Lung cancer has a normal occurrence of something like 60 in 100,000.
If we are as conservative as we can be and say the increase is only 36% from all of these smog days, that would mean that the rate should increase to 82/100,000.
Beijing's population is ~21 million. The 22 / 100,000 increase from the base rate would mean an additional 5,000 lung cancer deaths in Beijing due to the smog. That's the minimum. The more realistic number is surely an order of magnitude or more higher -- this level of pollution is unprecedented in modern times.
Again, what is the current data showing Beijing is far worse than the national average for lung cancer (because pollution has been pretty bad there for a long time already) ?
I see assumptions, estimations but no hard facts to support anything, right now.
In 2002, for every 100,000 men living in Beijing, 49
had lung cancer. By 2010, that number had risen
more than 50 percent, to 75. Women in China are
less likely to smoke and so have lower rates of the
disease. But among those living in Beijing, a similar
sharp rise in lung cancer cases occurred over the
last decade. In 2002, for every 100,000 women
living in Beijing, 30 had lung cancer; by 2010, that
number had also risen more than 50 percent, to 46.
So the rate in the US is 60/100,000 -- As of 2010, in Beijing, the rate is closer to 121/100,000. Does a 100% increase in risk change your opinion of these 'marginal' deaths? For a population of 21M, this is equivalent to ~13,000 additional lung cancer deaths.
Didn't you just warn me about comparing countryside to cities in China? In any case, the high levels in Kentucky are the legacy of coal country, which China would be wise to avoid. It also doesn't help that China's rate is increasing year-over-year along with their population that's already 5x the entire state of Kentucky. I literally can't fathom why you're trying to minimize the impact of dirty air in Beijing.
Problem is, lung cancer rates are increasing all around the globe, so that does not answer anything regarding "are the lung cancer rate in Beijing unusual vs the rest of the world?".
But at least that's a start for a proper discussion.
And please do not compare a US rate that includes countryside and cities with a city-based rate in China. That's not a relevant comparison at all. Rates vary wildy state by state in the US :
At 35% per 10µg, it's actually about a 900% increase in lung cancer risk. That's a significant effect, because it means 900% more people will get lung cancer on average. People are getting killed, it's just hard to say how many without better numbers.
> At 35% per 10µg, it's actually about a 900% increase in lung cancer risk.
You can extrapolate linearly such numbers, it makes absolutely no sense. This is not a math class, we are talking about clinical effects with actual thresholds.
"35% per 10µg" expresses a linear relationship. If someone says that's what it is, I'm going to assume they measured a linear relationship. It makes perfect sense if that is indeed the reality, and I see no reason why it cannot be.
Unless you've got some actual conflicting data, it just sounds like you have unfavorable agenda.
Even if it's a linear relationship, it can only exist within the demonstrated range. You should know that not everything is linear when you go outside of the range you have studied.
So unless proven this linear relationship is valid across all the spectrum (which is obviously is not), then you should take whatever is written with a big grain of salt and thing twice about it before making over simplistic assumptions.
