[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

Title: RE: Apparent anti-correlations between geographic radiation and cancer are not surprising
Kaye,
I certainly would not expect population to explain all of the rates.  As I mentioned, their are many causes to cancer.  From your example, I wonder what the map would look like if you controlled for level of health care and economic income.
 
My comments are based on taking very raw data (cancer rates) which has not been analyzed for confounding factors, and interpretating the results with data (radiation levels) that may not be relevant to the first.  I think this is particular true if you consider that low-LET ionizing radiation is a weak carcinogen.

-- John

John P. Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
e-mail:  jenday1@msn.com

The comments presented are mine and do not reflect the opinion of my employer or spouse.
------------------------------------

-----Original Message-----
From: Larson, Kaye M BAMC-Ft Sam Houston [mailto:Kaye.Larson@CEN.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL]
Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003 12:20 PM
To: Radsafe Mail list
Subject: RE: Apparent anti-correlations between geographic radiation and c ancer are not surprising

I agree that population does not explain the rates in all areas.  I was looking at the counties in North and South Dakota that are coded red.  These counties are extremely rural, and have very low populations (including few white males).  The one factor that they all may share is the lack of health care, and a very impoverished population.


Kaye Larson

-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Rees [mailto:brees@LANL.GOV]
Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003 11:50 AM
To: Jacobus, John (NIH/OD/ORS); Radsafe Mail list
Subject: RE: Apparent anti-correlations between geographic radiation and
cancer are not surprising


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



. . .