Quoted By:
Get out of major cities and just go camping or something
For humans, cancer incidence and mortality tend to be higher in urban areas than rural ones. Studies show urban residents face increased risks for several cancers, likely due to greater exposure to pollutants (e.g., air pollution, chemicals), sedentary lifestyles, and processed diets. For instance, in the U.S., urban cancer death rates were 156 per 100,000 for heart disease-related cancers and 143 per 100,000 for cancer overall, compared to 189 and 164 in rural areas, respectively, though rural areas lag in screening and treatment access, potentially elevating mortality despite lower incidence. Globally, urban cancer risk is tied to industrialization, with higher rates of lung and breast cancer noted in cities.
For animals, data is less comprehensive. Wild animals in pristine environments likely have the lowest cancer rates, as suggested by necropsies from urban zoos showing higher cancer prevalence (20-40% in some species) than in wild urban populations like squirrels or voles, where rates appear lower. This may reflect reduced exposure to human-induced carcinogens (e.g., pollution, artificial light) and fewer survival pressures allowing cancer to manifest. Rural animals, such as farm livestock, show lower lung cancer rates than urban counterparts, possibly due to less smoking-related exposure or endotoxins, though data is sparse. Suburban and urban wildlife face intermediate to high risks, with urban adapters (e.g., pigeons, foxes) exposed to pollutants, noise, and human food, potentially increasing cancer-linked traits. For example, sparrows in noisy cities exhibit cancer-related physiological changes...
Comparatively, humans in urban settings likely outpace all animal groups due to lifestyle factors, while wild animals in natural habitats fare best. Suburban and rural rates fall between these extremes, with animals potentially benefiting from lower predation but facing rising human influence.
