My aspergers has gotten me somewhere interesting. Why are cancer

File: StateCancerProfilesMap (5).png (120KB, 970x817px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 970x817px

>>9070923
even adjusting for a specific race, the rates only get worse. What is so different about say Utah, California or Colorado in comparison to Massachusetts or New Jersey?

They have comparable rates of obesity, comparable rates of smoking.

Utah has a lot of mormons, and I presume they don't drink or smoke, and they like hiking and stuff, so their low rates make sense JUST based on that, so why isn't that the case for these other parts of the country that have similar low smoking and low overweight/obesity rates?

Is it the colder weather in New England? Is it something to do with altitude and natural cosmic radiation? Are these areas more industrialized with more pollutants? Does everyone in New England binge drink alcohol or what? Is it all of those Irish and British ancestries causing these high rates for some reason?

>>9070923
>>9070930
My first guess would be pollution. The west is so huge, plus all the fresh air from the pacific. Think about it, the East gets the most concentrated portions of pollution from the rest of North America.

Again, this is my guess without knowing anything about jet streams and such. Doesn't explain Kentucky though...

>>9070953
You might be on something.

Its not only about local air polution, but air streams. I live in area (moutanin valley) that gets huge influx of polution from whole Europe.

Also what about population density in diffrent areas, its obvious that states with more population living in large cities will be less healthy.

File: f020c2a645f44afb88f4c591d1e17e32.png (119KB, 615x432px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 615x432px

>>9070923
Perhaps it's nuclear fall out related?

>>9070960
but that doesn't explain the south. look at that shit. it's fucking nuts and they apparently didn't get anything from the nuke test fallouts, and the midwest got the bulk of it yet are doing better than the entire east of the mississippi.

>>9070964
What about coal based powerplants. Coal does have hefty amount of radioactive materials ? In some cases living near coal plant is way worse than living near nuclear.

What about water suplies, I know this is big problem in US.

Also beeing less obese/overweight isnt only food related factor. Whole died counts.

You could have low fat diet which would keep you fit but it can have more cancer enabling elements.

Hell you could draw it from usage of plastic vs glass in bottles since some plastic bottles when heated will relase cancerous chemicals.

And this is just from top of my head, I bet you could make this list ten times longer.

Better question:
Why does cancer drop off dramatically at the state borders of Kentucky and Louisiana?

Cancer shouldn't follow administrative lines unless the administration has some causative effect, or unless the borders correspond with major natural borders - which they don't in these two cases.

Maybe a major restaurant or supermarket franchise that operates on a state scale has a contaminated food supply - oil spill or coal smoke related, maybe.

File: 568568.png (440KB, 1841x887px) Image search: [Google]

440KB, 1841x887px

here is something for air quality

according to this, california is disgusting, along with some of the bottom parts of the south...
https://airnow.gov/index.cfm?action=airnow.main

and then pic related

>>9070964
Fair point. My next theory would have to do with building materials. The locations you named were developed quite a long time ago compared to say California and Arizona. Perhaps they had little to no restrictions on what could be used for building materials?

>>9070988
...Actually, I can think of a more direct "causative effect" states have.

Diagnosis.

What if the Northeast just has higher diagnosis rates for benign forms of cancer?

>>9071001
True, even to this day healthcare differs state to state.

File: 90808098.png (51KB, 1017x591px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 1017x591px

>>9070988
pic related is my guess.

>This table lists the percent of each state's population covered by 100% smokefree air laws enacted by the state and/or local municipalities.

those states don't have very restrictive smoking laws.

>>9070988
Or water sources/filtration system/distribution system. This would be based on administrative lines. Unless states share it.


>>9070997
Asbestos rings a bell ?

>>9071008
Asbestos is what i was specifically thinking. But im not familur with older buildings or any specifics of buildings in the south or eastern us.

>>9071006 i wonder is smoking culture is the single answer...

>>9071011
I dont think there is SINGLE answer. Too many vectors can cause cancer.

Simple example, state has lots of polutry farms. While compared to state that has more cattle (red meat is more cancerous). But on other side chicken state has more lax smoking laws while red meat state has them stricter.

