[ RadSafe ] Doubts on Cancer Statistics

Thu Feb 11 14:51:57 CST 2010

Two thoughts come to mind
The most obvious to me is the steady improvements in treating cancer. I however did not see a way to plot morbidity, which might provide some insight here.
The second is I notice that California peaks back in 85 and Alabama is in 95. California is usually a leader in health/ environmental legislation. I am not sure but I would bet Alabama is a laggard in this area. Smoking seems a very likely contributor although I don't believe changing demographics would account for this trend across all states.

Chip

Charles W. Dodge, Ph.D.
NASA, Johnson Space Center
Bldg.15 Rm266
Houston, TX. 77058
Fax 281-244-1768
Ph 281-244-6761

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Wes Van Pelt
Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2010 1:18 PM
To: radsafe at radlab.nl
Cc: 'Emilio Martinez'
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Doubts on Cancer Statistics

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

_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/