[lbo-talk] putting quackery to the test

[Auguste Blanqui]

One of the tricky things about historical demography/epidemiology is that
surveillance methods and reporting have improved drastically in the past
decades, so sometimes incidence in the past is underreported.  Concurrently,
the number of environmental hazards caused by urbanization/chemical
manufacturing, etc., have also increased, while others have declined
(particularly in the workplace, thanks to OSHA, tho that agency is now a
shell of itself).  I think it is hard to make a claim for a straight, easily
discernible trend either way -- plus you have to distinguish among types of
cancers.

On 8/8/06, Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Aug 8, 2006, at 4:10 PM, Colin Brace wrote:
>
> > Your assertion that "cancers take a long time to develop" does not
> > gibe with the veritable plague of childhood cancers and breast cancers
> > among middle-aged women these days.
>
> According to this <http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2003/
> results_merged/topic_inc_mor_trends.pdf>, cancer mortality rates have
> been declining among those 64 and under in the US.
>
> Doug
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <../attachments/20060808/fc6f8402/attachment.htm>