So if the government knocks down on your door tomorrow and says:

"Look, you have two choices, we can help you not get cancer, and we'll supply you with daily pills for the rest of your life, but you will not be allowed to have Internet access ever again, or you can choose Internet access, and we won't give you the cancer-fighting pills anymore".

You're 30 years old. Go. Which do you choose?

The pills.

That's an insane choice. Do you really value raw lifespan over quality of life?

Having cancer tends to negatively affect one's quality of life. ;) But it's an interesting question--quality of life vs. lifespan. Imagine if there was no possibility of prolonging human lifespan, but instead we had the means to stop aging, say in a person's mid twenties to mid thirties. Having some 50 or 60 years time with your mental and physical faculties in prime, not having to rush, being able to take your time and learn and do practically everything you want. We would live like gods.

so you would risk having cancer for internet access? Does internet define your quality of life?

Of course it does. I use the internet to generate money.

So do I, but if the pills make me healthy enough to go and do work elsewhere, then so be it.

But are you not healthy enough? The situation didn't involve actually having cancer, just a risk of developing it.

Sounds to me like you have an irrational fear of cancer and/or death.