posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 02:05 AM
Can you actually prove cigarettes kill more people? I think cars are a great deal deadlier than cigarettes.
Pro tobacco research dollars dried up, anti tobacco research dollars flooded the scientific community, studies came out claiming all kinds of
ludicrous things in response to government nudging. At the maximum believable exposure, tobacco kills fewer people, by a factor of three, than forest
fires in Canada.
By comparison, the greatest cause of lung cancer is small radioactive particles kicked up from nuclear tests decades ago. They fall to earth, settle
on beaches, mix up with rain, you name it. It only takes one radioactive micro-particle to cause terminal lung cancer, by comparison rats and humans
who breathe a steady diet of smoke show fewer incidences of lung cancer than a control group living in America. If people knew how many died annually
as a direct result of government programs involved in nuclear testing, class action lawsuits would be way of life in America well into the forseeable
Smoking actually prevents terminal lung cancer to an extent, because of the increase in muccous plus expectoration and lung activity due to coughing.
Radioactive particles that enter the lungs of a smoker have a chance to get stuck in the thick muccous layer coating the lungs, and subsequently get
coughed up or safely passed in the other direction. Nuclear tests in America alone have put enough radioactive particles in the air to kill 50-100k
people a year for the next 50k years. I smoke cigarettes to stay alive.
If you're going to go off topic, at least tell the truth.