Re: Apparent anti-correlations between geographic radiation and cancer are no...

["Richard L. Hess" <lists@richardhess.com>]

At 09:35 AM 01/02/2003 -0600, Kai Kaletsch wrote:


> 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,


I see that you live on the Prairie rather than the Plains and with that little fact and your obvious email address, I have deduced that you live in Canada.


Last summer when I drove the Trans-Canada highway (and tributaries) from Waterton Park to Carman, Manitoba, I found the lowest background radiation of the whole trip from Los Angeles to Carman (site of my wife's family reunion). I was measuring in the order of 8-9µR/h (8 to 9 micro-roentgens per hour) with the usual background of 13-14 at my house in Glendale, California (although my office measures about 10 or so). (numbers are approximate from memory--detailed data could be provided on request: a time-stamped radiation file and a time-stamped GPS file, but only for serious research as it will take me some time to compile).


Much of the discussion that I have seen about hormesis centers around Denver and the surrounding high-elevation areas which obtain a higher dose. My anecdotal measurements and the map do not correlate, unless all of your basements are filling up with radon that wasn't measured along the road.


At the top of the map, it says "rate map" so I'm assuming (and sometimes we spell that with appropriate "/"s) that it is showing a population-adjusted rate, not just a count of incidents.


There are some interesting correlations that say to me that the environmentalists who claim we're poisoning ourselves may have something here. Look at the "hotspot" around the lower Mississippi. Isn't that one of the chemical plant corridors of the country? 


I'm surprised at central Maine, however...and why is Shasta?? county in Northern California worse than Los Angeles county?


Las Vegas makes sense to me--high incidence of tobacco consumption and a bowl that pollutants don't escape from.


But then why the hotspot near Glacier Park?


South New Jersey makes sense, but why the Adirondaks? Paper mills?


This map certainly generates more and broader questions in my mind than radiation. 


Looking at this yet another way...let's run down the 104W Longitude line.


At the Canadian border (ND & MT), the elevation is about 2200 feet

At the border or N & S Dakota and Montana, the elevation rises to 3100 feet.

At the border of SD, NE, and WY it has risen to 3900 feet

As we reach the CO, NE, WY border, it has reached a hair over a mile at 5300 feet.


Lake of the Woods (that little thing that juts out of Minnesota north into Manitoba) is shown as 1070 feet. (Data from USGS DEMs via DeLorme Topo 3)


I don't see the positive or negative correlation between elevation (radiation) and cancer risk.


Maybe those fishing magazines are good for you?


Cheers,


Richard