Mate down & out

MattG wrote

Will undoubtedly claim the odd soul here and there but nowhere near as
many as cancer.

 

MattG () gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying :

1 in 3 is a bit of an exaggeration, but I'm not sure that the difference
between 33% and the actual 27% is wide enough to be deemed "bullshit".

 

Adrian () gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

Arse. Pasting the URL would help.

http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/mortality/

 

Also understanding the difference between what people are dying of
this year and a prediction as to what "we" will die of in the future
might help. For example:

"Trends
Cancer mortality rates have dropped by 11% over the last ten years "

So by simple extrapolation, in thirty years we could expect the rate
to be something less than 20%.

"Males
Lung cancer is still by far the most common cause of male death from
cancer"

And this will be one of the major areas of change, given the changes
in the rates of long-term heavy smoking. Coupled with some of our
major breakthroughs in Cancer treatments I'd suggest that the downward
trend referred to above is likely to continue throughout our
lifetimes.

--
_______
..'_/_|_\_'. Ace (brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom)
\`\ | /`/ GSX-R1000K3
`\\ | //' BOTAFOT#3, SbS#2, UKRMMA#13, DFV#8, SKA#2, IBB#10
`\|/`
`

 

The numbers still have to add up to 100%
I guess hospital-acquired infections will make up the numbers if cancer
and heart disease are reduced.

 

Ace () gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying :

True.

If it's not just a case of we've got the low-hanging fruit, and the
remaining stuff's going to be a Bit More Tricky. Unfortunately, crystal
ball's are a little cloudy...

Replaced by the after-effects of artificial sweeteners and highly processed
crap, p'raps?

 

As I implied, the drop in smoking-related lung cancer is still only
part-way through showing its effects.

It's true that we have identified 'new' types of cancer in recent
years, but it's really more down to better diagnostics and finer
distinctions. I think the 'processed crap is carcinogenic' movement
has largely been and gone, peaking in California about 10-15 years
ago.

--
_______
..'_/_|_\_'. Ace (brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom)
\`\ | /`/ GSX-R1000K3
`\\ | //' BOTAFOT#3, SbS#2, UKRMMA#13, DFV#8, SKA#2, IBB#10
`\|/`
`

 

Adrian () gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

Did I *really* let that feral apo'strophe creep in?

 

Not really, knowing how the figures are derived would help - and I do.
The deaths are recorded based on people who have cancer at the time of
their death - not those who die from cancer.

Anyone who is found at postmortem to have a cancer of any kind is added
to the list. As are people who are known to have cancer but die of an
unrelated condition.

Sure, lots of people die from cancer, but the figures are pushed up in
order to make it look more scary.