So those who already have cancer, have a chance to develop a second cancer.
It is very not fair.
6 months since i quit using nic gums.
As long as I don't let myself get in a red, sunburn situation.
The language here is also pretty hyperbolic. We've known for decades that certain gene mutations cause increased cancer risk in the context of a certain genetic background (BRCA1/2, etc.). Using language like "for the first time" is just juvenile, or purposeful lying at worst.
That said, I'm a pretty pale dude and my sister has gotten skin cancer twice now [1], so I've started getting a bit worried that that's going to happen to me. I've started wearing a baseball cap every time I go outside to protect my scalp (since my body has decided I don't need nearly as much hair anymore), I almost never go outside without jeans and often now a hoodie even when it's relatively warm outside. If I think I'm going to be outside for more than ~30 minutes, I wear sunscreen on the exposed parts.
I have to admit that I kind of hate it. I don't like the slimy feeling of sunscreen on my skin, I don't really like how hats feel on my head, and of course wearing a lot of clothes when it's warm outside isn't terribly comfortable.
[1] Fortunately caught very early since she gets frequent checks, so she's fine.
I am in no way saying it is okay to smoke, there are obviously other health risks associated with it... but researching that made me feel much better about that one pack a year I buy for vacation.
The gene they are focusing on in the study [2] is Methylated-DNA--protein-cysteine methyltransferase (MGMT) and it needs zinc as a cofactor [3].
Not enough zinc, lower MGMT, and less DNA protection and repair.
Nutritional deficiencies and genetic differences increase the risk of cancer.
[1] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12011-023-03818-6 [2] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-026-10821-z [3] https://www.uniprot.org/uniprotkb/P16455/entry
The more you're able to build up a base tan the less you need it to avoid a burn at least.
I've also noticed some correlation between my diet and how fast I burn. Whenever my metabolism is running at/near ketogenesis, it seems like it takes a lot longer for the sun to affect me.
If you must go out at certain times then the clothing selections from others are probably the best bet.
You don't need lung cancer to have an absolutely miserable decline and death from COPD, for example.
https://archive.cdc.gov/www_cdc_gov/tobacco/data_statistics/...
Also, linen clothing. Far more comfortable in heat while keeping you covered. Hoodies and jeans sounds miserable.
(It's largely irrelevant to myself, I pretty much burn immediately and don't / can't really tan, but my wife and her family tan well).
I get can get sunburnt from as little as 30 minutes in the sun at times, and I almost always wear sunscreen in the summer for that reason.
(Biggest issue is wearing sandals and forgetting to cover my feet, or when jumping in the lake after sauna and not covering up again quickly enough.)
Probably due to a combination of undiagnosed autism and some very mild bullying in middle school (due to me growing rapidly and people making fun of me for wearing "short shorts"), I have been almost exclusively wearing jeans for everywhere but the gym since eighth grade.
The hoodies are a more recent thing and are more miserable. I'll check out linen clothing.
(except when it's windy. Rain usually follows the wind, sunlight does not)
> "Mice smoke?"
The experiment summary: > "The team bred four strains of mice.
> They then exposed the mice to a single dose of the liver carcinogen diethylnitrosamine (DEN).
> DEN is found in tobacco smoke."
They simulated the "consequences" of smoking in mice.Always been that way for me at least.
Edit: I'd also say avoid anything that says "moisturizing" unless you have a really dry skin, they all claim their product is not greasy, and they are all lying, from my experience.
Since you're autistic, you might want to buy them in person: the tactile sensation of linens can be pretty different, so you might want to touch them before buying if sensory issues are a clothing concern.
One thing to look out for is that a lot of clothing that will come up when you search for linen are linen blends, which are better than a hoodie by far, but aren't going to have the same breeziness as 100% linen. Also, 100% linen wrinkles, so you've got to hang it right out of the dryer if you care about that.
[1] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2733085?gu...
I'm not sure re: the sunscreen being better. Maybe as a platonic ideal, but it's really easy to miss places when applying sunscreen, whereas a UV umbrella does cover everything with no fuss.
The migration from mouse models to human understanding is long and complex, and although it's a meme, "in mice" is a good shortcut for saying "This is a good start, but it's not ready to extrapolate into conclusions against the impact to human beings".
There's no anti-sun obsession, either. Sunscreen isn't anti-sun, and people are well aware that Vitamin D synthesis is an issue in farther northern/southern latitudes. There's definitely an increased recognition scientifically that excessive sun is extremely bad, though.
Anyway, I'll take a look at some linen stuff. Probably worth an experiment if nothing else.
Scientists have found the first direct evidence of the powerful role our genetic makeup plays in influencing our risk of cancer, with inherited genes interacting with acquired genetic mutations to shape how tumours evolve.
The findings could explain why some people are more susceptible to cancer than others in the same environment and suggest that future cancer prevention and screening strategies may need to account more carefully for inherited genetics and population diversity.
The research, published today in Nature and carried out in mice, suggests that responses to DNA-damaging cancer treatments could differ depending on a patient's background genetics, strengthening the case for a more personalised approach to treatment.
Tumours arise when our DNA accumulates errors, or mutations, causing the cells to grow faster and ignore signals that would otherwise instruct damaged cells to die before they can cause harm. Environmental exposures – for example, cigarette smoke or sunlight – influence how much DNA damage occurs, and inherited genetic alterations can alter how many mutations accumulate.
Not everyone exposed to the same environmental risk factors will develop cancer, however. Most smokers do not develop lung cancer – and some non-smokers develop lung cancer. The reason why is almost certainly related to our inherited genetic makeup, but finding direct evidence has proved challenging in patient cohort studies. Even though many studies have suggested that inherited genetic differences affect cancer risk, proving this link has been difficult because individuals within – and between – human populations vary in lifestyle, environment, and exposure history.
