today I have a serious subject. I was a proponent of nuclear power for years, because I simply found the inventions and discoveries of Einstein, Curie and Hahn too horny. But on the other hand, as now in their thirties, one is always bombarded with reports of increased cancer numbers near nuclear power plants.
So where is the way out of the dilemma? You look at the available statistics in the age of the Internet. The proponents of nuclear power claim that the connection – if at all – is statistically in the per mille range (more on that later), the opponents of nuclear power overdo it and paint the devil on the wall.
Here's how to start with an initial statistic:http://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/182514/umfrage/krebs-haeufigkeitsrate-in-europa/
The Maxima and the Minima are striking. Turkey has the lowest rate, France the highest. Nowadays, people also like to talk about the fact that cancer is caused by diet. And that cancer is less common in southern states. However, France, with south and south-west France, also has access to the Mediterranean and also a southern diet, so that cannot really be true or the connection is smaller than a connection that we do not know for sure.
And the basis is now two further statistics:http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernenergie_nach_L%C3%A4ndern
Andhttp://t.co/l3GzEwF00K of the OECD
The first statistic is that Turkey does not have a nuclear power plant and is only just beginning to build one. The second statistic is that if you look at the rates of lung cancer, one of the main cancers, these are absolutely the same in Turkey and France.
So good, if I can already see the simple statistic: twice as many cancer cases per 100,000 people in France as in Turkey. And then there would also be the lung cancer cases, which would create an even more stark relationship. Then I would be with a clear link between the country's nuclear power plants and the cancer rate, if it is the only parameter.
That's what I put it on Twitter. Then, of course, came my clever cousin Dr. Henryk Gerlach, his sign mathematician, and said that I couldn't calculate like that because I would have to normalize it demographically. And, of course, he is right, I have assumed that people in Turkey and France are equal in age. Since cancer is more likely to occur in upper to old age, this is a perfectly correct point.
come on. Please open the Society tab for both of them. It can be seen that Turkey has 14.5% of the population over the age of 55, while France has 30.5%. Of course, the population in France is older, so they also get more cancer as a percentage.
Here comes my sense of numbers. The rate of cancer is twice as high in Turkey as in France, with the proportion of the population aged over-55s almost half. It follows that almost 100% of cancers must be over the age of 55 in order for the deviation in cancer rate to be explained by demographics alone.
My cousin said that in Turkey people went less to the doctor, so that the number of unreported cases was high. I believe that Turkey is slowly regaining its appetite for figures and statistics and is far from lagging behind. I also doubt that going to the doctor only drives up the rate. In the same way, there are tips on the prevention and prevention of cancer in the doctors, so the argument does not convince me at all.
As I said, the higher cancer rate in France could be explained by demographics alone, if cancer were to develop 100% by the age of 55. However, the probability is 80% or a bit higher. I now expect 80%.
Assuming that Turkey and France have the same number of inhabitants, which is not the case because Turkey has more, then I expect 80 million people. From the German figures see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krebs_(medicine)#Statistik, especially from the total number of new cases, one can conclude that on average one in 2. cancer. The number of 469,000 new cases per year means approx. four million in eight years, and that is 10, that is 40 million, half of my 80 million inhabitants in Germany. Of course, this is inaccurate, because the new diseases are not 500,000 and the average age is not 80. But when I say that half of the people in France then get cancer, I can count on it.
So we have 40 million diseases. I love absolute numbers, anything else can be eye-washing. And we assume that 80% are over 55.
Of the 40 million people who have been sick, 32 million are in the disease, who have only received the disease over 55. So 8 million have already gotten them.
When I say now that these 8 million remain fixed in Turkey. And over 55, the number of sufferers is half because of demographics. then I will come to 24 million people in Turkey and 40 million in France, if France had 80 million inhabitants. In other words, the ratio is 60%. However, according to the incidence rate, it should be 50%.
This means that 10% of the population suffers from a cause of cancer in France, which is not present in Turkey. And sorry, I've already mentioned that I don't let the food factor apply. Of course, the proud Turks will also claim that it is due to a genetic difference. Well, that would have to be investigated and figures presented.
For example, I see only nuclear power in France as very strong and not present in Turkey. The permille numbers of nuclear power can only be obtained if one divides the 10% by 80 and then has the 0.125% or 1.25 per mille. However, this is the proportion of new radiation cancers in the total population. Even on the 3% of Wikipedia I do not know God.
Germany, by the way, also has nuclear power, but has only a quarter of the reactors that the Frenchman has and is thus in the upper midfield of cancer incidentes. I like to recalculate the whole thing on demand for Germany.
What do we learn from this: the nuclear phase-out is not only inevitable after Fukushima, even if this event has only brought about a rethink in Germany. And we also learn: Don't believe statistics that you haven't calculated yourself. I will bring more, among others, among others to the completely wrong rate of price increase in Germany.
Yes, the prognosis remains: if the Frenchman and the Turk continue to smoke as fashionable at the moment, then both incidences will probably fall. I say, however, that if the Turks really build nuclear power stations, they will not fall so sharply. And in terms of lung cancer, the number of cancers in Turkey is more likely to rise.
Yes, I hope you weren't too serious now, as the Kölsche says: Et hätt still jot jejange 🙂