Revisiting the Fallout Hypothesis

Two bits of good news from the comments. Firstly (H/T Harley and Kin-Free), the French are smoking more (and also the Albanians and Czechs):

Europeans Keep Smoking Crown as French Cigarette Use Rises

About 28 percent of adults smoked in 2011 in Europe as more French picked up the habit, according to statistics released today by the World Health Organization’s regional office in Copenhagen…

Smoking rose in France, Albania and the Czech Republic between 2005 and 2011, while rates in Switzerland have remained about the same. Russia has the highest rate of men smoking and Austria leads in women smoking…

European smoking rates dropped 7 percentage points between 2005 and 2011, according to the WHO. One of the biggest declines was in the U.K., where smoking dropped to 22 percent for both men and women in 2011 from 37 percent and 35 percent in 2005 respectively.

Austrian women led an increase in female smoking with a 7 percentage point increase, while such figures increased by 3 percentage points or more in France, the Czech Republic and Lithuania between 2005 and 2011, according to WHO data.

I’d dispute the suggestion that UK smoking prevalence was 37% for men, 35% for women, in 2005. That would have put Britons in the same league as Bulgaria. To the best of my knowledge it was 23% prevalence. So a fall to 22% is unremarkable.

Russia-cancer-trendsThe Russians are the world’s champion smokers with 60% male prevalence, because – second bit of good news – Fredrick Eich has found that, despite not having engaged in a war on tobacco for the past 60 years, Russian lung cancer rates have begun to fall in line with US lung cancer rates (see right) – which would rather suggest that if the global lung cancer epidemic has peaked, it wasn’t smoking that drove it.

Fredrick Eich also has (on another page) a graph showing US lung cancer incidence:

US-historical-smoking-trends

I must say that I’m a bit suspicious of these falls in lung cancer rates. Although the peaks are in the same places, the graph above shows US male lung cancer mortality peaking at about 135 per 100,000. But the first graph shows it peaking at about 48 per 100,000. Which is a huge disparity.

Also the lower graph uses figures from the 35 – 69 age range, when it’s well known that cancer is very largely a disease of old age. i.e. after age 69. It may well be that cancer rates are falling in the lower age range, and produce these peaks. But GaryK has in the past produced figures showing US incidence/mortality continuing to rise (perhaps he could rustle them up again?). As I have also done for the EU.

Anyway, Fredrick Eich thinks that nuclear fallout offers a better explanation for lung cancer incidence, and shows the following graph, in which inhalation exposure drops sharply after 1985 – roughly the time when lung cancer peaked (if it peaked):

global-fallout-doses

The peak of this logarithmic scale graph is in about 1964. The lung cancer peak came in about 1984. Which would suggest a delay of about 20 years from inhaling radioactive fallout to developing lung cancer.

In my Fallout Hypothesis, I showed that Cesium-137 deposition in the south-eastern USA corresponded geographically with lung cancer mortality. Fredrik Eich pointed out that this also corresponded to highest US rainfall, which would have washed more radioactive fallout out of the atmosphere in that region.

Last week GaryK said that these were the poorest states in the USA. I think that I’m probably right in saying that these are also states with principally agricultural products – tobacco, cotton, sugar cane, wheat, etc.  If so, they probably had large numbers of adult males working outdoors, where they would be much more exposed to fallout than women working indoors.

I returned to the Fallout Hypothesis last week with An Evolutionary Model of Cancer, in which I succeeded with a simple computer model in getting cells to multiply more rapidly into voids left by dead cells – and in particular voids created by a radioactive dust particles – to form tumours. It took quite a long time for the tumours to develop.

I think this is a very interesting model, and I’ve been developing it a bit more in recent days, and may post some more about it soon. Meanwhile GaryK has left a few questions to ponder on, such as:

1. Are heavier particles more deadly than the lighter ones?
2. How much radioactivity does it take to cause mutation?
3. Since all breathe and are exposed to the dust, should not all get cancer?
4. Why does the state’s poverty rate seem to make a difference?
5. Since most atomic tests were underground, does that make a difference?

