Posted on 04/07/2010 6:26:53 PM PDT by djf
thanks djf
Doesn't that statement contradict the rest of your post? I don't understand it.
Lifetime RiskBased on rates from 2004-2006, 6.96% of men and women born today will be diagnosed with cancer of the lung and bronchus at some time during their lifetime. This number can also be expressed as 1 in 14 men and women will be diagnosed with cancer of the lung and bronchus during their lifetime. These statistics are called the lifetime risk of developing cancer.
There is the lifetime risk for all people and it is almost exactly 7%. As I said before though it is no longer possible to find a lifetime risk stat broken down into smokers and non-smokers. Isn't it interesting that they used to do that and make it available to the public but no longer do?
AMONGST NON SMOKERS AS WELL!”
It’s that 3rd hand smoke.
I don't smoke because I know the risks and I hate the smell. But if adults want to congregate with other like-minded adults (not kids in a bar) and enjoy a legal product, why should I interfere? If someone wants to get blasted on booze, or pot, I just don't care. If someone wants to have a hash bar, I won't go in, but I won't use the government to suppress them.
Smoking Does Not Cause Lung Cancer (According to WHO/CDC Data)*Would you believe that the real number is < 10% (see Appendix A)? Yes, a US white male (USWM) cigarette smoker has an 8% lifetime chance of dying from lung cancer but the USWM nonsmoker also has a 1% chance of dying from lung cancer (see Appendix A). In fact, the data used is biased in the way that it was collected and the actual risk for a smoker is probably less.
When we look at the data over a longer period, such as 50 years as we did here, the lifetime relative risk is only 8 (see Appendix A). That means that even using the biased data that is out there, a USWM smoker has only an 8x more risk of dying from lung cancer than a nonsmoker. It surprised me too because I had always heard numbers like 20-40 times more risk. Statistics that are understandable and make sense to the general public, what a concept!
According to those WHO/CDC stats non-smokers have a 1% chance of contracting lung cancer. If we hypothesize that all 300 million Americans were non-smokers that would mean that 3 million of them would get lung cancer. That is twice as many as you thought would get it using 3.5% as the denominator.
Perhaps that statement wasn’t contradictory. I didn’t understand it at all that’s why I asked about it. It seemed like a complete non-sequitur.
There are NOT 3 million cases of lung cancer in non smokers per year. The hospitals would be filled to overflowing with them if there were. Not even the most rabid anti-smoker claims this number. The most common cancer is prostate cancer in men. Not even close to the number of lung cancer cases in SMOKERS. Asian men smoke in much more % than white men, yet somehow have less lung cancer. But they do suffer from much more stomach cancer. From my recollection, the 8X risk seems right for smokers getting lung cancer. And for coal miners who smoke it was something like 50 times the risk.
Of course not. And not all 300 million Americans have lived their entire lives. Do you understand what a probability is? That is what a "lifetime risk" statistic is based on.
Now that I've shown that there is only an 8% chance is that too much?
Right. But you have to realize that we all have to die from SOMETHING. You looked up the statistics. An 85 year old who gets lung cancer didn’t necessarily get it from smoking or SHS. In 1900 the average lifespan was 47. Now it’s close to 80. And these people lived their entire lives enveloped by smoke. From fireplaces, campfires, the environment, cigarettes, lack of nutrititon, etc. Not everyone dies from lung cancer. If you live long enough, you’ll die from something, cancer, heart disease, diabetes, accidents, etc. ALL men will develop prostate cancer if they live long enough. Our increased lifespans give us increased risk of getting all kinds of diseases. The differnce is we can keep people alive long enough to develop diseases that would have done us in 100 years ago.
I wasn't trying to suggest anything else. Just posting some facts.
I’m not disputing your facts. We agree that smoking is bad. I have a problem with statistics that lead to a political action that in my opinion is tenuous. If I don’t like smoking in a bar (and I don’t). I simply don’t go in. If people want to take the risk, I say leave them alone. As an analogy, it reminds me of a letter to the editor where a vegetarian wrote in to complain about the smoking ban in Riverfront stadium. She said she smokes, and wants the right to do so in an open air stadium, but she was “offended” by the smell of cooking hotdogs. My opinion? She had the right to not go to the stadium if she was offended. Someday I predict that bacon will be disallowed in restaurants because it may “offend” a certain religion. I am pro-freedom. Little by little, our freedoms are being taken from us in the name of political correctness. Some day we will wake up and find that something WE like to do or enjoy has been legislated away. And we won’t have a leg to stand on because we were willing to restrict other people’s actions.
I haven't said that smoking is bad. I smoke. The stats I posted show smoking isn't nearly as bad as it's made out to be. I agree completely about the liberty issue.
I did some research and found that there are several sources with contradictory facts. There is a Japanese study from the 80’s which showed NO risk from SHS. Like the WHO study, there are diffent conclusions. The US studies from the 90’s that were the basis for smoking bans under Clinton showed some with increased risk from SHS, and some that actually showed a DECREASED risk (which doesn’t make sense IMO) but the final report of course was to fit the politics. I really think that SHS studies are riddled with holes. I’m surprised based on your posts that you smoke. But of course I defend your right to do so.
I didn’t bring up SHS you did. I don’t know why it surprises you that I smoke based on my posts. I started out as the one arguing that far fewer smokers contract lung cancer than is popularly believed and that non-smokers get it too. My smoking doesn’t affect my adherence to seeking factual information anyway.
Forgive me. I must have misunderstood.
Ping for folks who might have missed this.
Great message string - bump
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.