Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

You. Your Cigarettes. Radiation Worse Than Chernobyl. What Corporation’s DON’T want you to know.

page: 8
59
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 10:54 PM
link   
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks
 


TupacShakur

I would like to give now - this little piece of information that you might find interesting

clinicaidusa.com...

Notice that the article states specifically that 60 % of the newly diagnosed lung cancers are occurring in never smokers and people who quit smoking decades ago.

So what does that do to your theory that smoking CAUSES 95 % of all lung cancers?

And what does that do to your arguement that the statistics related to deaths caused by smoking are real deaths and not just theoretical deaths?

Tired of Control Freaks




posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks
 


And here is another link to a study suggesting that heavy smokers and never-smokers get very very similar lung cancers

www.cancernetwork.com...

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 04:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
TupacShakur

I don't know where you got the notion that 95 % of lung cancers are caused by smoking because several very large studies have shown that never smokers get lung cancer too?

However, if you wish to insist on this little piece of propaganda - please show me the proof that smoking causes any specific case of lung cancer. Exactly what is different about one case of lung cancer from another that allows anyone to determine what caused it.

TIRED OF CONTROL FREAKS


YOU REALLY SHOULD GET A JOB IN THE TOBACCO LOBBY!



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 05:59 AM
link   
reply to post by cushycrux
 


Crushycrux

Now why would you think I would want a job with the tobacco lobby? I haven't said one word about wanting anyone to smoke have I?

Just because I haven't drunk the kool-aid and started quoting propaganda that doesn't even make sense?

"Smoking CAUSES 85 % of all lung cancers" is a propaganda statement because medical science still doesn't even know what CAUSES lung cancers.

Everyone should be listening up here! Anti-smokers have convinced the population that lung cancers mostly only affect smokers. As a result, very very little money is spent on the determining the causes and treatments for lung cancer and it continues to be a killer. But no-one cares because its "smokers deserve lung cancer"

Well here is a simple truth for you. Lung cancers happened mostly to smokers when most of the population smoked. Now lung cancers are happening mostly to non-smokers because most of the population are now non-smokers.

What most of the non-smokers wished on smokers is now happening to themselves!

TIRED OF CONTROL FREAKS



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 06:56 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 07:20 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 04:26 PM
link   
People, you must include some hardcore facts about smoking. The fact that we have only had the laboratory data for the past 30 years on smoking and its adverse health effects, before then it was chique to smoke before becoming taboo today. The facts are smoke contains thousands of compounds that are industry known for cancer. Whether you have smoked for 1 year, all of your jr/adult life to present day or have never smoked at all, you have several genetic, biochemical, lifestyle and exposure factors that come into play for cancer risks.

Big tobacco has held back these facts from years of study away from the general public at large due to their bottom line$. It is up to the individual to decide what is best for him/her. I smoked for 11 years before giving it up cold turkey, and I can tell you as a experienced smoker after about 2 years after quiting when your lungs heal from all of the heat shock and particle embedding you feel like you have just received a second lease on life. It is not for everyone to either start smoking or to stop smoking. That is a individual's choice made by that individual for that individual i.e. falls into the personal realm.

Radiation from tobacco is bad due to the fact that it is inhaled and thus brought to the critical point of O2 exchange in your body where the radicals from the cig smoke does accumulate and over time concentrates to bombard healthy tissue with ions which over time may cause abnormal cellular growth i.e. benign or malignant.

Choice is personal! Respect choice!



posted on Apr, 9 2011 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


The word smoking-related disease does not mean that never-smokers don't get those diseases. It simply means that a smoker got the disease and therefore it must have been CAUSED by smoking. A never-smoker with the very same diagnosis does not have a smoking-related disease.

TIRED OF CONTROL FREAKS


Good point, they also use the same kind of skewed stats to 'prove' how bad drinking and driving is. One drop of booze by any accident victim, regardless if they were operating the vehicle or not, will result in an alcohol related accident. Great for fabricating meaningless statistics that leads to more legislation, meaning less rights for all in the end.

Facts can be used to prove everything, true or false. They seem to prove more falsehoods than anything lately.

Seems like good pr for Japan. Sorry not our radiation, its just all the second, third, and fourth hand smoke you foolish Americans have been killing yourselves with... LOL.



posted on Apr, 11 2011 @ 09:02 AM
link   
reply to post by dfens
 


dfens

Actually - the anti-smokers are a good defense for all kinds of things. Its not air pollution that is killing you - its smoking!

What is really hysterical is watching the competing charities, NGOs and health departments fight over the same bodies. In their statistical theories, a smoker who dies of lung cancer CAUSED by smoking, also dies of lung cancer CAUSED by obesity, and also dies of lung cancer CAUSED by drinking, and for the green NGOs looking for money, the smoker also died of lung cancer CAUSED by pollution, pesticides, the same smoker also died of lung cancer CAUSED by contaminants in consumer products.

Here is one statistic though that is NOT theoretical - that the medical community kills over 100s of thousands americans per year through medical error and prescription mistakes. Those bodies are real. Actual people whose cause of death can be verified.

www.encognitive.com...

Trust me - you are safer in a smoking pub, drinking alcohol out of a plastic cup made with PBA, eating a bacon and lettuce (grown with pesticide) sandwich than you are in your Doctor's office!

TIRED OF CONTROL FREAKS



posted on Apr, 11 2011 @ 05:20 PM
link   
And here is my last comment on this thread

Anti-smokers have often proclaimed that tobacco companies "knew" that smoking CAUSES lung cancer. They make this claim based on research papers provided by the tobacco companies as part of disclosure during the trial where the attorney generals sued the tobacco companies for health care costs and the Master Settlement Agreement was reached.

All of the tobacco company documents are now stored in a database at UCLA and are freely available to the public.

This one paper is indicative of what the tobacco companies supposedly "knew" about the link between smoking and lung cancer.

legacy.library.ucsf.edu...;jsessionid=8A22D28D91830DBF451C137B3F261BE0.tobacco04

"Concerning the Comprehensive Smoking Prevention Act of 1982"

How can anyone have a debate about smoking is one side is not allowed to speak?

Notice the comment that smoking may actually be anti-cancer?

TIRED OF CONTROL FREAKS






top topics



 
59
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join