My current answers are: 1) I don’t know, but they probably are because there will be more material firing off more alpha and beta particles. 2) In my simulation model, radioactivity was killing cells, not mutating them. I didn’t assume any mutation, but simply that daughter cells would naturally reproduce at the same rate, or slightly faster or slower than their parent cells. 3) People who work outdoors, and who are digging up contaminated soils (which is where fallout would have ended up), are likely to inhale more radioactive fallout than people living indoors. 4) I don’t think it’s poverty per se that matters, but whether people work outdoors or not. 5) Up until the Test Ban treaty in the 1960s, both the USA and the USSR were detonating numerous ever-larger nuclear weapons in the atmosphere. Underground tests were a relatively late development

About Frank Davis

smoker
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

50 Responses to Revisiting the Fallout Hypothesis

  1. harleyrider1978 says:

    Airway hotspots for LC are pretty much the same pathways regardless of smoking or inhaling radioactive particles. Knowing the half lifes of supposed tobacco radioactive particles in the leaf versus fallout we have rapid degradation of the natural radioactive particles in tobacco. Now what the half life of radioactive ALPHA,BETA PARTICLES I don’t know………..if its gamma forget it your already dead.

    • legiron says:

      Ah, no.

      Gamma radiation goes through a lot of stuff before causing damage. Alpna and Beta don’t get far.

      So if you have a gamma-emitter in your lungs, the radiation is likely to go straight out of you. An alpha or beta emitter is going to damage anything nearby.

      The half life refers to the element decaying, not the particle.

      Gamma radiation is a big problem if it’s coming from outside the body. If it comes from inside, alpha and beta are far worse.

      I’m too drunk to get too technical tonight…

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        Thanks Leggy

      • Fredrik Eich says:

        I like football staduiun analogy. You can have 10,000 people firing pistols in random directions out side of a football stadium and none of the spectators sitting inside the stadium will be hit (or very unlikely) but you only need one person firing a pistol in random directions inside the stadium to be sure that a spectator is hit.
        And inhaling radionuclides is far more dangerous than ingesting them.

  2. You are right to dispute the UK figures. See:

    http://www.ias.org.uk/uploads/pdf/UK%20alcohol%20reports/ghs2005-smoking-and-drinking-report.pdf#page=7

    “Throughout the period during which the GHS has been monitoring cigarette smoking, prevalence has been higher among men than among women, and this continues to be the case: in 2005, 25 per cent of men and 23 per cent of women were cigarette smokers.”

    Somebody is lying.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Why would they lie! Simple when your running a racket you have to show results or its the shit can for your agenda……….

      • beobrigitte says:

        I’d say somebody is omitting TRANSPARENCY with respect to the funding and lobbying of funds for anti-smoking agenda driven “research”.

        The anti-smoking “charity” ASH in Scotland is reaching a new level of paranoia:
        http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-03/europeans-struggle-to-put-out-cigarettes-as-nicotine-trumps-bans.html#comment-1153975839

        Football Cigarettes

        Electronic cigarettes may undermine the Scottish smoke-free target as tobacco companies may use them to attract new consumers to traditional cigarettes, said Sheila Duffy, head of ASH Scotland, an anti-smoking group. The products aren’t covered by Scotland’s smoking ban, age requirements and advertising restrictions, she said. E-Lites sponsor Scotland’s two major football teams, Rangers and Celtic, and sell e-cigarettes with tips that glow in the club colors.

        “That’s aimed at hooking the next generation into nicotine addiction,” Duffy said.

        1. Please do name two major football teams sponsored by tobacco control.
        Just curious, are there people standing at the entrance of the Rangers/Celtic, handing out free E-Lite e-cigs?

