4 ms·

Lung cancer has a normal occurrence of something like 60 in 100,000. If we are as conservative as we can be and say the increase is only 36% from all of these

Lung cancer has a normal occurrence of something like 60 in 100,000. If we are as conservative as we can be and say the increase is only 36% from all of these smog days, that would mean that the rate should increase to 82/100,000. Beijing's population is ~21 million. The 22 / 100,000 increase from the base rate would mean an additional 5,000 lung cancer deaths in Beijing due to the smog. That's the minimum. The more realistic number is surely an order of magnitude or more higher -- this level of pollution is unprecedented in modern times.

ekianjo 11y ago
Again, what is the current data showing Beijing is far worse than the national average for lung cancer (because pollution has been pretty bad there for a long time already) ? I see assumptions, estimations but no hard facts to support anything, right now.
- mikeyouse 11y ago
  I mean, you could try looking literally anywhere.. This is a well known problem; From 2014: http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2014-02-28/rates-of-lung-cancer-rising-steeply-in-smoggy-beijing http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2014-02-28/rates-of-lun... In 2002, for every 100,000 men living in Beijing, 49 had lung cancer. By 2010, that number had risen more than 50 percent, to 75. Women in China are less likely to smoke and so have lower rates of the disease. But among those living in Beijing, a similar sharp rise in lung cancer cases occurred over the last decade. In 2002, for every 100,000 women living in Beijing, 30 had lung cancer; by 2010, that number had also risen more than 50 percent, to 46. So the rate in the US is 60/100,000 -- As of 2010, in Beijing, the rate is closer to 121/100,000. Does a 100% increase in risk change your opinion of these 'marginal' deaths? For a population of 21M, this is equivalent to ~13,000 additional lung cancer deaths.
  - ekianjo 11y ago
    Problem is, lung cancer rates are increasing all around the globe, so that does not answer anything regarding "are the lung cancer rate in Beijing unusual vs the rest of the world?". But at least that's a start for a proper discussion. And please do not compare a US rate that includes countryside and cities with a city-based rate in China. That's not a relevant comparison at all. Rates vary wildy state by state in the US : http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/lung/statistics/state.htm http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/lung/statistics/state.htm As you can see the average in some states go to 90+ in the US.
  - ekianjo 11y ago
    The rate of lung cancer for the State of Kentucky 2007-2011 is 122/100 000 (http://www.cancer.org/acs/groups/content/@editorial/documents/document/acspc-044552.pdf http://www.cancer.org/acs/groups/content/@editorial/document...). I don't see that making the headlines in newspapers anywhere.
    - mikeyouse 11y ago
      Didn't you just warn me about comparing countryside to cities in China? In any case, the high levels in Kentucky are the legacy of coal country, which China would be wise to avoid. It also doesn't help that China's rate is increasing year-over-year along with their population that's already 5x the entire state of Kentucky. I literally can't fathom why you're trying to minimize the impact of dirty air in Beijing.

ekianjo 11y ago

Again, what is the current data showing Beijing is far worse than the national average for lung cancer (because pollution has been pretty bad there for a long time already) ? I see assumptions, estimations but no hard facts to support anything, right now.

mikeyouse 11y ago
I mean, you could try looking literally anywhere.. This is a well known problem; From 2014: http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2014-02-28/rates-of-lung-cancer-rising-steeply-in-smoggy-beijing http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2014-02-28/rates-of-lun... In 2002, for every 100,000 men living in Beijing, 49 had lung cancer. By 2010, that number had risen more than 50 percent, to 75. Women in China are less likely to smoke and so have lower rates of the disease. But among those living in Beijing, a similar sharp rise in lung cancer cases occurred over the last decade. In 2002, for every 100,000 women living in Beijing, 30 had lung cancer; by 2010, that number had also risen more than 50 percent, to 46. So the rate in the US is 60/100,000 -- As of 2010, in Beijing, the rate is closer to 121/100,000. Does a 100% increase in risk change your opinion of these 'marginal' deaths? For a population of 21M, this is equivalent to ~13,000 additional lung cancer deaths.
- ekianjo 11y ago
  Problem is, lung cancer rates are increasing all around the globe, so that does not answer anything regarding "are the lung cancer rate in Beijing unusual vs the rest of the world?". But at least that's a start for a proper discussion. And please do not compare a US rate that includes countryside and cities with a city-based rate in China. That's not a relevant comparison at all. Rates vary wildy state by state in the US : http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/lung/statistics/state.htm http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/lung/statistics/state.htm As you can see the average in some states go to 90+ in the US.
- ekianjo 11y ago
  The rate of lung cancer for the State of Kentucky 2007-2011 is 122/100 000 (http://www.cancer.org/acs/groups/content/@editorial/documents/document/acspc-044552.pdf http://www.cancer.org/acs/groups/content/@editorial/document...). I don't see that making the headlines in newspapers anywhere.
  - mikeyouse 11y ago
    Didn't you just warn me about comparing countryside to cities in China? In any case, the high levels in Kentucky are the legacy of coal country, which China would be wise to avoid. It also doesn't help that China's rate is increasing year-over-year along with their population that's already 5x the entire state of Kentucky. I literally can't fathom why you're trying to minimize the impact of dirty air in Beijing.