Welcome to the new version of European Tribune. It's just a new layout, so everything should work as before - please report bugs here.
Display:
Sure.  1% mortality per year corresponds to a live expectancy of 100 years.  2.8% yearly mortality give a life expectancy of 35 years.

You want me to believe that life expectancy near Sellafield is down to 35 years?!  Repeating the calculations with realistic numbers, it shrinks to just 27 years.

Unbelievable.

Regarding the simultaneously comment: that would mean, most people recover from their cancer, wouldn't it?  So cancer isn't all that deadly after all, is it?  So what's your point, really?  Are you maybe just spreading FUD, with invented figures nonetheless?

by ustenzel on Sat Aug 19th, 2006 at 06:14:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I am just saying you can multiply cancer rates by 10, and there is no contradiction there.

A lot of your other calculations are sound, but your [lack of] grasp of what it meast to multiply the death rate due to cancer by 10 is worrying.

Now we can discuss whether or not it is a fact that the cancer rates grew 10-fold, but not whether that is physically possible because everyone would have to die twice [as you have claimed].

Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Aug 19th, 2006 at 06:37:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No, we should actually debate what Giannes definition of "cancer rate" is and where her numbers come from.  We've already established, that

  • it's not the percentage of people dying of cancer,
  • it's not the percentage of people ever getting cancer either,
  • it's very probably also not the number of people dying of cancer in a given time, and
  • no source for the dubious number was quoted.

Instead of desperately trying to find models where an unsupported number is not outright impossible, Gianne (or you or whoever) should provide some reference for that number.
by ustenzel on Sat Aug 19th, 2006 at 04:04:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Ok, let's see...

  1. Gaianne claims that "cancer rates increased 10-fold at Seascale"
  2. You claim that that is absurd because since 1/5 of all people die of cancer, that would require everyone to two die of cancer twice.
  3. I point out your argument about death rates doesn't hold, because you are confusing "cancer rate" with "fraction of deaths due to cancer in a cohort". I show that multiplying UK cancer death rates by 10-fold would put the death rate at the level of the highest death rates in any country in the world.
  4. You conclude that reduces Gaianne's claim to absurdity. You also make a comment to the effect that "suffering from cancer is not that bad if you don't die from it".

I don't know why you think this exchange makes me look "desperate to find models where an unsupported number is not outright impossible". You seemed "desperate" to make an absurd claim about a different quantity in order to make said unsubstantiated claim seem outright impossible.

Anyway, since Gaianne is not gracing us with a reference, I decided to go fishing for one.

New Scientist: Science: Leukaemia and nuclear power stations ( 17 June 1989)

Subsequent investigations confirmed an excess of leukaemia and other cancer among children living near Sellafield, the complex British Nuclear Fuel runs in northwest England. ...

Depending on which statistics are quoted, the excess represents up to a tenfold increase in the number of cases expected on the basis of conventional dose/risk models.

The whole (short) article is full of qualifications, and what I walk out of it with is that "standard dose/risk models underestimate the expected number of additional child leukemia cases by a factor of up to 10". A far cry from "cancer rates increased by a factor of 10".

Anyway, for anyone interested there is the COMARE 10th Report: The incidence of childhood cancer around nuclear installations in Great Britain (10 June 2005).

Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Aug 20th, 2006 at 11:52:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You'll note that a "ten-fold increase in the incidence of leukaemia in children" is quite something different than "ten-fold increase of cancer rates".  As I said before: we find an increase in a single rare form of cancer while Gaianne is hinting at an increase in all forms of cancers, though never spelling it out.  Which is intellectually dishonest.

(On a side note: I cannot confuse "cancer rate" with anything, because that term is basically undefined and left to interpretation by individuals.  It is only used by anti-nuke-kooks when applying statistical trickery.)

by ustenzel on Sun Aug 20th, 2006 at 02:52:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You'll note that a "ten-fold increase in the incidence of leukaemia in children" is quite something different than "ten-fold increase of cancer rates"
How about ackowledging I have noted that?
"standard dose/risk models underestimate the expected number of additional child leukemia cases by a factor of up to 10". A far cry from "cancer rates increased by a factor of 10".


Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Aug 20th, 2006 at 02:57:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yeah, you have.  I must have had some sort of tunnel vision and only saw the quotation from the article.
by ustenzel on Mon Aug 21st, 2006 at 07:54:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Top Diaries

Occasional Series