Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I notice this list is age adjusted. That may explain the discrepancy because RI and the Northeastern states also have the highest longevities, and it seems reasonable to expect that the likelihood of cancer grows as life grows longer.
I notice this list is age adjusted. That may explain the discrepancy because RI and the Northeastern states also have the highest longevities, and it seems reasonable to expect that the likelihood of cancer grows as life grows longer.
Yes, that could be true. There are so many variables, but a very important one is genetic disposition to certain cancers. e.g. Women with history of BrCA in the family should get genetically tested of which just about 90% of the fee is covered by most insurance. A consultation with a geneticist and a quick draw of blood is all it takes. There are some excellent doctors currently at Women & Infants Breast Health Center who specialize in this.
I notice this list is age adjusted. That may explain the discrepancy because RI and the Northeastern states also have the highest longevities, and it seems reasonable to expect that the likelihood of cancer grows as life grows longer.
If it's controlled for age then shouldn't that make longevity irrelevant? Even if you break it down by age group, it stays pretty consistent.
I actually work at a cancer lab in Boston, but grew up in RI and if I remember from my lectures on this back in college, I believe that one of the reasons why there are higher incidence of some of these types of cancers in RI (memory escapes me which types, it was one of the rarer types) was because of the jewelry/textiles factories in the state.
It still comes in at #8 age adjusted. That map shows similar trends across states in comparison to the other study.
I did find it interesting that S County has the highest incidence in RI.
More radon? I was told by my realtor that he'd never seen radon testing turn up a problem in the Cranston/Providence area, but that it was typically more a South County problem.
More radon? I was told by my realtor that he'd never seen radon testing turn up a problem in the Cranston/Providence area, but that it was typically more a South County problem.
Just because a Realtor hasn't heard of high radon presence in certain areas doesn't mean anything. A house can have a high radon reading one day, and the next day be normal. Or, the radon can has been compromised -- yes, it happens. People turn on ceiling fans, open windows, etc.
Your Realtor should not make blanket statements like that.
Location: Earth, a nice neighborhood in the Milky Way
3,781 posts, read 2,693,466 times
Reputation: 1609
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandsonik
More radon? I was told by my realtor that he'd never seen radon testing turn up a problem in the Cranston/Providence area, but that it was typically more a South County problem.
I could be remembering this wrong, but I believe that Kent County has the highest average radon levels in the state. Washington County is definitely No. 2. The maps put both at the same level, but I seem to recall hearing somewhere that Kent is somewhat higher.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There are some excellent doctors currently at Women & Infants Breast Health Center who specialize in this.
