5 ms·
>"The usual strategy is to control for smoking. If nuclear test rate correlates with lung cancer rate, but does not correlate with non-smoker lung cancer rate,
by nonbel 8y ago
>"The usual strategy is to control for smoking. If nuclear test rate correlates with lung cancer rate, but does not correlate with non-smoker lung cancer rate, nuclear test is not causing lung cancer."
I'm not really concerned with whether there is, or is not, a correlation, I already know there is a correlation.
I am concerned about: How much of the increase in lung cancer incidence we see in the data could be accounted for via exposure to radiation from nuclear tests? I doubt it is zero, but it could be relatively negligible I suppose.
The timing of it does overlap quite well though.
- cbkeller 8y agoThis is missing their point: you can distinguish the two potential causes by comparing lung cancer incidence rate through time for smokers versus non-smokers. If nuclear tests are a significant factor in lung cancer rate, we should still see a correlation between lung cancer incidence and nuclear test frequency when looking at people with no exposure to cigarette smoke. If the correlation in the general population just a coincidence, we should not.
- nonbel 8y agoSee here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18863438 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18863438