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

["Tony Harrison" <Tony.Harrison@state.co.us>]

It's been said before: cancer rates (incidence and mortality) as well as

rates for just about every other disease are much more closely

correlated with income, education, race and access to healthcare than

with radiation or any other environmental exposure.  Until you adjust

for the obvious variables you'll never observe the "true" effect of

exposure to background radiation, whatever that may be.





Tony Harrison, MSPH

Colorado Dept. of Public Health & Environment

Laboratory and Radiation Services Division

(303)692-3046

tony.harrison@state.co.us





>>> "Larson, Kaye M BAMC-Ft Sam Houston"

<Kaye.Larson@CEN.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL> 01/02/03 10:20AM >>>

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

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

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/