could someone show a list of those 91 dead?
There has been lots of talk about the 91 out of 220 who died after this movie, ever since People Magazine revealed the numbers in 1980. But is there anywhere a name list of those 91?
shareThere has been lots of talk about the 91 out of 220 who died after this movie, ever since People Magazine revealed the numbers in 1980. But is there anywhere a name list of those 91?
shareAs I understand it that was supposedly due to the atomic testing that was done in the Utah desert and they're claiming a bunch died of cancer as a result of that. Included in that tally are the three stars, John Wayne, Susan Hayward and Pedro Armendariz but what I can't understand is how do they figure that that factor alone is what led to those cancer deaths? I'd say that's a somewhat unjustified generalization.
shareI agree with you. All the major players who died were both heavy smokers AND heavy drinkers. That is a deadly combination with lung cancer. However, part of the circumstantial evidence includes the high incidence of cancer deaths among Mormons along the fallout route from the bomb that had been tested just prior to the filming of "The Conqueror". Of course, Patrick Wayne was close by during the filming, and he is still around; so, who knows?
shareThey never said that one factor caused it. Just that 91 out of 220 contracted cancer (not necessarily died) from such a diverse group (actors/director/set builders/makeup/landscapers etc.) is too high. One of the reasons you can't get a consolidated list is that some of those people were behind the scenes and therefore they never made the headlines. My guess is some cancer study probably published the number.
shareI believe it was actually 91 who were 'diagnosed with cancer' at some point in their life, but I don't believe all 91 actually died from it.
In response to what others have said, even if many of the cast and crew were heavy drinkers, smokers, etc, 45% of the workforce of any one project is too huge a number to call a coincidence,
Never defend crap with "It's just a movie"
http://www.youtube.com/user/BigGreenProds
You have to be careful with the numbers here. Remember that 1/3 of the people 33.3%, die from cancer normally, so the 45% number does not really constitute that much of an outlier.
There are many other variables to look at before claiming a cancer cluster, even though on the surface it seems a lot but we still have to remember the 33% figure and I am unaware at this time what the standard deviation is that goes along with that value and lacking that I cannot assign any confidence interval or corellation coefficient so, for me, I would need to look at it a bit more.
I will try as it is interesting being as it involves the rich and famous. I would like to look at the rates for the locals and compare those as well. Sounds like a fun epidemiology problem. As a retired researcher from The Los Alamos National Laboratory specializing in high energy neutron measurements and dosimetry I'll give it a look and if I find anything interesting I'll write it up if you all are interested.
Have a Happy New Year!
Rich in New Mexico.
Could be coincidence, but the top 4 billed and director were 5 of the 81. That's just eerie. I looked up some cancer facts. It appears that, today, there is about a 40% chance of developing cancer at some point in your life. However, cancer incidences have risen since 1950 (possibly longer life expectancies, possibly new hazards, probably a combination of both). So back before 1980, I would wager that the chance was not even close to 40%. Hard to find info on cancer incidences as opposed to cancer deaths and deaths can be misleading since 1950 would have more deaths with lower incidence and today we'd have less deaths with higher incidence due to better treatment. Incidences tell the tale, but it's hard to find that data.
shareAll that carnage and a crappy movie tooboot, still lots of responses but no one has given a list of names
sharehere is an interesting article about their children dealing with this
http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20077825,00.html
they filmed in this canyon were all the dust collected, they would have dust storms, it was so bad the director would have to wear a mask to keep from breathin it in.
also they hauled a 60 tons of radio active dirt/dust back to the studio for retakes, so exposed in an enclosed space.
Yet the peoples life expectancy was higher than average at the time of their deaths.
So some thing reducing their life expectancy didnt happen. The longer you live the more likely you will get cancer also alcohol and smoking, play a part.
Even today cancer causes over 30% of deaths with much better detection and treatments then when these people died. These advancements easily explain the higher cancer death rate compared to now and its also lower rate for the time.
The list of 91 is people that got cancer (just remembered) only 48 died from cancer WAY BELOW THE AVERAGE FOR THE TIME!
So 23% died from cancer compared to the average much closer to 40% of deaths at the time and even 30% these days!
People need to stop spreading this ridiculous myth. If you look at the numbers (91 of 220 got cancer, 46 of those died from it), there's nothing weirt about them at all.
sharesuch a sad loss of life
share