It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Americans prefer energy fix to cancer cure: poll

page: 1

log in


posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 06:44 PM

Americans prefer energy fix to cancer cure: poll

A nationwide survey of nearly 700 people suggests that Americans would prefer more money be invested in technology to solve the nation's energy ailments than to cure cancer or other diseases.

Some 37 percent of respondents to the poll, conducted by the Fairfax County Economic Development Authority in Virginia, said they would rank spending to raise energy efficiency and develop alternative fuel technology a top priority for future investment. That compares with 30 percent who ranked more cash for medical breakthroughs as most important.
(visit the link for the full news article)

Related News Links:
pollingreport | energy

Related Discussion Threads:
Gas Prices up, Production Down: $5.19 for regular!
Truckers ‘going broke’ and threatening to strike
Scientists cure cancer, but no one takes notice
NC Dentist Finds 100% Breast Cancer Cure... And is promptly oppressed ?

[edit on 4-4-2008 by goosdawg]

posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 06:44 PM
What does this poll say about American priorities?

That they'd rather drive their SUVs over the those dieing of cancer than pay more for fuel?

Or, perhaps, they think that there's already plenty of (suppressed) cures for cancer -see thread links above - and we'd all be better off spending more resources to find alternate energy sources so as to not adversely impact their preferred "lifestyle."

Or perhaps this is a slanted poll to begin with, being not unlike comparing throwing a puppy off a cliff against the importance of one's own comfort zone with Bush's War.

Is it an accurate refection of values to suggest that one should have to choose between a cure for cancer and a cure for energy woes?

What point are they really trying to make with this poll?
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 4-4-2008 by goosdawg]

posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 06:48 PM
It says that without energy, EVERYONE in hospitals would die - as opposed to just terminally ill cancer patients. We need energy much more then we need a cure for cancer, we can survive as a country without a cure for cancer, we cannot survive without meeting our energy needs.

Im sorry but if I had to choose between unlimited energy supply or a cure for cancer, i'd go with energy.

posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 06:54 PM
It says that they, or no one close to them, are facing cancer at the moment. Why choose? Both are important issues.

posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 06:59 PM
reply to post by deadline527

Good point, but it's interesting to note that:

Britons, however, ranked healthcare breakthroughs as the top priority (38 percent) over fuel efficiency and alternative fuels (33 percent), according to a parallel study by FCEDA in Great Britain.

Isn't the cost of petrol in the UK like, two or three times the cost in the States?

Thirty-eight percent of British residents polled in a new survey believe medical issues should be given the highest priority over the next decade if Great Britain wants to achieve meaningful technological advancement.

A close second - 33 percent -- felt fuel efficiency and alternative fuels warranted most attention for investment. Third was the environment with 14 percent. Investment in transportation, security and defence, space exploration, and telecommunications and media all had support of fewer than 10 percent of respondents. |
Almost 40 Percent of Britons Pinpoint Medical Issues as the Top Priority for Technological Breakthroughs in the Next Decade

posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 07:00 PM
Sorry, but I DO have family members who have had, have, or have died of cancer. I still stand by my choice.

Why kill tens of millions in order to save hundreds?

As much as I would love to see a cure for cancer, if we as a country ran out of our energy supplies... cancer would pale in comparsion to the amount of deaths resulting from such an incident.

posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 07:06 PM
I think it just means that the global warming lobby has managed to finally convince Americans that the phenomenon is a real threat.

I would presume the logic behind their thinking is:

Global warming could eradicate our entire species and possibly all life on earth


Cancer, which is the cause of almost 1/4 of all deaths but can be controlled at the moment with conventional chemo/ radio therapy.

Personally I'd say that the entire poll is a non sequitur. Why should there be a choice between funding? Cancer research has never battled against the green lobby for funds. A better comparison would be curing AIDS versus curing cancer; or solving the energy crisis versus solving the food shortages.

posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 07:26 PM
Hey this means they cure cancer now cause we don't care about it . Anyway cancer is SOOO last year . Don't you know its mad cow and bird flue thats in this year? Sheesh get with the program.

posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 07:47 PM
I've heard for years that we have cures for most if not all cancers.

Back in the early 90's I worked for a man named Dr. Bob Stewart, PhD in Physics, and a professor emeritus at University of Cincinnati, and he was doing work on a laser that killed cancer cells only, leaving normal cells around it unscathed. The way this happened is, he had created some sort of mixture, I forget what was in it, but the patient would drink it, and it had compounds in it that would bind to cancer cells and not normal cells and the laser somehow killed only cells that had this binding agent coating them. I was just editing his doctoral student's work, they weren't from the US and their English was in need of much editing, so I didn't really understand the technical stuff, or I'd give you more details...

Anyway, I worked with him and was around for his struggles at trying to get his treatment through all the FDA hoops, the patenting process, then trying to get people in the medical field to purchase the laser, which was quite expensive but effective.

I am sure the same is and has been going on in the energy field, we've all heard the stories about inventor's having alternatives to fossil fuels for years, patenting their inventions, then totally being ignored etc. since at least the 70's if not earlier.

It's a travesty that in both instances, we are being deprived of cancer cures and cures to the energy problem as well. There's no telling how many cures to other diseases there are out there, or procedures that are less intrusive and harsh then chemotherapy and radiation treatments.

new topics

top topics


log in