What is the study of the incidence of diseases in a population

Health related question in topics Conditions Illness .We found some answers as below for this question “What is the study of the incidence of diseases in a population”,you can compare them.

Epidemiology is the study of factors affecting the health and illness of populations including incidences of diseases. ChaCha! [ Source: http://www.chacha.com/question/what-is-the-study-of-the-incidence-of-diseases-in-a-population ]
More Answers to “What is the study of the incidence of diseases in a population
What is the study of the incidence of diseases in a population?
http://www.chacha.com/question/what-is-the-study-of-the-incidence-of-diseases-in-a-population
Epidemiology is the study of factors affecting the health and illness of populations including incidences of diseases. ChaCha!

Related Questions Answered on Y!Answers

Does marijuana cause schizophrenia?
Q: apearently this study says no. Study clears cannabis of schizophrenia rap – No greater risk than general non-tokers By Tim WorstallPosted in Policing, 6th November 2008 13:19 GMTRegular readers will recall the confused mess (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/08/cannabis_law_analysis/)that is this government’s cannabis policy. There has been a drop in cannabis consumption since it was downgraded from Class B to C, but nevertheless they want to put it back up to Class B again. Yes, we know all about the argument that what you ingest is entirely your business, it being your body and all that but morals are always trumped by politics.In the comments section to our last piece the general consensus was that the policy was driven either by a craven servility to the Murdoch press or, as a daring alternative, a bending to Daily Mail woo woo. The general consensus however was that it was Puritanism, that awful fear that someone, somewhere, might be enjoying themselves and that this situation cannot be allowed to continue. We’re arguing over whose Puritanism, not whether.There was one vaguely respectable argument that could be put forward on the prohibitionist’s side, that of cannabis induced schizophrenia. This has been increasing even as the general incidence of schizophrenia has been stable (or even falling, depending upon who you ask). That the rise was on the order of 500 people a year means it’s not a very important point, not when compared to 3 million regular tokers, but there are still those who will buy the argument that people should be stopped from harming themselves, even if the risks are very low.There is certainly a correlation, but we should still want to know about causation before we take any further action. For it is possible, and it is a view advanced by some (like myself last time), that those who are about to become schizophrenic dose themselves on cannabis as they are known to on alcohol and any other substance that comes to hand to still the voices. Or perhaps there’s a milder version, that cannabis induced psychosis isn’t in fact cannabis induced at all, but is simply coincidental: that it’s an early marker of schizophrenia rather than something brought on by cannabis itself.When we try to test this we also want to be very careful indeed about our sample groups. We really don’t want to be making the mistake that the World Health Organisation has been making with HIV testing in sub-Saharan Africa. Testing pregnant women to give you the incidence of a sexually transmitted disease in the general population really ain’t all that clever: you’re testing the one group of the population where you have actual proof that they’ve been partaking in unprotected sex. It might be useful to get an idea of scale, but it’s just not going to be all that accurate.Fortunately, all of this is just what some scientists have done(http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSTRE4A26JV20081103?feedType=RSS&feedName=healthNews&rpc=22&sp=true)(sadly, the full paper (http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/65/11/1269) is not online for free access). We know that there is a genetic predisposition to schizophrenia (more accurately to three different conditions that we’ll, for convenience sake, group together here). If we’re lucky we can also find a decent data set which we have indeed got, some 2.25 million Danes born between 1955 and 1990, and we know both their own treatments for either cannabis induced psychosis or for those varied schizophrenic type diseases. We can also track their familial relationships and see which of them did or didn’t suffer in these manners. Excellent, we can now try to test our correlation. Do people who have had cannabis induced psychotic episodes then go on to develop schizophrenia at a higher rate than their genetic predisposition (as evidenced by their familial incidence of schizophrenia) would lead us to believe they would?Well, looking at the 609 who had treatment for such pot induced freakouts and those 6,476 who were treated for the full blown nastiness, well, umm, no. Formally: In terms of estimated rate ratios, persons who develop cannabis-induced psychosis are as predisposed to schizophrenia spectrum disorder and other psychiatric disorders as those who develop schizophrenia spectrum disorder without a history of cannabis-induced psychosis.So at this point we can say that, no, that bad trip on some heavy shit does not lead on to schizophrenia. There’s no difference in incidence.But the paper’s authors go much further: Altogether, these findings, in addition to those of previous studies, indicate that cannabis-induced psychosis may not be a valid diagnosis but an early marker of schizophrenia.That is, that the very idea of that bad trip is itself wrong. The disease is already there, simply wrongly diagnosed as being cannabis induced. And finally we get: Rather, the degree of hereditar