But on other side chicken state has worse water filtration system and worse watter souces. So in end a state that has more red meat eaters can end up with lower cancer values.

One factor is not enough, there are multiple factors that can increase/decrease risk of cancer.

Partly due to genetics. African American men are five times more likely to have prostate cancer genes than whites. Ashkenazi Jews have about ten times more frequent BRCA breast cancer genes.

Some due to virus. Cervical cancer is more frequent in African American women due to HPV.

>>9070923
>>9070930
>Kentucky
hahahhaahahahahha

>>9070923
I want an answer to this. It's annoying me too much. The rates are as much as 125 in 100,000 apart just on the low end.

>>9070923
industrial pollution from the 1920s to 1950s when it was normal to dump toxic chemicals into pits, rivers, lakes, or where ever because they didn't know better. Those pollutants don't go away, and they cause cancer. The whole north east is tainted.

>>9070953
>Doesn't explain Kentucky though

Kentucky still has a pretty strong coal mining industry, right? That's probably why

>>9072680
but looking at the the pacific northwest with seattle and portland, these cities that are so clean and modern, have high rates even with low smoking and low obesity. that can't be it.

>>9070923
I'd think access to good healthcare and diagnosis would have a decent effect. People out in the middle of the desert or the mountains, away from cities and big hospitals, won't have as much opportunity to be diagnosed with the disease. Poorer people have less access as well.

>>9072902
pretty sure MA has the highest rate of insured so maybe that's a piece of the puzzle

>>9070930
Ill give you a clue.
A recent study that put sensors inside of cars, rather than pulling data from along side the road, found that commuters suck up over twice the engine exhaust than previously thought.

>>9073312
i guess that'd make sense.

>>9070923
any data on specific cancers? data everyone else in the thread points to lung cancer from shit air
how linked is obesity to cancer?

>>9070923
Look at the isolated spike in western washington.

It's sunshine/ the lack thereof. Multiple sclerosis frequency is known to follow a similar pattern.

>>9070930
is that Cincinnati? that center of red? help!

>>9073339
lol, that's kentucky anon....

File: 785877986.png (125KB, 1940x817px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 1940x817px

>>9073332
>how linked is obesity to cancer?
super highly
>any data on specific cancers?
just about all of them

here is lung for all race and then just white

There will be a lot of factors, mostly obesity, smoking, drinking, and pollution. From the images, it's probably pollution. New England is highly populated, lots of cars, people commuting every day for years, seems like the only explanation to me.

>>9070923

Seeing as they are including all ages (excluding juveniles, my guess would be higher life expectancy (cancer rates go up as average population age increases). This would be supported by the higher incidence when you look at the white population only, i.e., longer life expectancy leads to greater cancer incidence.

File: 57857578.png (184KB, 2910x817px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 2910x817px

>>9074423
we can adjust for age too

50-65, it looks like rates double, and then 65+, it's 10x of that.

comparing with the original all ages group, it hits closest with the 65 and under group.

File: 1500862825515.png (51KB, 500x517px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 500x517px

>>9074444
>mfw i just realized i set the ranking wrong and it should be interval not quantile
fuck me i h ave to remake all of these.

File: 678968996.png (211KB, 3875x817px) Image search: [Google]

211KB, 3875x817px

>>9074423
>>9074444
>>9074450
tl;dr shit gets fucked up when you hit 65+

File: Naamloos-2.jpg (34KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 600x600px

They're called the smoky mountains for a reason
>cancer

File: coal states_0.gif.png (51KB, 808x560px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 808x560px

>>9070930
>>9070953

>>9074720
new england having such high rates can't possibly just be from pollution, what the fuck

File: 1_C_prevailing_winds.jpg (74KB, 982x617px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 982x617px

>>9074732

File: 1500254870425.jpg (22KB, 612x528px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 612x528px

>>9074750
fuck

>>9074750
This doesn't explain the Pacific Northwest rates.

Ask reddit if you want an actual answer

>>9070923

Gentrification

>>9070923
cold weather is bad for that stuff, supposedly, and they probably drink more.