Users Online Now:
2,107
(
Who's On?
)
Visitors Today:
1,351,461
Pageviews Today:
1,851,274
Threads Today:
473
Posts Today:
7,950
02:40 PM
Directory
Adv. Search
Topics
Forum
Back to Forum
Back to Thread
REPLY TO THREAD
Subject
The anti-smoking conspircy
User Name
Font color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Indigo
Violet
Black
Font:
Default
Verdana
Tahoma
Ms Sans Serif
In accordance with industry accepted best practices we ask that users limit their copy / paste of copyrighted material to the relevant portions of the article you wish to discuss and no more than 50% of the source material, provide a link back to the original article and provide your original comments / criticism in your post with the article.
[quote:Anonymous Coward 32285119:MV8yMTEwOTQ5XzM1NjM1NDE4X0EyMzAxMUFD] What is bad about any lung cancer from smoking study is that they do not eliminate other possible causes of the diseases. To do this they would need 'volunteers' to live in an isolated environment breathing only pure air with no other contaminates. As far as I know this has never happened primarily because it would be immoral, at least in the old days but now, in an era where torture is acceptable to the government psychopaths, perhaps they will. Additionally; all animal studies are intrinsically flawed for the simple reason that mice and rats or whatever other animal they use for testing are not human. Add to that the methods used to test in animals is to force the poor creatures to breath only smoke and just enough oxygen to keep them alive. One more: I have seen studies on second hand smoke that seem to indicate that second-hand smoke decreases the incidence of lung cancers, of course those results get buried or explained away for no other reason than the studies outcome did not line up with the testers preconceived notions, not very scientific. They did much the same with marijuana studies and got caught but you will have a hard time finding that info since the gov. paid most colleges to destroy any research they had on marijuana in the late 70's. In this case the preconceived notion was: Marijuana causes brain damage. When real scientists looked at this study they found it fatally flawed because they forced their test subjects to inhale MJ smoke and provided NO oxygen. ANY government funded study should be looked at very skeptically. [/quote]
Original Message
Adult smokers
1984 25.9%
2010 11.9%
[
link to www.cdph.ca.gov
]
See Figure 2 - Age adjusted lung-cancer incidence rates in males and females (University of California)
Males Females
1973 72 19
1996 70 43
[
link to www.sciencedirect.com
]
See Fig. 2. Percent of U.S. adult smokers for the period from 1965 to 2006 (CDC, 2007).
1965 43%
2006 20%
[
link to www.sciencedirect.com
]
See Figure 1. Lung cancer mortality rates for the United States from 1930 to 1998, age-standardized to the 1970 US population. Adapted from Gordon et al,19 and Mckay et al,20 and Ries et al.21
Males Females
1930 4 3
1998 63 38
[
link to journal.publications.chestnet.org
]
The reduction of smoking rates led to an increase of lung cancer mortality rates in US!!!
Smoking statistics in Britain
women men
1948 41% 82%
1965 45%
2007 20% 21%
[
link to ash.org.uk
]
lung cancer mortality rates in Britain (see the charts from
the link bellow):
Age 35-54
women men
1950 8% 50%
1998 11% 18%
Age 55-74
women men
1950 25 200
1998 110 250
[
link to news.bbc.co.uk
]
Maybe I'm missing something, but it looks like smoking clearly protects women of all ages from lung cancer and protects men older than 55!
Take a look for yourselves at the graphs from this article: [
link to news.bbc.co.uk
]
Pictures (click to insert)
General
Politics
Bananas
People
Potentially Offensive
Emotions
Big Round Smilies
Aliens and Space
Friendship & Love
Textual
Doom
Misc Small Smilies
Religion
Love
Random
View All Categories
|
Next Page >>