Solo Cancer Cluster Blog

I read about research conducted on colorectal cancer in both Hong Kong and Chongqing. Researchers conducted the study over a ten-year time period using data from patients in two Hong Kong hospitals and two Chongqing hospitals. 61.3% of all cancers in Chongqing during the ten-year time period were colorectal cancer. However, there was no significant change in the distribution of cancers in Chongqing during the duration of the study. Researchers found that many people who were affected by colorectal cancer during this time were below 40 years of age. The researchers acknowledge that there was no cancer registry in Chongqing, so they were forced to only use colorectal cancer cases from the last ten years in order to gather data. They do not mention a cancer cluster specifically, but do note that in terms of gender/age, there are more instances of colorectal cancer in Chongqing than Hong Kong. This is specific for women. There is not enough evidence to support a cancer cluster.

source: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jgh.13018

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Group 2

Ocean acidification is important because it impacts biodiversity. A falling ph level has detrimental impacts on species that build shells or skeleton based on carbonate. For example, tropical corals. Hence ocean acidification destroys ecosystems, resulting in the ultimate disappearance of certain species. The computer generated evidence predicts that if the carbon dioxide emissions continue to rise exponentially, this will result in the drastic increase in the ocean ph level. The levels of PH are predicted to rise as much as they have in the past 300 million years in the next 1000 years. The computer models used past historical and geographical evidence to see what the natural rise would be and compared it to the rate at which ph levels are rising today. It would be difficult for nature to compensate for these damages. Consequently, resulting in further reduction on the marine biodiversity, specifically, coral reefs. Aidan Coco Grace Miske Jingyi Li Ling Zheng
Read more
Group 5: We misidentified the metal as Iron, when it is in fact Zinc. This occurred because we calculated the volume incorrectly which thereby translated to the wrong density. In addition, we observed that the metal did not melt. Our metal also fell apart onto the table which could have been a sign of possible meltage. As for our mineral, we believed that it was quartz, when it was actually Fluorite. We did not believe it had dissolved into the test tube; however, it in fact was slightly soluble. The largest error we made, which would have helped us determine correctly what the quartz and the metal were, was incorrectly calculating the density. If we would have done this part correctly, we likely would have determined the correct mystery materials.
Read more