[ RadSafe ] A clue on cancer statistics

Emilio Martinez emmo_2002 at yahoo.com.ar
Fri Feb 12 11:21:14 CST 2010

Messing a little more with the graph generator I found some more interesting data. Even though there are many differences between states and races, these aren't important at all.

The addition of the amount of deaths for each particular cancer type makes up the total of deaths in any specific population group (let's say white californian females). As you might have noticed, in general the cancer death-rate trends to decrease or be stable through time, being a few types the only ones to blame for the 1990-peak: Lung, prostate, breast & brain cancer (the last one almost insignificant in comparison). Any other type of cancer shows no recognisible variation in 1990 and each one follows it's own twisted and aleatory graph.

What's also to notice is that in populations of less than 50 years there is NO 1990-peak (but for women's breast cancer), but a constant decrease from 1975 to the present. Indeed relatively few cancer deaths (less than 30 out of 100,000) are found in this group. Other thing is to be said about elder people (with more than 1,000 out of 100,000), who makes up most of the cancer death statistic, making it rise up to 200/100,000 for the whole population.

Said this, my new question is: Why is it that elder people (above 50 years) who dies from either lung, prostate, breast or brain cancer are the only ones with a 1990-peak?

Why do only these four deseases show a rapid decrease since 1990? why where them in rise before 1990? why do this data only appears in groups older than 50 (but mostly the 65+)? what do these four cancers have in common that makes them have increased for so many years only to start going downhill since 1990?

snipurl.com/ucimn  <-- complete
snipurl.com/ucimq  <-- less than 50    <--no 1990
snipurl.com/ucimv  <-- less than 65
snipurl.com/ucimx  <-- more than 50
snipurl.com/ucimy  <-- more than 65    <--here it is

Females with breast cancer are the only ones with 1990-peaks before their 50's and show no peak at all in Lungs:
snipurl.com/ucin0  <-- complete
snipurl.com/ucin2  <-- less than 50
snipurl.com/ucin6  <-- less than 65
snipurl.com/ucin7  <-- more than 50
snipurl.com/ucin9  <-- more than 65

sorry for making it too long, it's just i don't get it whit the elder people. Even if a new chemeotherapy has been discovered in 1990 i don't get why it helps only the 65+ group with lung, prostate or lung cancer

And thanks a lot to George Stanford for the snipurl tip

Emilio Martinez
Student, Buenos Aires, Argentina

      Yahoo! Cocina

Encontra las mejores recetas con Yahoo! Cocina.


More information about the RadSafe mailing list