[ RadSafe ] Doubts on Cancer Statistics

[Wes Van Pelt]

Radsafers (and other epidemiologists),
As I look at the peak in cancer mortality in 1990, it seems probably related
to cigarette smoking and lung cancer. I plotted lung cancer mortality rate
alone (see link below) and the peak at 1990 is even more evident. So I
suspect a decrease in smoking in 1960-1980 is responsible for the downward
trend in lung cancer after 1990, considering a 20-yer lag time.

http://statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov/historicaltrend/joinpoint.withimage.ph
p?0&9900&999&7599&001&047&00&0&0&0&2&0&1&1#graph 

Best regards,  Wes
Wesley R. Van Pelt, PhD, CIH, CHP 
Wesley R. Van Pelt Associates, Inc.  
 

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf
Of George Stanford
Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2010 1:04 PM
To: Wes Van Pelt
Cc: 'Emilio Martinez'; radsafe at radlab.nl
Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: RadSafe ] Doubts on Cancer Statistics


Here are snipped versions of the two long URLs:
< http://snipurl.com/uc7ti >
< http://snipurl.com/uc7qw >

      --- George Stanford

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


At 08:31 AM 2/11/2010, Wes Van Pelt wrote:
Emilio,
The peak in cancer mortality at 1990 is quite striking. You are right to ask
the question. The value plotted is cancer mortality per 100,000 residents.
If the average age of residents decreased after 1990 (due to immigration and
births) the graph would go down even if the chance of cancer mortality at
any specific age were constant.  But this is just a guess.

Best regards,  Wes
Wesley R. Van Pelt, PhD, CIH, CHP
Wesley R. Van Pelt Associates, Inc.



-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf
Of Emilio Martinez
Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2010 8:11 AM
To: radsafe at radlab.nl
Subject: [Bulk] [ RadSafe ] Doubts on Cancer Statistics

Hello Radsafers, searching for cancer statistics i run across
"http://statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov" where I found a peak in the number
of cancer cases around 1990. Could someone explain the reason of this to me?
shouldn't this behaviour be unsual?

The first one provides a clearer view of what i'm talking about, the second
page was a string-generated one I made to check he tendencies in every
state, although it takes a few seconds to load:



http://statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov/historicaltrend/joinpoint.withimage.ph
p?0&9900&999&7599&001&001&00&0&0&0&2&0&1&6&9901!001!001!00!0!2!0&9902!001!00
1!00!0!2!0&9904!001!001!00!0!2!0&9905!001!001!00!0!2!0&9906!001!001!00!0!2!0
#graph 



http://statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov/historicaltrend/joinpoint.withimage.ph
p?0&9900&999&7599&001&001&00&0&0&0&2&0&1&57&9901!001!001!00!0!2!0&9902!001!0
01!00!0!2!0&9903!001!001!00!0!2!0&9904!001!001!00!0!2!0&9905!001!001!00!0!2!
0&9906!001!001!00!0!2!0&9907!001!001!00!0!2!0&9908!001!001!00!0!2!0&9909!001
!001!00!0!2!0&9910!001!001!00!0!2!0&9911!001!001!00!0!2!0&9912!001!001!00!0!
2!0&9913!001!001!00!0!2!0&9914!001!001!00!0!2!0&9915!001!001!00!0!2!0&9916!0
01!001!00!0!2!0&9917!001!001!00!0!2!0&9918!001!001!00!0!2!0&9919!001!001!00!
0!2!0&9920!001!001!00!0!2!0&9921!001!001!00!0!2!0&9922!001!001!00!0!2!0&9923
!001!001!00!0!2!0&9924!001!001!00!0!2!0&9925!001!001!00!0!2!0&9926!001!001!0
0!0!2!0&9927!001!001!00!0!2!0&9928!001!001!00!0!2!0&9929!001!001!00!0!2!0&99
30!001!001!00!0!2!0&9931!001!001!00!0!2!0&9932!001!001!00!0!2!0&9933!001!001
!00!0!2!0&9934!001!001!00!0!2!0&9935!001!001!00!0!2!0&9936!001!001!00!0!2!0&
9937!001!001!00!0!2!0&9938!001!001!00!0!2!0&9939!001!00
1!00!0!2!0&9940!001!001!00!0!2!0&9941!001!001!00!0!2!0&9942!001!001!00!0!2!0
&9943!001!001!00!0!2!0&9944!001!001!00!0!2!0&9945!001!001!00!0!2!0&9946!001!
001!00!0!2!0&9947!001!001!00!0!2!0&9948!001!001!00!0!2!0&9949!001!001!00!0!2
!0&9950!001!001!00!0!2!0&9951!001!001!00!0!2!0&9952!001!001!00!0!2!0&9953!00
1!001!00!0!2!0&9954!001!001!00!0!2!0&9955!001!001!00!0!2!0&9956!001!001!00!0
!2!0#graph


Thanks a lot in advance