A: There is now reasonable evidence that too much cannabis makes schizophrenia more likely among the range of people. There is the obvious point that too much of anything does damage. If people consume cannabis day after day in sizable quantities it gets to some of them (perhaps). In the same way that too much alcohol does, etc. There’s also the cancer risk of inhaling the smoke. I would be more concerned about that myself.Then what would happen harder laws made cannabis more difficult to obtain? There are more damaging things than cannabis such as methamphetamine. Do away with cannabis & there would more of that about in the UK. Or something else.Then there are the medicinal benefits of cannabis. It is silly that the law-makers are so concerned with recreational use/abuse & “messages” that it prevents medicinal use too.Cannabis is here to stay anyway. Best thing to do at this stage is learn to live with it.
The health argument?
Q: What do you think about this article?More here- http://www.veganoutreach.org/articles/healthargument.html”The effects of animal products on risk of chronic diseases are an area of considerable controversy. … [I]international correlations between per capita food consumption and disease rates are seriously confounded by other lifestyle factors associated with economic affluence. … One of the most comprehensive correlational studies conducted within a country is the China-Oxford-Cornell study…. These correlations, although informative and valuable in many ways, cannot be used to establish causal relationships between dietary factors and disease risk. The limitations of geographical correlations were precisely stated by Drs Doll and Peto:Trustworthy epidemiological evidence, it should be noted, always requires demonstration that a relationship holds for individuals (or perhaps small groups) within a large population as well as between large population groups. Correlation between the incidence of cancer in whole towns or whole countriand, for example, the consumption of particular items of food can, at most, provide hypotheses for investigation by other means. Attempts to separate the roles of causative and of confounding factors by statistical techniques of multiple regression analysis have been made often, but evidence obtained in this way is, at best, of only marginal value.”Indeed, some of the correlations produced from the China-Oxford-Cornell study are peculiar and probably incorrect. For example, esophageal cancer had no clear association with smoking, and had a negative correlation with daily alcohol intake. These results are clearly contradictory to the well-established findings from studies of individuals that both smoking and alcohol use are strong risk factors for esophageal cancer. In addition, the study did not find a clear association between meat consumption and risk of heart disease or major cancers.”
A: i think it’s as valid as the statement: people who eat ice cream are more likely to drown.linking two seemingly similar items doesn’t always make a valid argument. people eat ice cream in the summer, more people swim in the summer, both true statements. just because they eat ice cream does not mean they are more likely to drown.long time ago (like my grandparent), folks worked hard. they ate fatty foods, fried foods, meat, eggs, veggies… and they didn’t have an obesity problem (or all the health issues related to obesity such as cancer, heart disease, etc.) Additionally, the meats folks ate back then were not poked and processed with steriods, antibiotics, etc.. obesity is because people these days don’t work hard or exercise (laziness). a solution to obesity is eliminating animal fats (i.e., becoming a vegan), although it is one method of diet modification. the vegan lifestyle should not be pushed onto folks who enjoy eating meat. one can eat meat and be healthy. a healthy diet is all about portion size… and eating a balanced diet! (not a plate of fried chicken and pork BBQ, better eat a small piece of grilled chicken and 2 veggies!). additionally, it is important to buy organic and non-processed foods, and cooking all your meals at home!
How many people die each year from airport-poisoning?
Q: -“Airport-poisoning” consists of dozens of diseases and afflictions caused by air, noise and water pollution that is airport operations related. *An air contamination area around a small airport is at least 20 miles; the noise pollution footprint is similar.*70% of the nation’s population lives within 20 miles of a major airport.*According to USEPA standards, Chicago’s O’Hare airport creates unacceptable cancer rates for 32 miles away from the airport.*Over 400 people die each year from cancer that is related to Chicago’s O’Hare airport alone. (INVESTIGATION OF THE CANCER INCIDENCE RATES IN THE VICINITY OF O’HARE AIRPORT)*Some inorganic and organics from jet aircraft pollution: ” Did you ever wonder what blows out of a jet airplane?” http://www.areco.org/newhealth.htm*Several millions of people are drinking airport-contaminated water (e.g. fuel, maintenance, dumping, anti-icing).**Please give citations***For more info: http://www.areco.org/studies.htm
A: O’Hare is a major reason that we have some of the highest cancers and other airport-poisoning disease rates in America. Studies show O’Hare is responsible for the deaths of at least hundreds of people each year from cancer alone.
People also view

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *