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?!?)
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.
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?
Comments 13
And now I'm somewhat morbidly curious if they have calculators for other types of cancer...
Reply
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
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
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment