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

[Kai Kaletsch <eic@shaw.ca>]

John and Ruth,



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



I believe all values shown are per 100 000 people. (The US average is given

as 209.47/100 000 and the title talks about "rates".)



If the blue areas (prairies) have 1/2 the cancer mortality per 100 000

people than the red ones (eastern 1/3 of the US) and 25% of the people in

the red areas will eventually die of cancer and 150 million people live in

the red areas, that means that 1/2 x 0.25 x 150 million = 19 million excess

cancers as compared to the blue areas.



----- Original Message -----

From: ruthweiner@aol.com



Excess over what?  This is a map of cancer mortality, not excess cancer

mortality.  Also, I did not say retirement is the only factor.  Clearly

cancer mortality follows population (since the map shows  cancer deaths, not

cancer deaths/number of people, or cancer deaths/total deaths.



and



----- Original Message -----

From: Jacobus, John (NIH/OD/ORS)



Kai,

No, you are not looking at tens of millions of excess cancers....



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

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/