Does anyone know where i can find cancer case stats since 1900?

I wan't to plot the stats against nuclear tests carried out by various countries so it would also be useful to know how many curies are released, on average per Kt of atomic blast.

It would be even better if you know of someone who has already done it!

the problem I see is decoupling it from all the other things that cause cancer that have been fluctuating throught the years. statistics isn't that simple.

You won't be able to get any meaningful figures from the atomic blasts, working like that.

 

For instance, the curies released would depend on the time of the blast (as it increases with time), the type of warhead and the size of the warhead.

 

In addition, almost all of the radiation will not be absorbed by man; the atomic tests were done well out of the way of most society, which means that if you just did -> curies/(curie danger level (although strictly speaking there is no safe level)), you'd get a figure which was inflated by thousands if not millions.

Grrrrr.... cancer sux!

YT2095 said in post # :

Grrrrr.... cancer sux!

 

I heard that having cancer gives you cancer

huh?

It probably makes house prises fall too.

what the hell are you driveling on about?

YT2095 said in post # :

what the hell are you driveling on about?

 

'More sense in forum posts, demands Liz Hurley'

if oblique trolling is your objective, you get 10 out of 10, but it doesn`t belong in this thread!

 

I just lost a Bro less that 26 hours ago due to cancer, give it a rest!

YT2095 said in post # :

if oblique trolling is your objective, you get 10 out of 10, but it doesn`t belong in this thread!

 

I just lost a Bro less that 26 hours ago due to cancer, give it a rest!

 

http://www.qwghlm.co.uk/other/dailymail.php you silly boy.

so what of it?

 

if you get close to a point, please make it!

sorry to be depressing and sorry to hear about your brother YT but can i pull the thread back to where it started, bull as it may be.

 

Radical Edward said in post # :

the problem I see is decoupling it from all the other things that cause cancer that have been fluctuating throught the years. statistics isn't that simple.

 

I hear what your saying, but I would still expect to see a rise in cases since 1939 given that the 2000 odd test explosions conducted to date has apparently released more than 148 times the amount of radiation into Ghia than Chernobyl, the remnents of which is still detecible in north wales. On the other hand the amount of fags smoked by the population has declined greatly since that time which I would expect to decrease the number of throat/lung cancers. The number of cars on the road has also exploded which of course would have an effect.

 

I guess the best option would be to try and identify the types of cancer associated with various carcinogens.

 

Also maybe looking at local statistics say in New Mexico, Japan or Afghanistan would yield some sane results.

 

Are there records of estimated global radiation levels? if so surely it has risen sharply with the invention of atomic power, wether it has come from bombs, satelites, meltdowns or badly disposed of X-Ray machines. I bet if plotted on a graphs patterns would emerge.

The only significant amounts of nuclear material to look at would be the ones from Chernobyl and people actually near a nuclear explosion.

MrL, btw, I happen to like Liz Hurley

 

Smoking: there`s still people dying and born mutated today as a direct result of the 1945 bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

the radiation effects genes with unpredictable effects (although most mutations are born dead as a rule). yes I strong beleive that it HAS had an impact on the levels of radiation above background over the last 60 years, however so have many other contributors, UV rays (ozone depletion), proccessed foods (chems), manufacturing plants (chems), air pollution from traffic (chems) all of which may contribute significantly to the carcinogens we absorb daily.

the Bombs (although bad and never a good idea) are only a tiny part, chems are the most devastating when looking at the entire picture.

Ok i'll forget that one! I guess locally it could be applied. The stats would still be interesting to look at if anyone knows where I could obtain them. I have found records from 1973.

YT2095 said in post # :

MrL, btw, I happen to like Liz Hurley

 

'More bobbies on the beat, demands liz hurley' is a real daily mail headline.

her politics are irrelevent, Mmmmmm LIiiiiiZ Huuuuurley!

 

in my best Homer Simpson voice so that you understand me

 

mmm free goooooo

yeah ok, a joke`s a joke, but bugger a pantomine!

YT2095 said in post # :

bugger a pantomine!

 

You can do what you like in your free time.

if that`s an offer, I decline

ooh, a panto.

 

Fafalone walks on stage and all the kids go

 

 

BOOOOOOOooooooooOOOOOoooooooooo