SmokingSkillz Posted January 26, 2004 Posted January 26, 2004 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!
Radical Edward Posted January 26, 2004 Posted January 26, 2004 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.
JaKiri Posted January 26, 2004 Posted January 26, 2004 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.
JaKiri Posted January 26, 2004 Posted January 26, 2004 YT2095 said in post # :Grrrrr.... cancer sux! I heard that having cancer gives you cancer
JaKiri Posted January 26, 2004 Posted January 26, 2004 YT2095 said in post # :what the hell are you driveling on about? 'More sense in forum posts, demands Liz Hurley'
YT2095 Posted January 26, 2004 Posted January 26, 2004 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!
JaKiri Posted January 26, 2004 Posted January 26, 2004 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.
YT2095 Posted January 26, 2004 Posted January 26, 2004 so what of it? if you get close to a point, please make it!
SmokingSkillz Posted January 26, 2004 Author Posted January 26, 2004 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.
JaKiri Posted January 26, 2004 Posted January 26, 2004 The only significant amounts of nuclear material to look at would be the ones from Chernobyl and people actually near a nuclear explosion.
YT2095 Posted January 26, 2004 Posted January 26, 2004 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.
SmokingSkillz Posted January 26, 2004 Author Posted January 26, 2004 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.
JaKiri Posted January 26, 2004 Posted January 26, 2004 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.
YT2095 Posted January 26, 2004 Posted January 26, 2004 her politics are irrelevent, Mmmmmm LIiiiiiZ Huuuuurley! in my best Homer Simpson voice so that you understand me
YT2095 Posted January 26, 2004 Posted January 26, 2004 yeah ok, a joke`s a joke, but bugger a pantomine!
JaKiri Posted January 26, 2004 Posted January 26, 2004 YT2095 said in post # :bugger a pantomine! You can do what you like in your free time.
Radical Edward Posted January 26, 2004 Posted January 26, 2004 ooh, a panto. Fafalone walks on stage and all the kids go BOOOOOOOooooooooOOOOOoooooooooo
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now