RE: Apparent anti-correlations between geographic radiation and cancer are not surprising

[Brian Rees <brees@LANL.GOV>]

I'm not sure I understand this reasoning, it's a rate map and has very 

little to do with population density.  I do agree that people will 

gravitate to larger population centers for treatment, but at the resolution 

of the map it'd smeared out for the most part.



If anything, I'D like to see this superimposed on a background radiation 

level map.



(Obviously)my own opinions



Brian Rees







>First of all, cancers occur naturally in the population.    Ergo, more

>people, more cancers.  More people, more smoking.  More people, more

>drinking. Etc.  The denser the population, as in and around cities, the more

>cancers that will be observed.  These maps are aggregates of all cancers,

>and highly defined are the areas under study?  To me, it is difficult to

>compare a small rual county with a few small towns and a population maybe

>30,000 with the NY brough of Manhattan with 3 million people.  (These

>numbers are probably way off, but I think you get the idea).

>

>What I suggest is that you compare the cancer incident map with a population

>density map.

>

>-- John

>

>John P. Jacobus, MS

>Certified Health Physicist

>e-mail:  jenday1@msn.com

>

>

>Whatever the agent or combination of agents is, it must reproduce this map:

>http://www.dceg.cancer.gov/cgi-bin/atlas/mapview2?direct=acccwm70

>or else it can't be the cause.



************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.

You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/