        2. Sheila Duffy appears to know nothing about e-cigarettes. Just the fact that they exist and are preferred to pharmaceutically produced smoking cessation “aids” is good enough for ASH et al to lobby a ban for them, too. Duffy might be surprised that you can buy e-cigs that DO NOT nicotine…. “But they LOOK like cigarettes!!!” Duffy will whinge and whine……

        Perhaps e-cigarette manufacturers will also be forced to print e.g. painted lungs and diabetic leg ulcers on their product, too?

        I personally disregard ALL tobacco control financed “research”; they clearly have an agenda and do not shy away of publishing utter nonsense.
        Lest remember, tobacco control&friends lobbied universities rejecting funds for research (also UNRELATED to tobacco use) from tobacco companies.

  3. Fredrik Eich says:

    “graph above shows US male lung cancer mortality peaking at about 135 per 100,000.”

    Frank, if you look at the crude rate for lung cancer in the US it is about the same as in the chart you mentioned at about 120 / 100000.

    The chart I looked at was world age adjusted all ages and not the crude rate 35 – 69.

  4. VERY interesting catch on that Russian/US curve similarity. That’d be worth following up on in more detail and seeing if anyone else has looked at it. The US drop from 1990 to 2000 is usually ascribed to the drop in smoking from the 1970s to 1980s, but I would **STRONGLY** doubt if there was anything at all like a similar drop in Russian smoking during that period!

    – MJM

  5. beobrigitte says:

    The Russians are the world’s champion smokers with 60% male prevalence, because – second bit of good news – Fredrick Eich has found that, despite not having engaged in a war on tobacco for the past 60 years, Russian lung cancer rates have begun to fall in line with US lung cancer rates (see right) – which would rather suggest that if the global lung cancer epidemic has peaked, it wasn’t smoking that drove it.

    If/as the global lung cancer occurrence (it’s not an “epidemic”, is it?) peaked in the 1960s tobacco control is a waste of money which could be put to better use.

    The problem with looking at single possible causes for leads to conclusions that equate this one:
    ‘If your telephone rings as you pull the flush of your toilet it must be the pulling of the flush causing the telephone to ring’.

    I returned to the Fallout Hypothesis last week with An Evolutionary Model of Cancer, in which I succeeded with a simple computer model in getting cells to multiply more rapidly into voids left by dead cells – and in particular voids created by a radioactive dust particles – to form tumours. It took quite a long time for the tumours to develop.

    In this scenario you have cell death rate exceeding cell ‘renewal’ rate, which means that there is also an excess of dying cells’ “signals” for adjacent cells to divide. This in turn promotes the maturation of adjacent cells to be ready for cell division.
    And, yes, these tumors do develop slower.

    With respect to radioactivity:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_of_Alexander_Litvinenko
    (Wikipedia being wikipedia ….)

    Po-210 concentration in the body of Litvinenko

    The symptoms seen in Litvinenko appeared consistent with an administered activity of approximately 2 GBq (50 mCi) which corresponds to about 10 micrograms of 210Po. That is 200 times the median lethal dose of around 238 μCi or 50 nanograms in the case of ingestion.[20]

    (continued below)

  6. beobrigitte says:

    To Gary’s questions:

    1. Are heavier particles more deadly than the lighter ones?
    2. How much radioactivity does it take to cause mutation?
    3. Since all breathe and are exposed to the dust, should not all get cancer?
    4. Why does the state’s poverty rate seem to make a difference?
    5. Since most atomic tests were underground, does that make a difference?

    1. Please refer to Legiron’s answer.
    2. That depends also on the level of the natural background radiation of where you live/work.
    Your badge in work might put you into “safe” levels and at the end of your working day you return home…
    3. We could ask this question also tobacco control: should not ALL smokers get lung cancer?
    4. I agree here with Frank’s answer.
    5. Our vegetables (and animal food) is grown in soil; radiation is not confined and we do have e.g. fluctuating groundwater levels.

