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.

It says that they, or no one close to them, are facing cancer at the moment. Why choose? Both are important issues.

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.

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

versus

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.

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.

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.