[TwoBear]

95% of all lung cancers are caused by smoking. No smoking, no lung cancers.

[Gabz]

Actually lung cancer is a rather rare, though mostly fatal form of cancer.

However only about 80% of lung cancer is found in smokers or those who were smokers - not 95%. And of that said 80%, most are former smokers.

Your "no smoking, no lung cancer" comment is a fallacy used to demonize and denormalize smokers.

Additionally, there are forms of cancer that have no relation to smoking, but have a tendency to metastisize(sp?) in the lungs but if the person was a smoker - it is automatically blamed on the smoking. That is the power of propaganda.

[Great Dane]

95% of all lung cancers are caused by smoking. No smoking, no lung cancers.

I am not sure I trust those numbers, there are 5 kinds of lung cancer, only one of them caused by smoking.

[qam1]

95% of all lung cancers are caused by smoking. No smoking, no lung cancers.

Not exactly, Whole milk also causes lung cancer so I guess we have to ban that to.

Actually, No meat would mean fewer heart attacks so let's also ban that!!

[Marie]

95% of all lung cancers are caused by smoking. No smoking, no lung cancers.

I don't think so. Not to long ago I read (here on FR) that a total nonsmoker had a 2% chance of getting lung cancer and a 2 pack a day had an 8% chance after 20 years. That doesn't add up to 95% smoking related. Actually, if you think about it, if you smoke 2 packs a day for 20 years and get lung cancer, there is a 25% chance that it would've happened anyway. Not to say that smoking is OK, but the dangers are really inflated.