logo
Climate change could be driving up cancer rates in women, study finds

Climate change could be driving up cancer rates in women, study finds

Yahoo5 days ago

In the U.S., cancer rates are going up—especially for young and middle-aged women, whose cancer diagnoses have surpassed those of men. Women under 50 are now almost twice as likely to develop cancer than men of the same age, according to the American Cancer Society's latest cancer statistics report—and the gap has been widening since the early 2000s.
Experts say there are likely multiple factors behind the growing cancer rates in young adults, including childhood bacteria exposure and ultra-processed foods. New research indicates another monumental culprit, especially for women: climate change.
In a new study published in the journal Frontiers in Public Health, researchers discovered that climate change—long-term shifts in temperature and weather patterns primarily driven by the burning of fossil fuels—could be behind increasing cancer rates and deaths among women in the Middle East and North Africa.
'As temperatures rise, cancer mortality among women also rises—particularly for ovarian and breast cancers,' said lead author Wafa Abuelkheir Mataria of the American University in Cairo in the press release. 'Although the increases per degree of temperature rise are modest, their cumulative public health impact is substantial.'
The study, which gathered data from 17 Middle Eastern and North African countries most vulnerable to warming temperatures—including Qatar, Bahrain, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates—found that climate change is making certain cancers more common and more deadly among women. Researchers looked at the prevalence and mortality of breast, ovarian, cervical, and uterine cancers, and compared the data with changing temperatures between 1998 and 2019.
They found that the prevalence of the different cancers rose from 107 to 280 cases per 100,000 people for every additional degree Celsius, with ovarian cancer cases rising the most and breast cancer the least. Mortality more than doubled, from 160 to 332 deaths per 100,000 people for each degree of temperature rise, with the greatest rise in ovarian cancer and the smallest in cervical cancer.
When the researchers broke the overall data down by country, they found that cancer prevalence and deaths rose in only six countries: Qatar, Bahrain, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Syria, speculating this may be because of particularly extreme summer temperatures in those countries. They also observed that the rise was not uniform between countries—the prevalence of breast cancer rose by 560 cases per 100,000 people for each degree Celsius in Qatar, and 330 in Bahrain. The researchers point out that while the rise in rates is small, it is statistically significant enough to suggest a notable increase in cancer risk and mortality over time.
As a result of climate change, Americans are witnessing hotter summers, milder winters, shifting rain and snowfall patterns, and more extreme weather events like record-high heat waves and devastating hurricanes, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.
Moreover, climate change is known to cause and exacerbate health issues globally, according to the World Health Organization (WHO). Polluted air, water, and soil from increased fossil fuel usage and high temperatures caused by global warming directly worsen health, while natural disasters exacerbated by climate change can lead to chronic stress, poor mental health, and decreased social support, while depleting health care infrastructure and access.
Climate change also leaves people more exposed to environmental toxins and less likely to receive a quick diagnosis and treatment, the WHO points out, especially in developing countries disproportionately impacted by rising temperatures and infrastructural issues—leaving those populations more vulnerable to developing cancer.
'Temperature rise likely acts through multiple pathways,' said coauthor Sungsoo Chun of the American University in Cairo. 'It increases exposure to known carcinogens, disrupts health care delivery, and may even influence biological processes at the cellular level. Together, these mechanisms could elevate cancer risk over time.'
As Chun pointed out, multiple factors could compound on one another to drive these rates. For example, increased heat could come in tandem with higher levels of carcinogenic air pollution.
And women are left more physiologically vulnerable to climate-related health risks, according to Chun.
'This is compounded by inequalities that limit access to health care,' she explained in the press release. 'Marginalized women face a multiplied risk because they are more exposed to environmental hazards and less able to access early screening and treatment services.'
Though some could argue that better cancer screening leads to higher rates of prevalence, the researchers counter by saying improvements in screening should result in fewer deaths, as early-stage cancer is easier to treat. But since both prevalence and death rates rose, the researchers believe climate-change-related risks are the driving factors, and call for considering climate-related risks in public health planning.
'This study cannot establish direct causality,' Mataria said. 'While we controlled for GDP per capita, other unmeasured factors could contribute. Nonetheless, the consistent associations observed across multiple countries and cancer types provide compelling grounds for further investigation.'
For more on cancer:
The number one diet change to lower your cancer risk, according to experts
The truth about CT scans: The common health check could drive 103,000 cancer cases, research warns
Can sunscreen give you cancer? What experts want you to know
The best diet to lower your risk of prostate cancer, according to experts
This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Donald Trump's Net Approval Positive on Only One Key Issue
Donald Trump's Net Approval Positive on Only One Key Issue

