Read through the following sections:
Questions 1-5: Although hormones and genetics could play a role, the cancer rates at the beginning of the study were identical between men and women. that indicates that there is no inherent difference.
If you look at the women’s curve later in the century, you can see that the two curves parallel one another, just several decades apart. Sometimes when analyzing data like this we have to consider other information about what is going on in the world, for example, environmental factors, that wouldn’t be obvious from the graph itself. What we can’t see in this graph is the dynamics of the changing role of women. The rise in lung cancer was suddenly elevated in men about 20 years after World War 1. Since men have been living for 100,000 years, a sudden rise in the rate of lung cancer suggests that there is an environmental factor that has changed. The rise in the incidence 20 years after WW1 suggests that the social change in young men from all over the world being involved in a world war might have triggered the epidemic of smoking in men. Women, who stayed at home during that era were not influenced directly by the male-oriented change. Also, at that time, women were more regulated by social mores. Society at that time strongly frowned upon women who smoked. But the role of women changed sharply during the 20th century. During WW2 women began to work outside the home (i.e. Rosie the riveter). As roles changed, women threw aside the social mores and began smoke in higher numbers. Not surprisingly, the rate of lung cancer started to rise about 20 years after that. The rise in the women’s curve seems to parallel the men’s curve, but with a 30 year time lag.Since the lung cancer takes about 20 years to develop, we can’t actually see the effects of current trends in smoking in women.
Questions 8-10. You were supposed to identify the factors that contribute to the transmission of HIV.