Why is cancer incidence so low in certain places and so high in others...

some ideas usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/12/22/burden-lung-cancer-pushes-kentuckys-cancer-rates-nations-highest/77742740/
looks like it's smoking

Read the graph, it's already adjusted for population.

i just knew some retard would make this post
population density can correlate with things

thats an image showing specialized cases. they dont represent states as a whole lol cmon now youre trying to pull the bullshit covered wool over my eyes.

those are the fucking counties. it's from OPs images. what the fuck are you talking about "specialized cases"

and you are wrong.

lol at West Virginia
>b-b-buh coal is our culture

>population density can correlate with things
>>hurr you're wrong
you're a retard honestly

are you talking about kentucky? virginia has lower rates for whatever reason. west virginia is shit too.

you can say it's a correlation, but it's weak.

Fuck you're right that is Kentucky
brb revoking my American citizenship

all the pollution from mining or farming

In this thread... retarded 13yo's fight about statistics.

MUHH FACTORIES

culture through smoking, drinking, and obesity/diabetes

depends on so many things...

wealth, education, access to healthcare, pollution in the area, industries in the area, average age of the population, etc

Odd that the area where nuclear bomb testing was done has one of the lowest rates of cancer.

...

The more rectangular the county border, the less cancer.

I'm going to petition the governor to make all of our county borders rectangular immediately.

eastern half is overpopulated, polluted/industrial, racist and/or SJW 56% brainlets

western half is low density software/farmland territory where the people actually behave somewhat like humans.

Why are Neveda, Minnesota, and Nebraska's data suppressed?

the state doesn't let the government share health data or whatever.

>nebraska

Fuck off my city, m8. We din do nuthin

If this was a case of cancer incidence correlating with population density, correcting for population density should remove the effect. The fact that it does not means population density is not the causative factor

The Aluminati

What's in those three areas on the center and top of the map where black dots are concentrated?

I thin he means this: thick settlement due to its perks, rises probability of cancer. His statement would go like this: you would find more cancer in 100k people settled over only 1 square mile, than 100k people settled over 100 square miles This in not that far fetched, since major industrial centres usually correlate with higher population densities. Also, dense human population brings stress, increase of human made pollution (exhaust fumes, various chemicals from previous building methods (lead, asbestos)... Also, fast way of living (processed food consumption, seditary lifestyle,...) is far more prevalent in cities than in countryside.

If user had originally said "it correlates with things that tend to correlate with increased population density", there wouldn't be a problem. But saying that a graph which is population density adjusted correlates with population density is flat-out wrong.

Lots of things can contribute to cancer incidence. Some of it is genetics, some of it is diet and the air around you.

Like if you live in an industrial district and eat red meat for 3 meals a day, you smoke, drink alcohol, you're more likely to get cancer. If there are places where you see more of this, due to economic status of a city or culture that is pro-meat or something, those will contribute.

I don't think that will explain the full picture, but might give you a place to start looking.

this

AYO.... *Consumes processed sugars*....HOL UP...*Smokes a Newport*.......So You be saying....*inhales car exhaust fumes*.....that we getting more cancer an shiet?

Diet

weirdly enough, rates don't seem to increase with increasing pollution, at least enough to pinpoint. a poor diet, drinking, smoking, and lack of exercise seem to be a much more important factor.

nuclear silos you fucking retards

Air quality. Notice the giant red splotch right next to the rust belt.

Just a hunch
but then this thread is all armchair science anyway

here is a webm overlaying all that it shows is that people live near water, so what

The incidence rate map is already adjusted for population. And lots of people live near the coasts, which is also water. But the incidence rate is clearly highest along the Mississippi and its tributaries and feeders.

Industrial/agricultural runoff, notice it's more pronounced in the older parts of the country, older infrastructure, more chance to pollute before more modern environmental regulations. Though it does make one wonder why there isn't as much cancer around Hanford as there is around the Puget. You'd expect more cancer after the piss poor containment of nuclear material at Hanford.

Interesting that those are all hipster cities. Perhaps being liberal and/or healthy (not obese) is the reason.

it doesn't matter if it's adjusted for population. the blue areas typically have a low population so less bullshit is going on there to pollute the area, and the areas with the red(where the water is) have many people and lots of infrastructure fucking everything up. i have read that living near rivers is correlated with an increased level of pollution.
+1 i suppose

it definitely is. if you look at the entire chart by county, even the counties around LA are below average, yet it's a hugely populated area with significant pollution. I said it before in this thread, there is a much more significant correlation from diet/exercise/smoking/drinking than anything related to pollution as long as you don't live somewhere with an adequate air/water quality. all of these states east of the Mississippi river have terrible rates in comparison because of their shitty culture. the whole hipster/liberal/green/hiking every week/eating organic/not smoking/not drinking much attitude of these western states, the rates speak for themselves. even in the most populated cities on the west coast are at the average or below. it's ridiculous. portland for example is below average, has hundreds of thousands of people, huge relaxed green liberal place where everyone rides their fucking bike everywhere, go figure they are all healthy.

I want to believe all of this, but how do you explain shit like where fairfax, virginia, and the entire area around it has this significantly lower than average rate. it's literally 3/4th the average. then that st. croix county to the right of the twin cities is literally almost half of the average. then we have summit county in colorado which has literally below half of the fucking average. WHY? I looked up this summit county and it's basically a vacation spot with very beautiful scenery and places to go snowboarding and skiing, not inexpensive to live there. it's odd.

How far are we from a not-so-destructive treatment like chemo?

we will probably have it within 20 years. we have significant developments in lots of areas of medicine coming up very soon, which is great since that's when we'll be middle aged or old.

There are other variables like drinking water quality, number of children from those areas that move away from home, etc,. You will always be able to find case studies that conflict with the general data of any large statistical study, but the overwhelming trend is, cancer increases as air quality decreases.

an RO filter makes the drinking water quality not matter, and air quality is perfectly okay just about everywhere in the USA outside of walking around the streets of certain cities.

Fuck did Raleigh do to anyone?

Not everyone installs a reverse osmosis filter. And as for the air quality you are straight up wrong. A friend of mine lived a few towns East of Gary Indiana and in the winter the snow near his house was brown. I asked him what the fuck was going on, being from Wisconsin land of snow, this was genuinely concerning to me. He wasnt sure but he said if you look at the snow while driving North/South through Indiana in some places you can see it change color when you enter/exit the rust belt.

Social proof (also known as informational social influence) is a psychological and social phenomenon where people assume the actions of others in an attempt to reflect correct behavior in a given situation.

Social proof is considered prominent in ambiguous social situations where people are unable to determine the appropriate mode of behavior, and is driven by the assumption that the surrounding people possess more knowledge about the current situation.

The effects of social influence can be seen in the tendency of large groups to conform to choices which are either correct or mistaken. This is referred to in some publications as the herd behavior. Although social proof reflects a rational motive to take into account, the information possessed by others, and formal analysis that shows it can cause people to converge too quickly upon a single distinct choice, so that decisions of even larger groups of individuals may be grounded in very little information
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_proof

Pic is social proof