    How many of us know that after the Chernobyl accident the very same “radiation cloud” that prompted the Polish authorities to ladle out iodine to the population also passed over most of the rest of northern Europe, thus Britain?
    Another surprise observation is the thriving animal population around Prypyat. We know nothing about the numbers of stillborn/non-viable young born in individual litters. But we do know that their gestation time and number of offspring puts them into a much better position to deal with unsuspected problems occurring.

    For us it is much easier to find one single “scapegoat”, invest a lot of money to destroy it and when this is achieved, we are surprised to find out that eliminating this “scapegoat” made absolutely no difference, except making us poorer.

  7. Bucko says:

    I’ll have a go at these
    1. Are heavier particles more deadly than the lighter ones?
    Not necessarily. Fallout is dust created by the explosion and made radioactive by the initial nuclear radiation from the bomb. It depends how much radiation the particle has absorbed. The bigger the particle, the more likely it is to absorb more radiation, however it’s also more likely to fall to the ground faster, spend less time in the air and have less chance of being breathed in.
    2. How much radioactivity does it take to cause mutation?
    Mutation? Large doses cause radiation sickness and the amounts required are available on the internet. Survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki showed no more genetic mutations than other Japanese people.
    3. Since all breathe and are exposed to the dust, should not all get cancer?
    The dust isn’t everywhere, it’s largely dependent on weather patterns. Smaller doses can be harmless so level of exposure is also a factor
    4. Why does the state’s poverty rate seem to make a difference?
    Poor people have more manual, outdoors jobs. Farmers and agricultural types may eat more fresh food than processed food. Radioactive particles can be washed off food, making it harmless. Processed food is likely to be properly washed before being processed.
    5. Since most atomic tests were underground, does that make a difference?
    If I remember correctly, most weren’t. The biggest one ever done, the Russian 50 megaton beast, was above ground.Bearing in mind the Hiroshima bomb was 12kt, that’s a lot of radiation.

    • beobrigitte says:

      2. How much radioactivity does it take to cause mutation?
      Mutation? Large doses cause radiation sickness and the amounts required are available on the internet. Survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki showed no more genetic mutations than other Japanese people.

      Survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki might not have shown any more mutations simply due to the question of which nucleotides in which DNA sequence were altered. Not all mutations are “stable” and many do get simply kicked out the system eventually.

      There is very little written about the effect of radiation on e.g. bone marrow. But then, even with an anti-smoker’s imagination you cannot link leukaemias and multiple myeloma to smoking, so it is of no interest to finance research into this area.

      What I have a very serious problem with is this 20 year delay in radiation/smoking “caused” cancers. At the replication rate of all our cells there is NO reason for a cancer to surface after such a delay unless in these 20 years more damage (caused more than just one different “factor”) occurs.

      Another interesting aspect: Cancer treatment. We are still stuck in the middle ages there. (After all, if cancers can be effectively treated there is no need to curb people’s pleasures)
      Radiation therapy for cancer used to lead to “brittle” bones and radiation burn. I take it the technique has been somewhat refined since the 1970s when I worked in a hospital. At least I hope so. But I do not hold my breath.
      Barium was the weapon of choice for cervical/uterine cancers. This meant total isolation for the patient and a chair with a pot underneath, it’s contents had to be placed by with lead shielded personnel with the radioactive waste.

      There have been suggestions that this cancer treatment MAY lead to new types of cancer in later life. I just have a problem with the delay.

      • Frank Davis says:

        What I have a very serious problem with is this 20 year delay in radiation/smoking “caused” cancers.

        I think that if a radioactive dust particle gets embedded in human tissue, I can quite understand how continually killing a few cells around it might result in faster cell division in nearby cells, that proceeds very, very slowly, until very fast-multiplying cells appear, and with them cancerous tumours. Maybe it could take 20 years. It’s what my simple computer model suggested last week.

        However I don’t understand how smoking can do the same. And in fact I don’t believe it.

        • Bucko says:

          That makes sense wrt radiation.
          I could believe that cancer causing agents in cigarette smoke need to build up over time before they become dangerous? Could that be possible?

