It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is there a Cancer Trend conspiracy?

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 12 2013 @ 04:11 AM
link   
I'm stumbling on this problem, I want to see if there is any cancer history graphs that do not end in 2008 and 2010 to see if there is any increase in cancer related to Fukushima.

Strangely enough, every report, website that I have seen talks about 2013 data but all the history graphs will end in 2008 and 2010... where is 2011-2013? Is there some conspiracy here that I don't know, or maybe Google can't help me and is broken.

Figured this is a question for the ATS sleuths.




posted on Dec, 12 2013 @ 04:19 AM
link   
reply to post by YouAreDreaming
 


I think there is a cancer trend conspiracy in terms of comparative statistics of pre and post industrial revolution populations. After the onset of the nuclear age I conjecture that cancer has spiked dramatically.

Fukushima is too recent to judge because the effects will not show up for some years. Fort example, in Europe we may be only recently seeing cancers caused originally by the fallout that fell over Northern Europe back in 1980s.

It's not instantaneous! Only intense amounts of exposure to radiation would cause instant damage.



posted on Dec, 12 2013 @ 04:19 AM
link   
Cancer can take a while to develop, so you really won't see any increase right now anyway. Are you looking for worldwide cancer rates?

It also can take a while for this information to be compiled, as there is no one source, it comes from many many sources and has to be pieced together.



posted on Dec, 12 2013 @ 04:29 AM
link   

Revolution9
reply to post by YouAreDreaming
 


I think there is a cancer trend conspiracy in terms of comparative statistics of pre and post industrial revolution populations. After the onset of the nuclear age I conjecture that cancer has spiked dramatically.

Fukushima is too recent to judge because the effects will not show up for some years. Fort example, in Europe we may be only recently seeing cancers caused originally by the fallout that fell over Northern Europe back in 1980s.

It's not instantaneous! Only intense amounts of exposure to radiation would cause instant damage.





My curiosity stems from the article about sailors on board the USS Ronald Regan who now have cancer related illnesses they think is directly linked to Fukushima.

www.nuclearhotseat.com...

And this report:
www.theecologist.org...



A new study finds that radioactive Iodine from Fukushima has caused a significant increase in hypothyroidism among babies in California, 5,000 miles across the Pacific Ocean.

he researchers compared data for babies exposed to radioactive Iodine-131 and born between March 17th and Dec 31st 2011 with unexposed babies born in 2011 before the exposures plus those born in 2012.

Confirmed cases of hypothyroidism, defined as those with TSH level greater than 29 units [B]increased by 21% [/B]in the group of babies that were exposed to excess radioactive Iodine in the womb
  • . T[B]he same group of children had a 27% increase in 'borderline cases[/B]' [**].


  • Which leads me to believe there should be statistical data, unless there is a cover-up where we can see the impact of Fukushima post 2011 and thought it strange that everything ends 2010 or 2008 on major cancer medical websites.

    The conpiracist in me who does love a good conspiracy starts to look at the cover-up and the facts that if Fukushima is as bad as some claim, and cancer is going to spike there will be no hiding it in cancer trends unless they fraud the data and cover-up the truth.

    So, my curiosity is raised and the needed for statistical data related to post-fukushima cancer is important.



    edit on 12-12-2013 by YouAreDreaming because: (no reason given)



    posted on Dec, 12 2013 @ 04:31 AM
    link   

    OccamsRazor04
    Cancer can take a while to develop, so you really won't see any increase right now anyway. Are you looking for worldwide cancer rates?

    It also can take a while for this information to be compiled, as there is no one source, it comes from many many sources and has to be pieced together.


    I'd like to see as real-time data as possible, if possible from many sources rather than just one study. It does make sense that it takes time to compile all the data, but I'll be keeping my eye on this for the future to see if there is a fingerprint in the data linked to the Fukushima disaster or not.



    posted on Dec, 12 2013 @ 05:25 AM
    link   
    reply to post by YouAreDreaming
     


    That's the point. The compilation is not one study. It's the compilation of ALL information, that's why it takes a while



    posted on Dec, 12 2013 @ 05:29 AM
    link   
    reply to post by OccamsRazor04
     


    I believe the GLOBOCAN 2008 information was released in 2011.



    posted on Dec, 12 2013 @ 05:29 AM
    link   
    reply to post by YouAreDreaming
     


    I would not be surprised about cancer statistics being kept from the public because of the terrific incidences of cancer everywhere.

    When I was a child, it was rare to die of cancer but I cannot help notice that now virtually every family I know has its victims of this disease. What does strike me as strange is that we don't appear to see the same reflected among our Royals which makes me wonder if there is a cure that is not for the lesser borns that allows the big pharmas to make their profits on chemo etc. I was in a cancer Charity shop last weekend and someone there pointed that out.



    posted on Dec, 12 2013 @ 05:35 AM
    link   

    Shiloh7
    reply to post by YouAreDreaming
     


    I would not be surprised about cancer statistics being kept from the public because of the terrific incidences of cancer everywhere.


    Then you would be a fool. GLOBOCAN 2012 statistics are out. I heven't looked, but I did see that their methodology for some statistics has changed, so any large changes would have to research further why the change has occured, it may be an artifact and not an actual change.
    globocan.iarc.fr...



    posted on Dec, 12 2013 @ 05:45 AM
    link   
    usually statistics need some time to be evaluated... so you won t see the actual years statistics, before a few years... or at least not in the year the data was gathered



    posted on Dec, 12 2013 @ 06:38 AM
    link   
    Well, Cesium-137 has never been released in sea water to the extent it was at Fukushima so I guess it's a waiting game.
    The NRC has been very upfront and honest about this accident and releases facts and figures daily. I'm sure you can find answers to some of your question.
    I am involved in the evacuation/accident sequence of planning here and some of the scenarios of the disaster drills are not promising or heartwarming to the human condition.
    In the latest-lets hope this never happens-Terrorist blow up the Wolf creek dam and swamp both Browns Ferry(all 4 reactors) and lay waste to 2 chemical plants at the same time.
    The evacuation rings are not very encouraging either however it is so very important to practice these things that God help us will never happen.
    At least I'm not in the 'D' ring-you don't need to be much of a genius to figure out what 'D' means.



    posted on Dec, 12 2013 @ 07:18 AM
    link   

    Revolution9

    I think there is a cancer trend conspiracy in terms of comparative statistics of pre and post industrial revolution populations. After the onset of the nuclear age I conjecture that cancer has spiked dramatically.


    This will be huge spike form both this events why?

    Cause the move into the industrial age and the revolution in medical hygiene practice and anaesthesiology increased average life expectancy from 40's to 60's/70's and the nuclear age has seen life expectancy rise to 85 in most developed countries.

    This will cause a spike in cancer, why? The longer you live the more chance cancer has to kill you.
    To put it another way, 200 years ago most people would die of a infectious disease before they hit there 50's, TB, Cholera, typhus and smallpox where some of the biggest killers, even a simple infection we take for granteed could be a death sentence or simple injury. Most people would die before they ever developed things like cancer or heart disease.



    new topics

    top topics



     
    2

    log in

    join