"every mouthful of food you and I have ever taken contained many billions of kinds of complex molecules whose structure and physiological effects have never been determined—and many millions of which would be toxic or fatal in large doses. We cannot doubt that we are daily ingesting thousands of substances that are far more dangerous than saccharin—but in amounts that are safe, because they are far below the various thresholds of toxicity. But at present there is hardly any substance except some common drugs, for which we actually know the threshold."

E. T. Jaynes

Life expectancy is a really poor metric. When accounting for the average life expectancy due to huge drop in infant mortality, LE has made very low gains at a high economic and medical cost. I was commenting that if naturally occurring nanoparticles as created in combustion are getting lodged into tissue, that synthetic nanoparticles have the same opportunity. Combustion byproducts are already known carcinogens.

>life expectancy is still increasing...*

Yet cancer, Alzheimer's, autism, etc. are on the rise.

Cancer and Alzheimer's are on the rise because life expectancy is increasing.

Nope. That only explains a portion of the increase.

Got a convincing and well-sourced statistical argument on that one?

Yes. Do you for your declaration?

Because we are better at diagnosing them then years ago. It does not mean that there are more cases of "cancer, Alzheimer's, autism, etc.". People diagnosed with Asperger syndrome would be called quirky, or plainly weird twenty years ago.

Nope. Doesn't explain it away. Real rates are rising.