        • beobrigitte says:

          I can quite understand how continually killing a few cells around it might result in faster cell division in nearby cells, that proceeds very, very slowly, until very fast-multiplying cells appear, and with them cancerous tumours. Maybe it could take 20 years.

          I could believe that cancer causing agents in cigarette smoke need to build up over time before they become dangerous? Could that be possible?

          To Frank: how much has your body aged in 20 years and with that how is the rate of cell division affected?

          To Bucko: which cancer causing agents are only found in cigarettes?

        • Frank Davis says:

          how much has your body aged in 20 years and with that how is the rate of cell division affected?

          Well, my body will have aged by 20 years. The rate of cell division in the locality of an inhaled radioactive dust particle would have increased, and gradually increased over 20 years.

        • beobrigitte says:

          Frank, have you taken into account your own body’s survival mechanism + this being slowed down with increasing age? Increasing age also increases malfunction, we are not designed to have an infinite physical life.

          Also, 15 years after encountering an above average dose of radioactivity you finally encounter a virally caused disease.
          5 years later you are diagnosed with cancer. You forgot about the viral disease; it might have just shown as some blisters, which disappeared after a while. So you attribute your cancer to the wrong cause.

          With respect to radioactivity: we all know by now about the thriving wild life around Prypyat; we do not know how many non-viable litters were produced until the now for the area viable, litters emerged.
          We humans, however, would find it much harder to adapt simply due to the long gestation time + the number in a “litter”.

          As for looking for “damage” (cancers) emerging 20 years later we would need to isolate survivors and place them in micro-organism-free bubbles – this in turn disadvantages their immune system….

          However, people living in all areas, being exposed to the world, show an increasing rate of cancer occurring.

        • Frank Davis says:

          we do not know how many non-viable litters were produced until the now for the area viable, litters emerged.

          Wolves were producing litters of healthy cubs inside the exclusion zone. The documentary I showed had several litters, each with five or six cubs.

          we are not designed to have an infinite physical life.

          Are we designed?

        • beobrigitte says:

          Sorry, correction:
          However, people living in all areas, being exposed to the world, show an increasing rate of cancer occurring.

          However, people living in all areas, being exposed to the world, show an increasing rate of cancer occurring with increasing age.

        • beobrigitte says:

          Also:
          The rate of cell division in the locality of an inhaled radioactive dust particle would have increased, and gradually increased over 20 years.

          The rate of cell division slows down with increasing age. No radioactive particle is going to change that; otherwise we’d be younger again…

        • Frank Davis says:

          My reasoning was that as a radioactive dust particle kills off cells in a small area around it, it’s faster reproducing cells which will tend to replace dead cells. Over months or years or decades, the cells in this one area would be reproducing much more rapidly than other cells. The rest of the cells in the body would very likely be reproducing more and more slowly, as you say.

        • beobrigitte says:

          Are we designed?

          That is a questions I did ponder about for a long time. In the end I decided on that we are as we experience an ageing process and cannot live on this planet for the time we would chose. (well, except for those who chose to END their existence or those whose life is ended by e.g. murder; accident.)

          As a species we rely on reproduction to survive.

          Wolves were producing litters of healthy cubs inside the exclusion zone. The documentary I showed had several litters, each with five or six cubs.

          I don’t question this. My question was about the litters NOT seen.

          However, I recently watched another (German) documentary on the wild life around Chernobyl. In this it was stated that in 1998 a breeder of Przewalski’s horses was asked to release some of their horses into the area. (3-4 month gestation time)
          They did but this year the breeder also admitted (in that video) that he released horses that were older and/or weak as he thought he was sending them to their sure death.

          This is what has happened:

          This still does not answer my question about litters showing “deformations”/non-viable
          but it most certainly raises the issue that DNA damage is being either repaired or the nonsense coding, damaged DNA is being kicked out.
          This also would (?especially) apply to “damage” occurring to genes coding for components of the DNA repair “machinery”.

