3 ms·

> excluding diagnoises of cancer that occured outside of the town even if the diagnosises were on town residents. That's a pretty big exclusion. It's not as if

• DoctorOetker 8y ago
  it's also clearly irrelevant from a medical standpoint where the diagnosis was made... unless there's local bribing of doctors going on! so why insist on only counting local diagnoses? EDIT: perhaps there are regulations that mandate doctors to diagnose similar percentages, to prevent overdiagnosis... and perhaps this is being weaponized against discovering localized exposure to carcinogens?
  • strainer 8y ago
    > "On the cancer cluster question, ATSDR cites data from the Georgia Comprehensive Cancer Registry to make the case that there isn’t one. GCCR data from the past decade shows childhood cancer incidence has been below the state average here. GCCR’s Waycross-area data, however, "doesn’t include people who are diagnosed at hospitals in other cities", as Lexi, Harris, Gage, and Raylee all were." Charitably, I guess the researchers just don't have resources to locate patients more accurately than by their diagnosing hospitals location. It's a huge amount of noise on top of patients actual location history, which would seem to make their survey only capable of detecting persistent hotspots that span the location of many hospitals.
    • DoctorOetker 8y ago
      >"On the cancer cluster question," Either it's on the cancer cluster question, but then you contact and ascertain the accurate patient location history. Or the data never was on the cancer cluster question...
• deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]