Newsweek

time24 minutes ago

  • Newsweek

Donald Trump's Net Approval Positive on Only One Key Issue

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Donald Trump's net approval rating is negative on a range of issues except immigration, a new poll shows. According to political analyst and statistician Nate Silver, writing in his Silver Bulletin Substack, Trump has a net negative approval rating on trade, the economy and inflation but a slightly positive rating on immigration. Why It Matters Taking the temperature of the nation, approval ratings are good measures of the public's response to Trump's policies and his actions as president. In the first few months of his second term, Trump's popularity has fluctuated, with some polls more favorable than others. Sustained backlash to his policies could persuade the president to change his approach. Trump, who made immigration a central part of his campaign, has vowed to crack down on border security, carry out mass deportations and end federal benefits for people residing in the country illegally. President Donald Trump speaking with reporters in the rain after arriving on Air Force One at Joint Base Andrews in Maryland on May 30. President Donald Trump speaking with reporters in the rain after arriving on Air Force One at Joint Base Andrews in Maryland on May 30. AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson What To Know Silver aggregated dozens of recent polls and found that Trump's approval rating on immigration was +2.5 percent. The president did not fare as well on other issues, with a -9.5 percent approval rating on trade, -11.3 percent on the economy and -17.5 percent on inflation. May polling conducted by Verasight U.S. for Strength in Numbers found similar results, with Americans disapproving of the president's handling of all the policy areas they were asked about except border security. That poll also found that 49 percent disapproved of his immigration policy, while 47 percent approved. Overall, Silver found that when analyzing the polls, Trump had a -5.4 net approval rating. An RMG Research/Napolitan News poll, conducted between May 14 and 21 among 3,000 registered voters, showed Trump's approval rating at 48 percent, with 50 percent disapproving. The poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 1.8 percentage points. Other polls have found a more positive response to the president. According to a recent Rasmussen survey, 53 percent of respondents said they approved of Trump, while 46 percent said they disapproved. What People Are Saying Scott Lucas, a professor in international politics at University College Dublin, previously cautioned against reading too much into any one poll, telling Newsweek: "Opinion polls have their own biases." President Donald Trump wrote on Truth Social on April 20: "We are, together, going to make America bigger, better, stronger, wealthier, healthier, and more religious, than it has ever been before!!!" What Happens Next The midterm elections, scheduled for November 2026, may offer a clearer indication of voters' attitudes toward the president's policies.

The ‘Medicaid moderates' are the senators to watch on the megabill
The ‘Medicaid moderates' are the senators to watch on the megabill

Politico

time30 minutes ago

  • Politico

The ‘Medicaid moderates' are the senators to watch on the megabill

The Senate's deficit hawks might be raising the loudest hue and cry over the GOP's 'big, beautiful bill.' But another group of Republicans is poised to have a bigger impact on the final legislative product. Call them the 'Medicaid moderates.' They're actually an ideologically diverse bunch — ranging from conservative Josh Hawley of Missouri to centrist Susan Collins of Maine. Yet they have found rare alignment over concerns about what the House-passed version of the GOP domestic-policy megabill does to the national safety-net health program, and they have the leverage to force significant changes in the Senate. 'I would hope that we would elect not to do anything that would endanger Medicaid benefits as a conference,' Hawley said in an interview. 'I've made that clear to my leadership. I think others share that perspective.' Besides Hawley and Collins, other GOP senators including Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Jerry Moran of Kansas and Jim Justice of West Virginia have also drawn public red lines over health care — and they have some rhetorical backing from President Donald Trump, who has urged congressional Republicans to spare the program as much as possible. Based on early estimates from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, 10.3 million people would lose coverage under Medicaid if the House-passed bill were to become law — many, if not most, in red states. That could spell trouble for Majority Leader John Thune's whip count: He can only lose three GOP senators on the expected party-line vote and still have Vice President JD Vance break a tie. Republicans already have one all-but-guaranteed opponent in Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky so long as they stick to their plan to raise the debt limit as part of the bill. They also view Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson as increasingly likely to oppose the package after spending weeks blasting the bill on fiscal grounds. Meeting either senator's demands could be enormously difficult given the tight fiscal parameters through which House leaders have to squeeze the bill to advance it in their own chamber. That in turn is empowering the senators elsewhere in the GOP conference to make changes — and the Medicaid group is emerging as the key bloc to watch because of its size and its overlapping, relatively workable demands. Heeding those asks won't be easy. Republicans are counting on savings from Medicaid changes to offset hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts, and rolling that back is likely to create political pain elsewhere for Thune & Co., who already want to cut more than the House to assuage a sizable group of spending hawks. At the same time, Speaker Mike Johnson is insisting the Senate make only minor changes to the bill so as to maintain the delicate balance in his own narrowly divided chamber. Thune and Finance Committee Chair Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) have already acknowledged that Medicaid, covering nearly 80 million low-income Americans, will be one of the biggest sticking points as they embark this month on a rewrite of the megabill. They are talking with key members in anticipation of difficult negotiations and being careful not to draw red lines publicly. 'We want to do things that are meaningful in terms of reforming programs, strengthening programs, without affecting beneficiaries,' Thune said, echoing language used by some of the concerned senators. Crapo voiced support in an interview for one pillar of the House bill — broad new work requirements for Medicaid beneficiaries — but rushed to add that he's 'still working with a 53-member caucus to get answers' to how the program can be overhauled: 'I can only speak for myself.' Complicating their task is the fact that some in the group — namely Collins and Murkowski — have a proven history of bucking their party even amid intense public pressure. The pair, in fact, helped tank the GOP's last party-line effort on health care, in 2017. Leaders view them as unlikely to be moved by the type of arm-twisting Republicans are planning to deploy to bring enough of the fiscal hawks on board. And then there's Hawley, who is playing up Trump's own warnings to congressional Republicans about keeping their hands off Medicaid. Hawley and Trump spoke shortly before the House passed its bill, with the senator recounting that the president said 'absolutely categorically, 'Do not touch Medicaid. No Medicaid benefit cuts, none.'' Hawley, like Crapo, has indicated he is comfortable with work requirements, but he is pushing for two major tweaks to the House language: undoing a freeze on provider taxes, which most states use to help finance their share of Medicaid costs, and new co-payment requirements for some beneficiaries that he has been calling a 'sick tax.' The provider tax changes would present an issue with multiple senators, who fear it would exacerbate the bill's impact on state budgets and slash funding that helps keep rural hospitals afloat. Justice, a former governor, called it a 'real issue.' 'They haven't done anything to really cut into the bone except that one thing,' Justice added. 'That's gonna put a big burden on the states.' Moran grabbed the attention of his colleagues when he warned in a pointed April floor speech that making changes to Medicaid would hurt rural hospitals. A 'significant portion' of his focus, he said, 'is to make sure the hospitals have the capability and the revenues necessary to provide the services the community needs — Medicaid is a component of that.' Collins, who is up for reelection in 2026, has also left the door open to supporting work requirements, depending on how they are crafted. She has also raised concerns about the provider tax provision, noting that 'rural hospitals in my state and across the country are really teetering.' Murkowski, meanwhile, isn't as concerned about the provider tax, because Alaska is the only state that doesn't use it to help cover its share of Medicaid spending. But she has expressed alarm over the House's approach to work requirements, including a decision to speed up the implementation deadline to appease House hard-liners. She said it would be 'very challenging if not impossible' for her state to implement. As it is, any effort to water down the House's Medicaid language will face steep resistance in other corners of the GOP-controlled Senate, where lawmakers are pushing to amp up spending cuts, not scale them back. Some senators, in fact, want to further tighten the House's work requirements or reduce, not just freeze, the provider tax. 'I'd be damned disappointed if a Republican majority with a Republican president didn't make some reforms,' said Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.). 'The provider tax is a money laundering machine. … If we don't go after that, we're not doing our jobs.' Ron Johnson and a few others are continuing to push to change the cost split for those Medicaid beneficiaries made eligible under the Affordable Care Act. The federal government now picks up 90 percent of the cost, and House centrists nixed an effort by conservatives to reduce it. One idea under discussion by conservatives is to phase in the change to appease skittish colleagues and state governments, but that is still likely to be a nonstarter for 50 GOP senators. Hawley warned that 'there will be no Senate bill if that is on the table.' Adam Cancryn contributed to this report.