        • beobrigitte says:

          My reasoning was that as a radioactive dust particle kills off cells in a small area around it, it’s faster reproducing cells which will tend to replace dead cells.

          The cells won’t reproduce “faster”; they will reach the division stage quicker and you have a hell of a lot of signals to deal with… The balance is disrupted.

  8. garyk30 says:

    Antis try to use that chart(Erich’s) to prove a 20 year time lag between smoking rates and lung cancer deaths, but:
    1. On the upslope,consumption rate is a 1-6 slope and cancer rate is a 1-137 slope.
    Altho the chart makes them look the same, there is a huge difference.
    2. Since about 1980, about 75% of lung cancer deaths occur over the age of 69 and were not shown.
    3. Cigs smoked per capita tell us nothing about the smoking rates per 100,000 or the amount smoked per smoker.
    4. Distrust most charts.

    • garyk30 says:

      Please note; that, altho the death rate is per 100,000, the vertical line on the right only goes to 150 units.

      There are six marks of 25 units each.

      If the vertical line representated 100,000 units, as it should, each mark would represent about 16,700 units.

      Their pretty little arching line would not rise above the base line and would show nothing.
      It would be about 667 times flatter than it is.

      • nisakiman says:

        Gary, you continue to amaze me. I would never have noticed that. It really looks like a significant number on the graph, but as you point out, if it was portrayed realistically, there would be nothing to see.

        The more I learn, the more I realise how little I know.

      • beobrigitte says:

        Their pretty little arching line would not rise above the base line and would show nothing.
        It would be about 667 times flatter than it is.

        Yep. And that trick is commonly applied in more than one area.

  9. garyk30 says:

    http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00022160.htm

    TABLE 1. Age-adjusted death rates * for selected smoking-related cancers, by sex and
    race + — United States, selected years, 1950-1990
    Lung Cancer
    Male(total)

    1950 = 21.6/ 100,000

    1960 = 38.2

    1970 = 58.2

    1980 = 71.9

    1990 = 75.6

    • Frank Davis says:

      Thanks for that. But I remember you produced some figures once for 2000, maybe even 2003. Is that right?

      • garyk30 says:

        http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/lungb.html
        It is estimated that 222,520 men and women (116,750 men and 105,770 women) will be diagnosed with and 157,300 men and women will die of cancer of the lung and bronchus in 2010.

        2010 = 68.4/100,000

        Medicine has dotten better at treating lung cancer, incidence rate has not declined.

        • garyk30 says:

          However:
          Current smokers do not have a higher rate of lung cancer incidence than do non-smokers.
          Current smokers have a lower incidence rate of lung cancer than do non-smokers!!!

          It appears that being a current smoker prevents lung cancer!!

          CDC data shows here:
          Cigarette Smoking Among Adults — United States, 2006
          http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5644a2.htm

          In 2006, an estimated 20.8% (45.3 million) of U.S. adults were current cigarette smokers.

          In Table 2:

          It shows that 20.9% of lung cancers occurred to current smokers.

          Sooooo, 20.8% of the adults that are current smokers accounted for 20.9% of the lung cancers.

          Sooooo, 79.2% of the adults that are non-smokers accounted for 79.1% of the lung cancers.

          Current smokers do not have a higher rate of lung cancer incidence than do non-smokers.

          However, the 20.9% rate is for 2006 and the TC anti-smoker nannies have continually claimed that there is a 20 year time lag between smoking rates and lung cancer incidence.

          Soooo, we must compare the current smoker 20.9% lung cancer rate to the smoking rate in 1986.

          When we go to the chart at the bottom of this report, we find that in 1986 about 30% of the adults were current smokers.

          Nooow, in 2006, the 30% of the adults that smoked in 1986 have only 20.9% of the lung cancers in 2006.

          Nooow, in 2006, the 70% of the adults that were non-smokers in 1986 have accounted for 79.1% of the lung cancers in2006.

