Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
I have sought for evidence on this point, but have not yet found it.The ordinary geological maps scarcely refer to the surface-soil, and the agricultural statistics deal with the acreage devoted to the cultivation of different crops.I do not yet know whether there are any statistics which refer to the character of the surface-soil of the whole country, or to the proportion of the inhabitants to the various surface-soils.Our returns may be said to have suipplemented Mr. Haviland's more general observations in certain directions.In the first place, we have more definite information regarding the actual character of the soil on which the residence of the patient is situated than he was able to furnish ; and, although we cannot place an absolute value on the knowledge, yet it is of such a kind that it may lay the foundation for very valuable knowledge in the course of the next few years.Further, we learn that residence at an elevation of more than 1,300 feet, on a light sandy soil, with a subsoil foundation of limestone, on a hill in the country, at a distance from river or stream, apparently under very favourable circumstances for the maintenance of health, is not sufficient to protcct the individual from cancer.Before taking leave of this subject, I would venture to point out certain difficulties in the complete acceptance of Mr. Haviland's Geographical Distribution of Cancer, for which I can at the same time express my admiration.Comparing the map with the text, I cannot but be struck with the infrequency of cancer in certain well-watered districts, such as Ulverton, watered by the river Leven ; and the Ipswich portions of Suffolk, watered by the Orwell and the Deven.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
G. V. Poore (1887) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: