4 ms·

To put this in context: I read a paper by someone British where they state that the lifetime risk of cancer is 39% for a male and 36% for a female, no radiation

by maratc 2y ago

To put this in context: I read a paper by someone British where they state that the lifetime risk of cancer is 39% for a male and 36% for a female, no radiation events needed. Cancers in areas influenced by radiation is a very sensible topic, as an assumption could be made for a direct causation between the two. That causation argument, though, needs to be proven first. In the areas affected by Chernobyl disaster, that lifetime cancer risk went up to 41%/38% respectively. It's unclear even if that rise can be attributed to Chernobyl fallout, or to other factors. See also: https://cancerletter.com/guest-editorial/20210423_3/ https://cancerletter.com/guest-editorial/20210423_3/

BaculumMeumEst 2y ago
Putting things in context is something that responsible journalists would do, and it never happens, because it would take more work and scare the shit out of people less, so what's the point? Thank you so much for sharing this.
- janice1999 2y ago
  > Putting things in context is something that responsible journalists would do, The authors did. I suggest you read the article. They talk about local cancer rates vs France and the types of cancer locals get.
janice1999 2y ago
Lifetime statistics are not relevant here. An elderly man developing prostate cancer is not the same as an infant getting thyroid cancer. Live long enough and you get cancer - 70% of men over 70 already have cancerous prostate cells. Specific cancers can absolutely be linked with exposure to radiation and certain chemicals.
- maratc 2y ago
  I've done a short stint early in my career doing risk calculations for the health sector, and from what I remember it's impossible to have any meaningful progress appealing to the feelings, e.g. talking about "infants having cancer". If we want to make progress, we have to talk about "quality-adjusted life years" (QALY). In your examples, "an elderly man developing prostate cancer" doesn't suffer big QALY impact, since elderly men sadly don't have many LY to begin with, and in addition prostate cancer survivorship rates are pretty high. On the other hand, speaking about thyroid cancer — and don't get me wrong, any cancer sucks — but thyroid cancer afair has well above 95% survivorship rate, where the patient has the thyroid removed and needs to rely on daily pill for the rest of their lives, which no doubt sucks but their life expectancy is otherwise not suffering big impact.
  - readthenotes1 2y ago
    ' it's impossible to have any meaningful progress appealing to the feelings, e.g. talking about "infants having cancer"' Is also impossible to have any meaningful progress without appealing to feelings. That is why politicians will often lead with a heartfelt story about a singular person to make us empathize and rarely use data or anecdata. (I cannot remember the book that expose me to this observation. It's cited several studies that showed that a story such as "just before I came here, I ran into John. He has suffered from leukemia since he was a child in the beautiful islands of Tahiti, wherein he was dosed with radiation from nearby nuclear tests" fared much better in persuading people to do something then "there is a 76% greater likelihood of developing childhood leukemia in Tahiti then elsewhere in the world")
    - maratc 2y ago
      The question here is whether we are on a platform for politicians or are trying to get elected, or we are on a platform for tech people and trying to get any kind of a scientific discussion, especially with regards to the nuclear energy and its place in a global warming. For the former, personal examples are the way to go. For the latter, not so much. Personal examples specifically don't work in a public funds allocation scenario, where one politician meets John (and his ailment) while another meets Mary (and her ailment) but the funds can be diverted either to treat the Johns or the Marys (but not both). At least QALYs have the right answer for that.
      - readthenotes1 2y ago
        And yet those funds are allocated by politicians, probably with more concern about campaign donations, jobs in their district, and looking good for the camera...
TMWNN 2y ago
Relevant: TIL that after the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear accident, an estimated 150,000 unnecessary abortions occurred worldwide from women afraid of radiation mutations. There is no evidence whatsoever of any increase in birth defects; not even in Belarus and Ukraine, the closest to Chernobyl. <https://np.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/6q3b2c/til_that_after_the_1986_chernobyl_nuclear/ https://np.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/6q3b2c/til_th...> I've read of similar (non-)findings after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Basically, there is no evidence of any long-term cancer or birth defect increase among survivors. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Post-attack_casualties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_a...>

by maratc 2y ago

BaculumMeumEst 2y ago

Putting things in context is something that responsible journalists would do, and it never happens, because it would take more work and scare the shit out of people less, so what's the point? Thank you so much for sharing this.

janice1999 2y ago
> Putting things in context is something that responsible journalists would do, The authors did. I suggest you read the article. They talk about local cancer rates vs France and the types of cancer locals get.

janice1999 2y ago

Lifetime statistics are not relevant here. An elderly man developing prostate cancer is not the same as an infant getting thyroid cancer. Live long enough and you get cancer - 70% of men over 70 already have cancerous prostate cells. Specific cancers can absolutely be linked with exposure to radiation and certain chemicals.

maratc 2y ago
I've done a short stint early in my career doing risk calculations for the health sector, and from what I remember it's impossible to have any meaningful progress appealing to the feelings, e.g. talking about "infants having cancer". If we want to make progress, we have to talk about "quality-adjusted life years" (QALY). In your examples, "an elderly man developing prostate cancer" doesn't suffer big QALY impact, since elderly men sadly don't have many LY to begin with, and in addition prostate cancer survivorship rates are pretty high. On the other hand, speaking about thyroid cancer — and don't get me wrong, any cancer sucks — but thyroid cancer afair has well above 95% survivorship rate, where the patient has the thyroid removed and needs to rely on daily pill for the rest of their lives, which no doubt sucks but their life expectancy is otherwise not suffering big impact.
- readthenotes1 2y ago
  ' it's impossible to have any meaningful progress appealing to the feelings, e.g. talking about "infants having cancer"' Is also impossible to have any meaningful progress without appealing to feelings. That is why politicians will often lead with a heartfelt story about a singular person to make us empathize and rarely use data or anecdata. (I cannot remember the book that expose me to this observation. It's cited several studies that showed that a story such as "just before I came here, I ran into John. He has suffered from leukemia since he was a child in the beautiful islands of Tahiti, wherein he was dosed with radiation from nearby nuclear tests" fared much better in persuading people to do something then "there is a 76% greater likelihood of developing childhood leukemia in Tahiti then elsewhere in the world")
  - maratc 2y ago
    The question here is whether we are on a platform for politicians or are trying to get elected, or we are on a platform for tech people and trying to get any kind of a scientific discussion, especially with regards to the nuclear energy and its place in a global warming. For the former, personal examples are the way to go. For the latter, not so much. Personal examples specifically don't work in a public funds allocation scenario, where one politician meets John (and his ailment) while another meets Mary (and her ailment) but the funds can be diverted either to treat the Johns or the Marys (but not both). At least QALYs have the right answer for that.
    - readthenotes1 2y ago
      And yet those funds are allocated by politicians, probably with more concern about campaign donations, jobs in their district, and looking good for the camera...

TMWNN 2y ago

Relevant: TIL that after the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear accident, an estimated 150,000 unnecessary abortions occurred worldwide from women afraid of radiation mutations. There is no evidence whatsoever of any increase in birth defects; not even in Belarus and Ukraine, the closest to Chernobyl. <https://np.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/6q3b2c/til_that_after_the_1986_chernobyl_nuclear/ https://np.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/6q3b2c/til_th...> I've read of similar (non-)findings after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Basically, there is no evidence of any long-term cancer or birth defect increase among survivors. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Post-attack_casualties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_a...>