|
|
|
|
|
| Why do people think the bad stuff is bad for you?
Posted: 5/10/2008 9:07:59 PM | What am I disregarding ? Your New Mexico statistics ? Anecdotal evidence anyone ? Statistics stating the obvious... that non-smokers chances drop by camparison to smokers ? Wow, how educationally informative of you. Never would have known this otherwise.... whew, thank goodness Charles is here to educate us.
No the statistics that indicated that the vast bulk of lung cancer cases are the result of smoking.
I did that in response to you earlier in the thread claiming it was simply an issue of air quality, and you challenging my claims that smoking causes the majority of lung cancer.
So you can be all snide if you want to, but you're the one who is moving goal posts.
Because it looks to me like you're actually trying to lay the blame on cigarette smoke for being the main cause of bad indoor/outdoor air and not the burning of fossil fuels. So, like I said before charles.... I'd like to see the statistical data that supports this claim of yours.
did you see anything about bad indoor or outdoor air?
In fact if you're now ignoring the cancer element, I think you're entire posting history in this thread is a non sequiter, because the thread is about THINGS THAT ARE BAD FOR YOU.
"Considering smokers make up the VAST majority of cancer cases while being the minority of the population, it's pretty obvious that the transport industry actually adds fuel to the SMOKERS fire."
nope, I talked about cancer, sorry madam but your addiction of choice causes over 80% of the lung cancer cases. Which is why despite the fact that smokers are a minority, they fill up the cancer wards.
tatistics showing how non-smokers are less likely to get lung cancer vs smokers in New Mexico is a non sequitur to what you stated above, obviously.
Considering I was discussing smoking when you asked for statistics, I think you're confused about what you're arguing.
Continue to bring up the fact that the study was based out of new mexico, I'm curious how this has any bearing. | |
|
| Why do people think the bad stuff is bad for you?
Posted: 5/11/2008 1:49:14 AM |
Considering I was discussing smoking when you asked for statistics, I think you're confused about what you're arguing.
Uhhh.... well let's see. Considering that my original post was discussing in response to another post about air pollution and how you plucked one tiny section, specifically smoking, and then distorted it to be about lung cancer and cigarettes rather than reading the entire post and grasping its entire thought process..... hmmm, who's the confused one ?
You cherry picked my post, charles, rather than reading it in its entirety. I simply stated that picking on the smaller things when there are bigger fish to fry is futile in the overall health issue scheme of things. The causes of respiratory diseases do not boil down to one simplistic little thing as you so like to try to make it out as.
The transport industry adds the fuel to the fire, not the other way around. The known causes of air pollution prove my point. And my point had absolutely nothing to do with smokers and lung cancer statistics. It had to do with overall air pollution increasing today's now very well understood and documented extreme high rates of all respiratory diseases in comparison to past generations.
Get it now ? Or do you need to reread my post from an overall perspective of what I was saying yet again ? My post had absolutely nothing to debate about smoking and lung cancer, nor do I even so much as say that in any way shape or form. Shall I carry on pinpointing and explaining your lack of overall comprehension of my post ? Or do I need to continue spelling it out in black and white for you ? Because apparently you haven't picked up on that yet.
I attempted to not be condenscending by giving you a chance to read back via what and how I posted my responses. Unfortunately, you never picked up on it.
Alas, I ended up having to do so anyways. | |
|
| Why do people think the bad stuff is bad for you?
Posted: 5/12/2008 8:01:51 PM | Cigarette smoking causes 87 percent of lung cancer deaths (1). Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in both men and women (3). Smoking is also responsible for most cancers of the larynx, oral cavity and pharynx, esophagus, and bladder. In addition, it is a cause of kidney, pancreatic, cervical, and stomach cancers (2, 4), as well as acute myeloid leukemia (2).
Scare statistics at their best!
All in all, lung cancer death rates are average about 500 per 100,000 AT AGE 79, SMOKER or NON-SMOKER. Doesnt matter.
http://seer.cancer.gov/faststats/sites.php?site=Lung+and+Bronchus+Cancer&stat=Mortality
Lung cancer is responsible for .5% (one-half of 1 percent!)of ALL deaths at age 79. Hardly epidemic proportions that we are led to believe, considering average North American life expectency is 77.
As far as those measly 500 deaths per 100,000, smoking is responsible for for about half (250)of those deaths. But RADON comes in a close second at around 150 deaths of those 500 per 100,000. The other top 10 factors account for remaining 100 deaths of that 500 per 100,000 total.
What on earth are the other 99.5%, or 99,500 people dying from?? That would concern me more.
Kidney, pancreatic, cervical, stomach cancers and acute myeloid leukemia, etc are an even smaller number than these wildly popular, but misused lung cancer stats - a mere fraction of annual deaths. But, presented in a certain way, they are very effective in garnering a certain response.
Considering roughly 25% of the population smoke, this shows what a non-issue this really is, despite the best efforts of anti smoking crusaders to scare the hell out of everyone. | |
|
| Why do people think the bad stuff is bad for you?
Posted: 5/12/2008 9:08:26 PM | I'm not going to argue with you ZenMastA.
It seems fine by me.
Without smoking whose to say if we'd be so far in developed cancer treatments today.
I am starting to hate the idea of a world that pigeon holes everyone into living the same type of life. Into thinking the same type of way.
I am starting to think we should encourage more variety and focus steering more towards finding a better way of structuring the whole, so that it's allowed to interact with itself with as little harm being done to the whole. | |
|
| Why do people think the bad stuff is bad for you?
Posted: 5/13/2008 2:39:02 AM | Check out the CDC Web site on smoking (http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/Factsheets/health_effects.htm). It has this to say:
Fact Sheet
Health Effects of Cigarette Smoking
(updated January 2008)
Smoking harms nearly every organ of the body; causing many diseases and reducing the health of smokers in general.1 The adverse health effects from cigarette smoking account for an estimated 438,000 deaths, or nearly 1 of every 5 deaths, each year in the United States.2,3 More deaths are caused each year by tobacco use than by all deaths from human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), illegal drug use, alcohol use, motor vehicle injuries, suicides, and murders combined
The problem with looking at just lung cancer is that you're not getting the whole picture, but of course people dwell on it, because the survival rate is among one of the lowest for a cancer. | |
|
| Why do people think the bad stuff is bad for you?
Posted: 5/13/2008 4:10:14 AM | http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/9703.php
"Action on Smoking and Health" tells us that a 30-year-old smoker can expect to live about 35 more years, whereas a 30-year-old nonsmoker can expect to live 53 more years.
no matter what the cause, there is no denying that smokers die much younger. | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
