Posted on 11/20/2006 9:08:17 PM PST by goldstategop
Without the slightest doubt I agree!
Statistics do show that cigarette smokers are twice as likely to get lung cancer as non-smokers. That sounds terrible.
The statistics that show that say that 3.5 out of 100 non-smokers get lung cancer and 7 out of 100 cigarette smokers do. That doesn't sound like much at all to me.
I have to wonder; in the 45 or so years it takes to develop lung cancer how many miles does the average adult travel on streets and highways and what are their odds for death in that?
Also, 3.5 nonsmokers out of one hundred do NOT get lung cancer.
Anyone know if there's a pipe smokers ping list?
Like it or not that is the statistical incidence.
"Male smoker, are at the highest risk of developing lung cancer. Their risk is more often 20 times that of nonsmoking men. Female smokers have a risk which is 12 times that of nonsmoking women."
I didn't find a straight out statement of how many smokers or non-snokers out of 100 will develop it in their lifetime, but the above should mean that if 7 smokers out of 100 develop lung cancer, only 1 out of 200 non-smokers do so, or even less.
The term 'smoking related' raises a red flag for veracity to me. It makes me suspect they threw in all the deaths from "second-hand" smoking. Trying to get straightforward info on this is like trying to find out how many women died from legal abortions. You'd have better luck pulling teeth from a duck's mouth.
I'm not trying to impugn you or your efforts. But given the progressive disappearance of simple statistics and the increasing appearance of more vague conclusions based on studies of dubious credibility I have developed a cynical view of the 'popular wisdom' regarding politically charged subjects like tobacco, abortion, global warming, firearms and so on and so forth. Only the subject of firearms has a solid body of supporting research and evidence that is also easily available. Even with that the popular press manages to keep selling BS.
Your skepticism is well fouded, and cancer statistics often are misleading. However, the numbers they use for second hand smoke deaths aren't very high, so I don't think they are the main pump up in the "tobacco related" category. There is no question non smokers get lung cancer, probably related to other environmental factors. And all smokers don't get it, so genetics and the law of averages play a role. But still I say, moms don't let your kids grow up to be smokers.
(or do they?)
The statistic I've always seen say smokers (of cigarettes) are 22 times more likely to get lung cancer. Where did you get your numbers?
I don't remember. Where did you get yours?
The only possible criticism of the numbers is their definition of "smoker:" anyone who has smoked at least 100 cigarettes in their life. I suppose that might catch a lot of lung cancers in people who are for all practical purposes really life-long non-smokers. But I have read elsewhere that the large majority of initial casual smokers become regular smokers (90% comes to mind but don't quote me on that). And I have read that they do have statistics on smoking risk as a function of how long you've smoked. They measure smoking risk in "pack years," one pack-year being a one-pack-a-day smoker for one year. So if you smoke 2 packs a day for 25 years, that would be 50 pack years. And they say the risk basically goes up by the "decade" of pack years. So while it is true that the CDC would call you a smoker with lung cancer if you had only smoked 101 cigarettes and gotten that disease, the reality is that most people who get lung cancer are genuine smokers with multiple pack-years of exposure.
I should perhaps mention why I am interested in this subject: My Dad died of lung cancer a year ago. He had 54 pack-years of exposure. He got the disease even though he'd quit 27 years earlier. (This isn't unusual: 1/3rd of lung cancers happen in former smokers, the odds go down to maybe 1/3rd of that of people who continue to smoke.) He seemed to be in robust health a year earlier (he was 74).
The one odd thing I read about smoking/cancer statistics is that people in Japan, who smoke like a chimney, have much less lung cancer than we do. Smokers in Japan have a higher risk of lung cancer than nonsmokers, but their risk is something like 1/2 or 1/3rd of American smokers. I don't think they know why this is the case, but I gather one theory is that other aspects of their lifestyle gives them some protection (tofu or green tea or something like that might be protecting them against cancer). Maybe this is like the French not getting very much heart disease, in spite of their rich diets, because they are less stressed than we are about food or because they drink a moderate amount of red wine.
Prager: "Most important, we don't inhale"
A pox on thee.
My dad also died of lung cancer at age 59. His death certificate said nothing about lung cancer. Five years earlier his cancer was detected and half of one lung was removed. He had just passed the statistical mark where the vast majority of cases like his do not have a relapse. He did and it was inoperable. His death was listed as pulmonary edema or something like that. IOWs the COD was listed as, to paraphrase, 'lungs filled with fluid' which was caused by pneumonia which was caused by the cancer.
This should give you some insight and some concern about the legitimacy of statistics. The Japanese experience that you site is significant in understanding the truth of cancer. The French also show a significant difference in cancer rates as well as heart disease. Generally the French smoke non-filter cigarettes with much stronger tobacco and they start smoking at a younger age. But their lung cancer rates are also lower than U.S. rates.
What this indicates to me is what is generally recognized in a number of healing systems other than standard practice medicine. Stress causes cancer. Any kind of stress. Toxins and irritants are secondary causes. The genetic factor is still an unknown. It may be another secondary factor, it may impart (in any number of ways) a predisposition to developing cancer and it is possible that (in some cases) a genetic factor might present a programmed inevitability of developing it.
That is all the medical view on cancer and smoking. Politically speaking I consider the choice to smoke to be one of personal liberty just like riding motorcycles or bungee jumping or eating hamburgers. I oppose punitive regulation of that choice.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.