Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

caraher

(6,359 posts)
62. Seems like many rational people did read your numbers as data-based estimates
Wed Aug 28, 2013, 09:54 PM
Aug 2013

I understand your general points - careful screening will certainly turn up tumors that would otherwise have gone unnoticed, so even an elevated rate doesn't necessarily suggest a causal link exists. But phantom power, for instance, clearly took your numbers to be real, and I didn't see much of a disclaimer when I read the post where you suggested a range of 15-20 for comparison purposes.

Anyway, I looked for some real numbers. (Actual values do matter!) Evidently, thyroid cancer is quite rare among those younger than 10 and picks up in adolescence, which makes it a little tricky to make an estimate that would apply to 360,000 screened "under age 18." The rates in my source are 15.4 per million for ages 15-19 and less than 1 per million for those under age 10. So if these were really young kids, I think 18 confirmed cases could represent a significant difference (though the cause may be obscure - what is the typical latency for a thyroid tumor caused by I-131 ingestion?).

Assuming the 360,000 are distributed equally among ages 0-18 and the rate of 15.4 million for the older end translates can be translated into something vaguely like 5 per million across the whole group (assume it's effectively 0 for the younger 2/3 and 15 per million for the eldest third) you'd still only expect maybe 2 cases from a population of 360,000. So if you ignore all the important disclaimers about the statistics of very small numbers, that's roughly an order of magnitude more than you'd expect.

A good complementary study, of course, would be to pick an unexposed population and see whether they also see an order of magnitude increase when submitted to the same kind of more-intense screening. But that might be a hard study to fund and organize. In any case, it's clear that the 18 cases do represent a spike above the rate one would expect from an ordinary population under no special scrutiny.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Fuck. nt ZombieHorde Aug 2013 #1
The panel says it cannot determine? FUCK it, of course these are related. CaliforniaPeggy Aug 2013 #2
Well, no, it's not obvious Yo_Mama Aug 2013 #9
Not too long ago some nuclear loving DUer upaloopa Aug 2013 #3
That was probably me. wtmusic Aug 2013 #26
. Do you have peer-reviewed evidence of deaths from coal? dixiegrrrrl Aug 2013 #34
Fair enough. wtmusic Aug 2013 #35
you're saying it's not so bad then CreekDog Aug 2013 #36
This message was self-deleted by its author mother earth Aug 2013 #4
There's a reason that it "can't be determined" FBaggins Aug 2013 #8
The fact that this result, which demonstrates that there's been no impact... phantom power Aug 2013 #10
This message was self-deleted by its author mother earth Aug 2013 #12
You are comparing a rate to a raw number? kristopher Aug 2013 #15
The 15-20 figure is just an example FBaggins Aug 2013 #17
Which begs the question of *why* you fabricated such a number... kristopher Aug 2013 #18
Because, unlike you, I actually understand the facts. FBaggins Aug 2013 #20
You fabricated numbers that grossly skewed the available data. kristopher Aug 2013 #21
No rational person could read that post as anything but a hypothetical. FBaggins Aug 2013 #29
Seems like many rational people did read your numbers as data-based estimates caraher Aug 2013 #62
You're saying most thyroid cancer goes into remission? cprise Aug 2013 #22
Not as I understand "remission", no. FBaggins Aug 2013 #30
They would have to be *either* remissive or not cancer at all (benign) cprise Aug 2013 #31
Not as the NIH/NCI define it. FBaggins Aug 2013 #32
you're linking to Natural News? CreekDog Aug 2013 #37
For treatment advice? Of course not. FBaggins Aug 2013 #39
Everyone does not interpret the world numerically Yo_Mama Aug 2013 #19
This message was self-deleted by its author mother earth Aug 2013 #14
Who the hell is Steven Starr wtmusic Aug 2013 #25
This message was self-deleted by its author mother earth Aug 2013 #41
He's a lab technician. wtmusic Aug 2013 #42
This message was self-deleted by its author mother earth Aug 2013 #45
No, they didn't win a 1985 Nobel Prize for their work. wtmusic Aug 2013 #46
This message was self-deleted by its author mother earth Aug 2013 #47
It is not the same organization, and it's not an "arm". wtmusic Aug 2013 #48
This message was self-deleted by its author mother earth Aug 2013 #49
There is no such thing as an "argument from science without prejudice". wtmusic Aug 2013 #50
This message was self-deleted by its author mother earth Aug 2013 #51
Funny you mention, nuclear waste can be reused. wtmusic Aug 2013 #53
This message was self-deleted by its author mother earth Aug 2013 #55
The risk exists only because we're short on money and short on time. wtmusic Aug 2013 #56
This message was self-deleted by its author mother earth Aug 2013 #57
This message was self-deleted by its author mother earth Aug 2013 #58
No prob, thanks. wtmusic Aug 2013 #59
Top UK Climate Scientist says Coal with CCS is the ONLY solution to global warming kristopher Aug 2013 #52
This message was self-deleted by its author mother earth Aug 2013 #54
Actually... it doesn't. FBaggins Aug 2013 #43
This message was self-deleted by its author mother earth Aug 2013 #44
18 so far ... more will develop it later ... nt bananas Aug 2013 #5
Incoming n/t Hydra Aug 2013 #6
I'm sure the local nuclear apologists will be along in 3...2...1 nt Mnemosyne Aug 2013 #7
errr... phantom power Aug 2013 #11
errrr.... Post #15 might give you food for thought. nt kristopher Aug 2013 #16
Only if he's entirely ignorant re: what "incidence rate" means. nt FBaggins Aug 2013 #33
I said nothing about nasty or mean. There is more to come, tell me that in five, ten years. nt Mnemosyne Aug 2013 #28
I see one of our resident nuke worshippers is already here mocking the very idea that kestrel91316 Aug 2013 #13
It doesn't. wtmusic Aug 2013 #24
in children it does? CreekDog Aug 2013 #38
It always has before FBaggins Aug 2013 #40
The page has been taken down. wtmusic Aug 2013 #23
More likely NHK is censoring it. kristopher Aug 2013 #27
The TV news video is still on youtube bananas Aug 2013 #61
There certainly seems to have been an awful lot of self-deleting on this subject ... Nihil Aug 2013 #60
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»NHK: Thyroid cancer found...»Reply #62