Gold Climbs as Rising Geopolitical and Trade Tensions Aid Havens
Gold Climbs as Rising Geopolitical and Trade Tensions Aid Havens

Yahoo

time2 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Gold Climbs as Rising Geopolitical and Trade Tensions Aid Havens

(Bloomberg) -- Gold rose — after falling by 2% last week — as an increase in geopolitical and trade tensions revived demand for haven assets. Billionaire Steve Cohen Wants NY to Expand Taxpayer-Backed Ferry Where the Wild Children's Museums Are The Economic Benefits of Paying Workers to Move Now With Colorful Blocks, Tirana's Pyramid Represents a Changing Albania NYC Congestion Toll Brings In $216 Million in First Four Months Bullion climbed as much as 0.8% in Asia after Ukraine staged a dramatic series of drone strikes across Russia on Sunday, hitting airfields as far away as eastern Siberia. Around the same time, Moscow launched one of its longest attacks against Kyiv, ahead of crucial peace talks this week. President Donald Trump also stoked more worries over global trade at the weekend, vowing to double import tariffs on foreign steel and aluminum to 50%, with Canada's industry minister warning that it would retaliate. There are also signs the US-China truce is at risk after Trump accused Beijing of reneging on an agreement reached last month. All of that is restoring some of gold's haven appeal, which has ebbed somewhat since it hit a record high above $3,500 an ounce in April. The precious metal is still up more than a quarter so far this year though, with Goldman Sachs Group Inc. saying last week it would remain a hedge against inflation in long-term portfolios, along with oil. Spot gold rose 0.8% to $3,314.36 an ounce as of 12:52 p.m. in Singapore. The Bloomberg Dollar Spot Index dipped. Silver rose, while platinum and palladium edged lower. Looking ahead, there are a slew of labor-market indicators due this week — including the May employment report — which will help to steer US monetary policy. YouTube Is Swallowing TV Whole, and It's Coming for the Sitcom Millions of Americans Are Obsessed With This Japanese Barbecue Sauce Mark Zuckerberg Loves MAGA Now. Will MAGA Ever Love Him Back? Will Small Business Owners Knock Down Trump's Mighty Tariffs? Trump Considers Deporting Migrants to Rwanda After the UK Decides Not To ©2025 Bloomberg L.P.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store