          Current smokers have a lower incidence rate of lung cancer than do non-smokers!!!

          What is missing?

  10. garyk30 says:

    Rural workers do not have more lung cancer.

    Arden Pope, of Brigham Young University, summarized the scientific literature as indicating a greater risk of dying from lung cancer of 30 to 50% higher in urban areas

    Later, Pope also found the same is true of heart disease, with, after controlling for smoking, and other assorted risk factors, an elevated risk of 8% to 18% for every ten micrograms/ cubic meter of air of fine particulates.

    Since a typical city averages about twenty ug/m3 the elevated risk then becomes 16% to 36% higher. (Cardiovascular Mortality and Long-Term Exposure to Particulate Air Pollution)

    http://kuneman.smokersclub.com/urban.html

    • Frank Davis says:

      Rural workers do not have more lung cancer.

      I think that’s true. Certainly in the UK it was noted that urban populations had higher cancer incidence than rural populations.

      But I’m still supposing that people who spend most of their time outdoors will get a higher dose of fallout.

      What might be happening is that in rural areas, fallout is absorbed by porous soil, while in cities it collects on relatively impervious surfaces of brick, concrete, stone, tile, asphalt. etc. However, in cities rainwater tends to almost all disappear down drains. But not all, and some will be left in evaporating pools of water on city streets/roofs. Since cities are usually 2 – 5 degrees warmer than rural surrouning areas (heat islands), the pools dry rapidly, leaving radioactive dust which can easily be kicked up, blown around.

      I’m just thinking out loud here.

      • garyk30 says:

        Lung cancer is verrrrrry uncommon in rural areas; tho, smoking rates and exposure rate to SHS are about the same.

        How can it be that SHS exposure causes lung cancer and heart attacks when rural exposees have lower rates of both than urban exposees?

        It can’t!!!!!!

      • beobrigitte says:

        What about the water supply of these urban areas? Rainwater does enter the reservoirs, it’s contents are being pumped into urban areas.

        So, we have fallout that is absorbed by porous soil (part of which is absorbed by growing plants; part of it ends up in the ground water).
        It would have been interesting to see what farmers observe but the problem is that their life stock is not being raised on what food it finds in the fields (that if these animals get to see the fields!). Also, the feed stuff itself might come from an area with high/low background radiation…. Observations in this area are a waste of time and money.

        Next; we do EAT what we grow. If we need to wash off the radiation, we certainly wash it back into the system. ?Accumulation being another factor.

        The radioactive dust kicked up in urban areas just adds to it. (?)

  11. garyk30 says:

    SE USA states do not have a higher exposure to nuclear fallout. :(

    • Fredrik Eich says:

      I have looked at that before and i am pretty sure that is just from the nevada test sites. Fallout from global tesing over decades would fall where it rains the most.

      • garyk30 says:

        I would venture that global tests would add little to US levels and the states with the highest levels tend to have the lowest lung cancer rates.

    • Fredrik Eich says:

      “The higher relative proportion of global fallout in the more populous
      (and wetter) eastern United States resulted in a relatively higher per capita exposure from global fallout.” – source (PDF)

  12. Pingback: Living In The Middle Ages | Frank Davis

  13. Re the 20 year lag: Do other cancers exhibit this same sort of lag? I’m wondering how much of that 20 year lag explanation may be cart-before-the-horse. I.E. does the belief in a 20 year lag come about BECAUSE of the smoking/LC graph (as opposed to the LC graph simply agreeing with a theoretical 20 year lag)?

    – MJM

  14. Pingback: The Fallout Hypothesis | Frank Davis

  15. Pingback: Tobacco’s Bum Rap | MalagaBay

  16. soddenguru says:

    Went looking for a graph of cancer incidence rates specifically to demonstrate your point to myself – I’ve been suspicious of the war on tobacco for years, and always thought it would make a great cover story to absolve the military of guilt. Thanks for this, saved me a bunch of time.

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.