|
I read all contributors to this thread with care and complete objectivity. Even with such a small number of sampling, one can see that it is an enormously complex set of potential "cause" factors. These factors are very difficult to define, nevermind to standardize. How can one grade a homesite near sea shore as a valid "cause" factor? Is 50 miles near an open sea a valid criterion? Environmental exposure, this is even more difficult to describe or define. Food intake, is one steak per week acceptable or two? Then, how do you define a steak? Does hot dog or hamburger count? So many other "cause" are not even mentioned, such as type of work, level of education, social behavior, past medical history, past exposure to radiation, chemicals, carcinogens, contaminated water/air, etc. Even with hundred times more candidates and with the aid of a computer, it is highly doubtful that we can even begin to elucidate the potential "cause" factors.
One feature seems to be a valid "cause" and common in our small group of people here, that is, their family bc history. Many of us seem to have parents with bc or other types of cancer. Then one can quickly rationalize that cancers have been the major killers of people. Therefore, the linkage is certainly plausible and likely real.
One important point is the random probability of disease occurence. Look at an identical batch of laboratory mice. They were bred under great care and control with same identical genealogy. Still, there are some in the same batch that react totally differently to the same test reagents. In common language, it is pure luck (unluck) that put us in our unhappy situations.
I don't want to appear to be negative in our effort to find out more about the dreadful disease. However, our data resources are simply too limited and the eagerness and zest to generate some forms of conclusion may be rash and misleading.
Ann
|