6 ms·

I found a chart showing the prevalence of multiple forms of cancer over time: http://i52.tinypic.com/r9euci.jpg http://i52.tinypic.com/r9euci.jpg.

by _mhr_ 10y ago

tansey 10y ago
Not sure what the source is on that chart, but I'll assume it's credible. If that's the case, then despite what the article says, it's hard to believe that most of this decline is not accounted for by the decline in smoking. Surely the decline in smoking accounts for the vast majority of the lung cancer decline, and the peaks for colon and prostate cancer are very close to the same time.
- ktRolster 10y ago
  Smoking also increase the time it takes to recover from surgery fwiw
guard-of-terra 10y ago
Wooow! That's lot of lung cancer deaths, counterintuitively coupled with air pollution elimination. I wonder how this correlates not with tobacco smoking, but especially with smoking of factory-made cigarettes? Because as I understand those contain virtually no tobacco and you end up smoking garden fertilizer-soaked paper.
SilasX 10y ago
Weird. Why would lung cancer go the opposite direction as smoking prevalence? I understand the dynamic of "cancer only kills people who outlive every other cause of death", but for the discorrelation to be that strong?
- autokad 10y ago
  smoking rates was dropping quickly since 1945, during the period lung cancer rates were going up significantly. death is a bad stat to look at; incidents would be more useful
- ccallebs 10y ago
  If I were to guess, the results lag behind the prevalence. It takes many years for someone to get cancer. If you were to push back the graph by 20 years it may correlate strongly. Edit: Also, the U.S. banned asbestos in 1989. That's the turning point of the graph.
- transcranial 10y ago
  The correlation is one of the strongest there is, and indeed, causal -- there's a almost perfect lag time of ~20 years [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lung_cancer#/media/File:Cancer_smoking_lung_cancer_correlation_from_NIH.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lung_cancer#/media/File:Cancer...
  - SilasX 10y ago
    The graph stops at 1970.
    - GFK_of_xmaspast 10y ago
      Are you suggesting that some post-Nixonian mechanism is in play here.
- InclinedPlane 10y ago
  People die from lung cancer when they are a bit older, so it's shifted to the right relative to the prevalence of smoking.

I found a chart showing the prevalence of multiple forms of cancer over time: http://i52.tinypic.com/r9euci.jpg http://i52.tinypic.com/r9euci.jpg.

by _mhr_ 10y ago

I found a chart showing the prevalence of multiple forms of cancer over time: http://i52.tinypic.com/r9euci.jpg http://i52.tinypic.com/r9euci.jpg.

tansey 10y ago

Not sure what the source is on that chart, but I'll assume it's credible. If that's the case, then despite what the article says, it's hard to believe that most of this decline is not accounted for by the decline in smoking. Surely the decline in smoking accounts for the vast majority of the lung cancer decline, and the peaks for colon and prostate cancer are very close to the same time.

ktRolster 10y ago
Smoking also increase the time it takes to recover from surgery fwiw

guard-of-terra 10y ago

Wooow! That's lot of lung cancer deaths, counterintuitively coupled with air pollution elimination. I wonder how this correlates not with tobacco smoking, but especially with smoking of factory-made cigarettes? Because as I understand those contain virtually no tobacco and you end up smoking garden fertilizer-soaked paper.

SilasX 10y ago

Weird. Why would lung cancer go the opposite direction as smoking prevalence? I understand the dynamic of "cancer only kills people who outlive every other cause of death", but for the discorrelation to be that strong?

autokad 10y ago
smoking rates was dropping quickly since 1945, during the period lung cancer rates were going up significantly. death is a bad stat to look at; incidents would be more useful
ccallebs 10y ago
If I were to guess, the results lag behind the prevalence. It takes many years for someone to get cancer. If you were to push back the graph by 20 years it may correlate strongly. Edit: Also, the U.S. banned asbestos in 1989. That's the turning point of the graph.
transcranial 10y ago
The correlation is one of the strongest there is, and indeed, causal -- there's a almost perfect lag time of ~20 years [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lung_cancer#/media/File:Cancer_smoking_lung_cancer_correlation_from_NIH.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lung_cancer#/media/File:Cancer...
- SilasX 10y ago
  The graph stops at 1970.
  - GFK_of_xmaspast 10y ago
    Are you suggesting that some post-Nixonian mechanism is in play here.
InclinedPlane 10y ago
People die from lung cancer when they are a bit older, so it's shifted to the right relative to the prevalence of smoking.