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

["Jacobus, John (NIH/OD/ORS)" <jacobusj@ors.od.nih.gov>]

Kai,

Whoa there cowboy!  I think you are way off base on this and I don't know

where you are going with this line of thinking.  First of all, the map is

only for white males based on county data.  If you scroll down and click on

the button for white female 1970-1994 for county data you will get a

different map of data. Try:

http://www.dceg.cancer.gov/cgi-bin/atlas/mapview2?direct=acccwf70.



Even better yet click on either button for Black and see what happens.  Try:

http://www.dceg.cancer.gov/cgi-bin/atlas/mapview2?direct=accsbm70 or

http://www.dceg.cancer.gov/cgi-bin/atlas/mapview2?direct=accsbf70



For another, the highest "bin" (dark red) brackets are much greater range of

values then the other do.



The data shows cancer rates, not cancer risks.  The rates have been

normalized to 100,000.

-- 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: Kai Kaletsch [mailto:eic@shaw.ca]

Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003 4:55 PM

To: Jacobus, John (NIH/OD/ORS); RuthWeiner@AOL.COM;

radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

Subject: Re: Apparent anti-correlations between geographic radiation and

cancer are no...





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/