|
>From:
RuthWeiner@aol.com
>Actually, apparently not. A couple of years ago, an article in the New Yorker looked at "disease clusters" including "cancer clusters" and found that there were >almost no geographic "clusters" -- that "clusters" occurred when lifestyles and habits were similar (e.g., lung cancer in smokers) but rarely were correlated with >geography or place of residence. The map http://www.dceg.cancer.gov/cgi-bin/atlas/mapview2?direct=acccwm70 doesn't
seem to support that conclusion. It may also be that "cancer clusters" are
usually considered a few incidences of very rare forms of cancer. I think the
biggest leukemia cluster has about a dozen or two cases. These "clusters"
would not show up on a cancer map that deals with millions of cases. I
don't know what the New Yorker article meant by clusters. (Us healthy prairie
folk only read fishing magazines, if we read at all.)
Kai |