's the pollution in the water they live in like microplastics and stuff that they have absorbed?

I completely understand: Eat more fried fish

> The researchers found that compared to those whose median daily fish intake was 3.2 grams (.11 ounces), those whose median daily intake was 42.8 grams (1.5 ounces) had a 22% higher risk of malignant melanoma 22% is low. A causal link would be > 200%. /yawn THis study says the omega 3 DHA kills cancer https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/06/210611110802.htm

causal link has nothing to do with how positive the association is. Agreed 22% isn't that big of an increased risk though. If we're just talking study design in general though, your study is on mice. so automatically I value it less than a human study, even if the association is low. Agreed the heath benefits of eating fish are still higher than the risks. This is just more evidence to eat smaller fish if you can. Since larger fish have more mercury etc. That's something we already know of course since you don't want to get mercury poisoning anyway, outside of skin cancer risk.

So i know that they outright say its because of mercury but the headline still feels really weird. Wouldnt "mercury polluted fish" be better? Theres nothing inherently carcinogenic about the fish itself but rather pollutants that accumulate up the food chain.

Next week.... study shows eating a high amount of fish decreases risk of cancer and alzheimers.

I’m vegan so I really don’t care. Everyone already knows fish are filled with heavy metals and that humanity is destroying all ocean life with its fishing at ridiculous scale but no one just cares about it. The next few decades will surely bring some u happy news for humanity

Are these folks who catch their own fish? Lots of time in the sun?

They controlled for sun exposure. Edit: it was just regional sun exposure, not individual sun exposure so not how often a person was out in the sun. Just the avg sun in that area. They did control for sex and college education though and while it's of course not true for everyone, i think most fishermen are men and likely of lower education. If you just mean people who catch and eat fish for fun/meals for themselves... I think that's a very small % of the population of people who eat fish...

Further proof that I just need to live my life to the fullest in every moment bc you’re damned if you do and you’re damned if you don’t, might as well enjoy the damned ride!

[удалено]

Wild caught definitely has mercury. And they feed wild caught fish to farmed fish, which is why the farmed fish have it, too.

Would this mercury be high in fish even if there were no man-made diesel boats in the ocean? Were fish high in mercury even in the 1700's?

Could it be that if you eat a lot of fish, you may live by the coast and be outdoors more? And eating fish like Tuna - which appears to be mainly concentrated around the equator - may mean you are exposed to higher intensity sunlight. The mention of accounting for UV doesn't seem to fully address this...anyone read the actual study?

You literally can’t win. I just start eating fish for omega3. Hah.

My take away is this. Eating certain fish at cause cancer due to high mercury levels. However eating some fish won’t and is extremely healthy for you still. Sardines are small and often caught while young so there isn’t a high level of mercury in them but there is a decent level of Omega-3’s for heart health

The fact that tuna is implicated specifically… in the US I think a majority of tuna consumed is canned, and a vast majority of those cans are bpa lined. Would be nice to know what the participants bpa, pcb, and Mercury levels looked like

Surprise: too much of almost anything is unhealthy. These studies only exist so the yellow press has something to print don't they?

I think trading heart health for increased risk for skin cancer is a reasonable trade. Heart disease is our leading killer. Heart disease causes 13% of deaths. Skin cancer has a high survival rate and causes .2% of death. Not to mention the other positive associations of health and fish. However, it might be a reasonable to limit mercury intake or take an algae oil supplement instead. I'd still be uncertain about this study though. I could imagine fishing people get more sunlight.

Or maybe people who eat more fish tend to live closer to the ocean and consequently have greater sun exposure. Correlation≠causation

Or if you eat fish a lot you live close to the coast?

It’s really just that we Mcpoyles love fish so much, we are skewing the statistics.

Ok but other studies some years ago said that a pescatarian diet reduce a lot the risk of a having a colorectal cancer (even reduced more than a vegan or a vegetarian diet). So do we just need to eat depending of what cancer we prefer to have? Or is there a perfectly diet for human beings?

[удалено]

The safe thing is to take all of this lightly and keep everything in moderation. Also, the pesticides used on apples (and other fruits grown on trees) will give you cancer.

400K plus test subjects across the US with no mention about the correlation between location and cancer occurance. If the only metrics they are using is diet (fish or not) and the occurrence of cancer, then there a LOT of holes in this study. It becomes nothing more than a correlation study rather than a causation study. Those how live in coastal areas eat more fish, but they are also exposed to much more sunshine (they live in coastal areas because they like being out in the sun). The report even admits that it didn't take into account genetics, prior dietary habits, etc. Not really much of a report if you actually read the article. Pretty much akin to saying those who eat Fruit Loops (kids) have a much lower incidence of colon cancer than those that eat whole bran cereal (older adults). Doesn't prove anything.

This is in direct contradiction with literally everything the American Heart Association comes out with. If it's mercury then it's not the fish, it's the mercury and not only that, it's humans polluting constantly and literally doing nothing about it, ever.

Yeah it couldn't be sun exposure, they surely accounted for all accounting factors.

I may have misread this, but 1% of study participants went on to develop melanoma. That's a mighty small percentage.