> I think part of the reason for an apparent increase rise in cancer rates is that we have eliminated many other causes of death already Where did you read "an

> I think part of the reason for an apparent increase rise in cancer rates is that we have eliminated many other causes of death already Where did you read "an apparrent increase rise in cancer rates" ? in this article or in one of the articles it references? which one? I am not a biochemist, but I would assume academics are referring to incidence rates, not causes of deaths... If you did actually witness such a confusion in the papers, it's important to point it out, but if you didn't it would be equivalent to a physicist suspecting a colleague of confusing mu (the reduced mass of a binary system) with mu (a muon)... rather incredulous if you ask me... Every academic discipline expects its disciples to be at least proficient in disambiguating words from context, so when one refers to a "cancer rate" in the context of causation, that it would refer to "incidence rates" i.e. the transition probability per surviving individual per unit time. This is independent of deaths by other causes.