'nee raises an interesting point after using the Cancer Surveillance On-line mapping tool from the Public Health Agency of Canada, a FedGov branch I had never heard of until this very day.
Mapping, like all representations of statistical data, is something of a mugs' game as it is a means to make a mere average looking maybe more interesting than it is. That being said, I was interested to note her reaction to the different cancer rates in Ontario and BC. Then I started playing with the mapping widget to see if there was information of concern to me and came up with this map to the upply and rightly. Click for larger. Hmmm. Men and their nether regions. Hmmm. It appears that in provinces where one might say awkwardness around this general topic is socially rewarded, one might also say that the rewards are somewhat less health-wise. Is that fair? Is this map useful for that sort of conclusion? If not, what is it good for?
Comments
'nee - May 30, 2006 2:00 PM
I find the clean breaks between provinces to be worrying; why don't the colours meld into one another across provincial boundaries? Does Manitoba just have shittier healthcare? Gordo mentioned the BC Cancer Agency where some of the top researchers are, but that doesn't matter because these are incident rates of cancer, not mortality rates: research won't stop people *getting* cancer. But maybe certain early intervention prevents it? Food additive legislation? Health and safety on-the-job legislation? Anti-pollution legislation?
In answer to your question, though, the stats are consistent in so far as lung cancer follows the same general trend as prostate, and there's no social stigma about seeking care for a cough. Or is there?
David Janes - May 30, 2006 4:12 PM
Legislate it all -- after all, how can the society machine run smoothly if the cogs aren't in optimal working order?
Of course, according to the NYT the more society gets involved in eating the worse off we all get. Perhaps we'll have better food reeducation in Canada.
Alan - May 30, 2006 4:15 PM
So we legislate that men must be confortable with their bums? I can just imagine the reaction in Alberta on that.
David Janes - May 30, 2006 4:21 PM
As one of my friends, a doctor, says: "we don't like it any more than you".
Alan - May 30, 2006 4:28 PM
I had a secret plan once. On the day a pal was to open his first general medical practice I was going to pay five large smelly men fifty bucks each to make complaints proctological. The plan now sits in my bad one-third written movie script in an early scene.
WCG - May 30, 2006 5:30 PM
David: Confucious say that management doesn't clean up costly pollution unless forced by government, and even then management often shut down holding company and open a new one down the road. Management also fire those who are too sick to work, even if illness be caused by the job.
Don't legislate food: legislate mandatory TV-shut-off-go-outside-and-play periods for everybody under 37. That'd do more for our health than a thousand stupid rules about the cheese on caffeteria pizza. Just sayin'.
Alan: brilliant.
David Janes - May 30, 2006 5:47 PM
Hmmmmm, Confucious has me confused a lot. You may have to read my comments in the context of ongoing debates with Al here and elsewhere.
Al: <i>nasty</i>. The nice thing about being in Kingston is that you should have no problem find your victimizers, whether it's a drunk cut-from-the-football-team fratboy or recent x-con looking for a few extra dollars...