The study is the result of years of international collaboration, between the University of Cambridge, University of Edinburgh, and others around Europe and the US, and was co-led by Professor Duncan Odom, Dr Sarah Aitken, and Professor Martin Taylor.
In experiments largely carried out at the Cancer Research UK (CRUK) Cambridge Institute at the University of Cambridge, scientists developed an experimental approach that allowed them to control environmental factors experimentally and show that genetic background itself can alter how tumours arise and evolve.
The team bred four strains of mice with varying susceptibility to liver cancer, spanning a level of genetic diversity comparable to that seen in human populations. They then exposed the mice to a single dose of the liver carcinogen diethylnitrosamine (DEN). DEN is found in tobacco smoke and some processed foods and is known to cause DNA damage in liver cells, leading to mutations that can initiate tumour growth.
Because every mouse received the same dose at the same age – 15 days of age – under controlled conditions, the researchers were able to eliminate the environmental variation that confounds studies in humans.
They then sequenced the genomes of almost 600 tumours and analysed the gene activity that developed as well as examining the untreated mice to compare spontaneous tumour formation across strains. Using this data, they were able to reconstruct how each tumour evolved from its original cancer-causing mutation.
Across all mouse strains, cancers nearly always acquired a cancer-driving mutation that activated the same cancer-promoting signalling system, called the MAPK pathway. This is a multi-step cascade of molecular signals that controls important life processes, including cell growth and cell differentiation, and plays a key role in numerous types of cancer.
However, depending on the inherited genetics of the mouse, the particular driver mutation that was acquired altered the activity of other cancer-associated signalling pathways, as well as causing a striking tendency for whole-genome duplication, an event in which the entire set of chromosomes is doubled.
Senior author Professor Duncan Odom, who led the research while at the CRUK Cambridge Institute and is now based at DKFZ (German Cancer Research Centre) in Heidelberg, Germany, said: “Cancer does not arise entirely by chance. Although tumours often reach the same biological endpoint, the path to that endpoint is determined by an individual’s genetic background.
"We’ve been able to show for the first time the extent to which genetic background influences both the mutation processes and the pathways leading to tumour development.”
The researchers say the findings have implications for cancer screening and precision medicine.
First author Dr Sarah Aitken, Assistant Professor at Yale School of Medicine, who also worked on the research at the CRUK Cambridge Institute, said: “If genetic background influences both cancer risk and the evolutionary trajectory of tumours, future cancer prevention and screening strategies will need to take into account inherited genetics and population diversity.
“Similarly, how people respond to cancer drugs is likely to differ depending on their inherited genetics, and so we may need to tailor our diagnostics and treatments accordingly.”
Cancer Research UK research information lead, Dr Sam Godfrey, said: “This study gives us a fascinating hint that our inherited genes might have a big influence on the way that cancers develop after DNA damage.
“We still need to see more research before we can understand what this means in humans, but this finding could change our understanding of how cancer starts, and lead to more powerful and precise ways of tackling cancer.”
The research was largely funded by Cancer Research UK, the Medical Research Council, European Research Council and Wellcome.
The University of Cambridge and Addenbrooke's Charitable Trust (ACT) are fundraising for Cambridge Cancer Research Hospital, a new hospital that will transform how we diagnose and treat cancer, with early detection at the heart of its mission. Set to be built on the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, the hospital will bring together clinical excellence from Addenbrooke’s Hospital and world-leading researchers at the University of Cambridge. The research carried out there aims to change the lives of cancer patients across the UK and beyond. Find out more here.
Reference
Aitken, SJ et al. Genetic background sets the trajectory of experimental cancer evolution. Nature; 22 July 2026; DOI: 10.1038/s41586-026-10821-z
I let my 2-year old child (she is also taking Vit D - 300iu a day) under the sun in the garden quite a lot on/off (I'd say probably 1h a day in total) and I find that she sleeps much better and is more calm in the evening as well, I can't say the same if we do an outing to the mall, something is clearly different/rewarding.
The worst thing to do is to go from low exposure (i.e. winter months, or just constant indoor time) to long periods of exposure, even with sunscreen.
So almost anything that is "UV-blocking" (sunscreen, UV-treated glass) gets rid of all of the beneficial UVB before UVA starts getting reduced. So you are actually enriching your exposure to the most harmful UV type, and not making Vitamin D.
This might explain the paradoxical finding that people who use sunscreen more can have higher rates of skin cancer
With that said, folks who are pregnant are discouraged from using any retinoids out of an abundance of caution.
People who spend more time outdoors are more likely to try to wear sunscreen, as are people who already got a lot of pre-existing risk to excessive sun exposure.
Key word on try as its greatly assuming there isnt a wide audience who do use sunscreen, then just apply it in poor amount, or never re-apply but enjoy staying out far longer than most do in the sun feeling they're oh so very protected.
Spray sunscreens for example are just about useless, as are those solid stick applicators. They only get a fraction the amount you need for the rated protection. The biggest issue with sunscreen relates to companies selling sub par "convenience" slop, often right beside their other products some of which might actually be half decent.
Secondly, if sun exposure is really that bad then how do you explain why most skin cancers are on the trunk and thighs rather than more exposed areas like hands and arms?
The simplest answer is it’s not sun exposure that’s bad but sudden high exposure after non-exposure (repair mechanisms can’t keep up with damage).
Not sure why I’m being downvoted. I guess there’s a lot of sheep among us. If anything I said is incorrect, please show me the evidence.
A critical factor for doing a screening is how many bad burns you've had on the chest and back which would probably be similar to many times the burns on the arms in terms of surface area x added probability.