i would think it's pretty low, but iwhere to get official data?
2006-09-16 03:18:08 · 13 answers · asked by Dudeberry 2 in Health ➔ Diseases & Conditions ➔ Cancer
The best place for Cancer: http://www.cancer.gov/newscenter/pressreleases/Census2000
and
http://www.norwalkhosp.org/website/nhssite.nsf/MainPageKey/CancerCenter-OtherResources
Allergy data 100 years ago is hard because there was much data collected. However, the best place for any rates is also from the US Census Bureau data: http://www.census.gov/
Those are the best source I know or could find - good luck!!!
Update my answer - I was just wanted to concur with all the other people that part of the problem with viable statistics from 100 years ago and medical issues is that most of these issues could not be identified as such 100 years ago. Consumption was a popular identification for what we know today was (or probably was) cancer and many people suffered with allegies for years and no one new what was calling people these illnesses.
2006-09-16 03:28:45 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Statistical sites provide all the goodies, shame they don't tell you why the numbers were a lot lower than today.
Children very rarely got cancer 100 years ago, and yes, they were able to diagnose cancer 100 years ago. Cancer is now the biggest killer of 1 day olds to 26 year olds. Allergies are massively on the increase. Diabetes has increased 500% in the last 20 years. Etc. etc. etc.
There is not a single developed degenterative disease which is on the decline. The only reason some diseases appear to have been irradicated is that we are pumped full of chemicals and drugs at a ridiculously early age.
If you are interested in know why your assumption is correct, pleaes feel free to contact me.
Take Care!
2006-09-16 10:30:36 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
There are a few things that have an effect on the answer to your question.
100 years ago, there were fewer people on Earth, so even if the percentaage of people with a certain disease was the same, mathmatically, there would be fewer.
The other problem is having the disease vs. being diagnosed with the disease. I am guessing that virtually the same percentage of people had the various maladies you mentioned. Because of advancements in medicine, more people are diagnosed with these diseases, so it might appear as their occurance rates have gone up.
2006-09-16 10:24:04 · answer #3 · answered by Mr. G 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Actually 100 years ago the same amount of people ratio wise probably had these ailments they just didn't know what it was. When people died of unknown illnesses it was often called consumption. So those statisitcs would not be viable or even possible to find in any true context.
2006-09-16 10:20:41 · answer #4 · answered by souless one 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
100 years ago we didn't understand many of the things that killed us. Some cancers were called "consumption" . People didn't go to the doctor as much, and just died at home from "the fever".
2006-09-16 10:21:32 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think I've read it somewhere before. Hmmm... It tells me that long long time ago, people are too poor or in fact, medical advances are not as good as today and therefore, the number is pretty inaccurate. If you get what I'm driving at... = )
2006-09-16 10:21:02 · answer #6 · answered by dada 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Try the American Cancer Society.
2006-09-16 10:20:23 · answer #7 · answered by MOM KNOWS EVERYTHING 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is very difficult to get a proper incidence rate. Remember many died without knowing they had it
2006-09-16 10:20:30 · answer #8 · answered by toietmoi 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
For this answer the better way is that you go 100 years behind and youll find your answer..
OK
2006-09-16 10:20:12 · answer #9 · answered by test page 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Try your local library. They can find out information like this for you. I agree the number was less than it is today. Good Luck ! :)
2006-09-16 10:20:06 · answer #10 · answered by tysavage2001 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