It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Truth4hire
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks
That is great info right there. Star.
What do you think about the vunerability of smokers vs non-smokers against Avian Flu or any airborne virus for that matter?
Another thing to consider.
Originally posted by digitalassassin
I'm a smoker...So I like the idea that smoking may "Hold Off" the effects of cancer. This is a very interesting article. When backed up and well thought out.
I do see one problem with the theory though.
Why aren't more children dying from Cancer before they start to smoke?
I mean most smoker start in the 13 to 16 time frame. So why doesn't everyone say 13 and under have Cancer?
That was my first thought when I saw this thread.
Hope It adds to the discussion I in a meaningful way...
Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
To Truth for Hire
Please be careful in posting statistics. Lung cancer is not the form of cancer that most affects men and woman
In fact lung cancer (adenocarcinoma) is a rare form of cancer affecting less than 200,000 people in the United states population
The reason why you THINK lung cancer is common is because it has a death rate of 85 % . It is the most common cause of death by cancer.
Now consider this: In 1975 - breast cancer also had a death rate of 85 %. It was decided at that time to properly fund research into means of early diagnosis and treatment. Funding for this disease occurs at the rate of about $24,000 / case. The death rate for breast cancer has now been reduced to about 15 %
In 1975, a decision was also made to throw funding at anti-tobacco groups to decrease smoking instead of funding research for lung cancer. The theory was that it was cheaper to prevent lung cancer than treat it and "everybody knows that smoking CAUSES lung cancer"
Funding for lung cancer research is less than about $1500 / case.
Almost 35 years later, the lung cancer rate is still rising for females and only very slightly decreased for males.
Coincidence? I think not!
My only consolation is that the never-smokers who made this decision are getting lung cancer too! (yes I know its nasty to think that way but think of what anti-tobacco has done to smokers)
Tired of Control Freaks
Originally posted by laketh
reply to post by Truth4hire
Funny in the Mass Media/Assumptions article this line: "
Stop poking fun at Michael Jackson when he appears at your local airport wearing a surgical mask over his nose and mouth. He may look eccentric, but Michael will almost certainly outlive most of us."
Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
Truth 4 Hire
The smoking rate in the general population has been decreasing since 1975. That is 33 years ago and no sign of decrease in lung cancer yet.
Further cigarettes have changed since the 1960s with a decrease in tar from 12 mg.
Tired of Control Freaks