quote:
440 thousand according to whose statistics? Do you know anything about how those numbers are arrived at? Neither does the CDC? It has been hovering around that number for the past ten years. I thought smoking rates have gone down. So how come lung cancer rates have gone up at the same time?

Dunno anything about the numbers (I know your reply was to the thread and not me). I would guess one reason, in addition to old data, is lung cancer is a lagging indicator. Think how long it takes smokers to develop cancer, and secondhand smoke takes even longer to kill people. So a drop in smoking won't yield a drop in lung cancer for decades.

2 ...

Report Post

Posted by SlowFlowPro

Simple Solutions to Complex Probs

Member since Jan 2004

423649 posts

Posted on 1/25/15 at 9:49 pm to Bestbank Tiger

i imagine a large # of the 440k are also related to heart issues, which is also a fat person's disease

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by Keltic Tiger

Baton Rouge

Member since Dec 2006

19374 posts

Posted on 1/26/15 at 10:50 am to Bestbank Tiger

BestbankTiger, you are exactly correct. I've lost my mother, father, sister & all 4 grandparents to cancer. My surviving sister & I have met with oncologists in both Houston & in N.O. to see if we can tell exactly where we stand with all this history in our family. All the experts we talked to said the same thing, cancer, particularly lung cancer, can take decades to develop, so there is no real time line info available. Relating any current cancer figures to any stoppage of smoking by the general public is not relevant. All of my exposure is to second hand smoke, but as I am no longer young, if I have it, I've HAD it for a while. Even with my family history, I don't like the govt stepping into yet another aspect of my life, were I a smoker or not.

0 ...

Report Post

O-T Lounge - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board