min maxing cancer

Nov 27, 2007 17:04

using the breast cancer risk calculator at http://www.cancer.gov/bcrisktool/Read more... )

Leave a comment

Comments 13

chrsjxn November 27 2007, 22:22:18 UTC
That's... just a little bit creepy.

And now I'm somewhat morbidly curious if they have calculators for other types of cancer...

Reply

thebenedictine November 27 2007, 22:38:37 UTC
i don't know, but i will make one just for you!

lung cancer
do you smoke?
yes -> a billion
no -> not a billion

colon cancer
do you eat carcinogens?
yes -> a billion
no -> how do you know?

prostate cancer
flip a coin
heads -> a billion
tails -> not a billion

Reply

rjmccall November 27 2007, 22:56:39 UTC
I'm pretty sure prostate cancer is more like

flip a coin
heads -> yes
tails -> yes

and then it's just a question of whether it'll kill you in five years or two hundred.

[Edited for markup]

Reply

chrsjxn November 27 2007, 23:57:26 UTC
I might like her odds better.

Reply


(The comment has been removed)

thebenedictine November 27 2007, 22:42:00 UTC
but if i had known that it would go down to 7.3% if I had had my first kid before 20...

Reply


rjmccall November 27 2007, 22:48:56 UTC
You're assuming a causative influence.

Reply

lars_chan November 28 2007, 00:31:06 UTC
Thank you... this may have saved my sanity. Reading all of the "Things that increase risk of _____" at my doctors' offices has made me feel doomed, especially because of seemingly innocent things such as not having kids. (WTF biology?!?)

Reply

rjmccall November 28 2007, 01:06:13 UTC
Suppose that a given child has a fixed annual probability of killing and eating their parents, and similarly that a woman has a fixed annual probability of developing breast cancer. We can safely assume, I think, that these events are independent. Now, let us consider a mother who falls into both groups - i.e. one who develops a cancer and then is subsequently slain and consumed by her progeny. Whether such a woman is actually counted towards the incidence rate of breast cancer depends solely on whether her cancer has been previously detected: her startling and horrific death precludes any subsequent detection. Thus such women will likely be undercounted in the reported incidence rates.

Reply


lillokiangel November 27 2007, 22:51:29 UTC
Given what I do for a living, I'm pretty convinced that we're all going to get breast cancer (women) and prostate (men) and lung/colon cancer.

Reply

jameel November 28 2007, 13:27:56 UTC
Yes, but the trick is to get it when you're like ninety.

Reply


aleffert November 27 2007, 23:15:04 UTC
Does consider a possible third variable such as women who have kids younger die younger (note I do not actually know if this is true, but it seems likely), hence are less likely to get breast cancer?

Reply


Leave a comment

Up