14 Jul 11
Originally posted by KewpieDon't let tomorrows clouds cover today's sunshine.
A little personal background. When I got my first cancer 8 years ago, I spent a huge amount of time working out the maths for it. Out of 100 women, 11 will get it. Of those 11, 3 will get a recurrence in the same area. Of those 3, preventive radiation (6 weeks of pain, another 6 months recovery time) will only save 1, the other 2 will die anyway within 5 ...[text shortened]... ope not to be one of the "from" people. I certainly don't equate the two. Happy now?
Stop doing the math, stick your gardening gloves on and stop having the same old day.
How much of your life is spent worrying about something that is out of your hands, I bet you have done all that has been advised and more, what else can you do.
The only thing you have left you have any control over is your mind, be strong in that and I sincerely hope your body will follow.
It doesn't matter if it is 4 out of 10, 1 is 1 too many when that 1 is you.
15 Jul 11
I think the logic used in the article is
246,000 people died with cancer in 2008 in the UK
580,000 people died in total in 2008 in the UK
so 42% of people dying in the UK in 2008 died with cancer
as everyone is going to die at some point then if the rate stays the same then around 40% of people will die with cancer
There seem to be a few flaws in that, but I reckon that's what they did. On the plus side, cancer rates going up isn't necessarily a bad thing. It could be because we're reducing death due to other causes which leaves more people for cancer to affect in old age. I always think the key measure on stuff like this is life expectancy. If that's going up then healthcare is doing well.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
16 Jul 11
Originally posted by SuzianneA bit of perspective here, ladies and gentlemen.
Indeed a sad fact that today 4 out of 10 people will get cancer in their lifetime.
That almost half of us will get cancer is not a sad fact. It's a fact to glory in, be grateful for.
Remember that there are many, many countries in this world in which almost nobody lives long enough to get cancer.
Remember that fifty years ago, most people in our own countries did not live long enough to get cancer.
Which would you rather, survive cancer at 60 and live to 80 (or even, free market forbid, die of cancer at 60) - or die of dysentry at 25, being shot in a war at 12 (as a soldier!) , or of starvation at the ripe old age of 4?
Be grateful that you live well enough to know cancer.
(And I say this as someone both whose parents, and at least three of whose grandparents, died of it.)
Richard
17 Jul 11
Originally posted by Zapp BranniganI think they meant people who live long enough will DIE from cancer 4 out of 10 times
I think they meant people who live long enough will DIE from cancer 4 out of 10 times, others go from heart disease, a small % will go from something more exotic.
Cancer or heart disease, take your pick, once you break 70 or so you're going to cash in by one or the other.
I'm 60 and drink a lot to help keep my mind off of that fact, so maybe my liver will go first.
Some people die four times from 10 cancers? 😕
Jeez, that's mighty unlucky! 🙁
-m.
17 Jul 11
Originally posted by Shallow BlueI wonder what the demographics are relating to cancer rates in the UK. Is it a fact the vast majority of cancer sufferers are of a ripe old age, as you suggest?
Remember that there are many, many countries in this world in which almost nobody lives long enough to get cancer.
If so, it would be interesting if they ever released figures on people under the age of, say, 55, 60, or whatever the age is that begins the phase of life where cancer rates shoot up.
For instance, would the 1 in 3 (or 4 in 10) figure be anything like that for people under the age of 55 only?
17 Jul 11
Originally posted by CPFC StreathamWell this is the best graph I could find. It is a bit past half way down the page. The curve on the graph is parabolic: -
I wonder what the demographics are relating to cancer rates in the UK. Is it a fact the vast majority of cancer sufferers are of a ripe old age, as you suggest?
If so, it would be interesting if they ever released figures on people under the age of, say, 55, 60, or whatever the age is that begins the phase of life where cancer rates shoot up.
F ...[text shortened]... would the 1 in 3 (or 4 in 10) figure be anything like that for people under the age of 55 only?
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/C/Cancer.html