4.5 Article

Investigating local relationships between trace elements in soils and cancer data

Journal

SPATIAL STATISTICS
Volume 5, Issue -, Pages 25-41

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.spasta.2013.05.001

Keywords

Cancer disease data; Soil geochemistry; Radon; Geographically weighted regression; Geostatistics; Arsenic

Funding

  1. NERC [bgs05008] Funding Source: UKRI
  2. Natural Environment Research Council [bgs05008] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Medical geology research has recognised a number of potentially toxic elements (PTEs), such as arsenic, cobalt, chromium, copper, nickel, lead, vanadium, uranium and zinc, known to influence human disease by their respective deficiency or toxicity. As the impact of infectious diseases has decreased and the population ages, so cancer has become the most common cause of death in developed countries including Northern Ireland. This research explores the relationship between environmental exposure to potentially toxic elements in soil and cancer disease data across Northern Ireland. The incidences of twelve different cancer types (lung, stomach, leukaemia, oesophagus, colorectal, bladder, kidney, breast, mesothelioma, melanoma and non melanoma (NM) skin cancer both basal and squamous) were examined in the form of twenty-five coded datasets comprising aggregates over the 12 year period from 1993 to 2006. A local modelling technique, geographically weighted regression (GWR) is used to explore the relationship between environmental exposure and cancer disease data. The results show comparisons of the geographical incidence of certain cancers (stomach and NM squamous skin cancer) in relation to concentrations of certain PTEs (arsenic levels in soils and radon were identified). Findings from the research have implications for regional human health risk assessments. c (C) 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B. V.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available