OK you smokers, here's the latest.

Post #289,321 by a6l6e6x 7/18/07 11:48:02 AM Reply	OK you smokers, here's the latest. Smoking now kills more than 400,000 people a year. It accounts for nearly one in five deaths in the United States. Scientists count some 4,000 chemicals in cigarette smoke. Of them, more than 40 are known to cause cancer. [link\|http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070718/safer_cigarette.html?.v=2\|Link]. I was surprised at how many IWTs at the BeepFest smoked. Alex Nobody has a more sacred obligation to obey the law than those who make the law. -- Sophocles (496? - 406 BCE)
Post #289,323 by boxley 7/18/07 12:06:10 PM Reply	I wonder how they gathered those stats If a smoker gets killed in a car accident is it a smoking related death? How they gathered those stats is interesting cause the CDC doesnt have that listed in the top 5 [link\|http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm\|http://www.cdc.gov/n...astats/deaths.htm] Deaths/Mortality (Data are for U.S. for year indicated) Number of deaths: 2,398,343 Death rate: 816.7 deaths per 100,000 population Life expectancy: 77.9 years Number of deaths for leading causes of death: Heart disease: 654,092 Cancer: 550,270 Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 150,147 Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 123,884 Accidents (unintentional injuries): 108,694 Diabetes: 72,815 Alzheimer's disease: 65,829 Influenza/Pneumonia: 61,472 Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 42,762 Septicemia: 33,464 Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep reach me at [link\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
Post #289,325 by Another Scott 7/18/07 12:22:38 PM Reply	There's lots of interesting science being done on smoking... [link\|http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/dn11974-tobaccos-natural-radiation-dose-higher-than-after-chernobyl.html\|New Scientist]: Tobacco's natural radiation dose higher than after Chernobyl 12:00 02 June 2007 NewScientist.com news service If nothing else, this should worry smokers: the radiation dose from radium and polonium found naturally in tobacco can be a thousand times more than that from the caesium-137 taken up by the leaves from the Chernobyl nuclear accident. Constantin Papastefanou from the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki in Greece measured radioactivity in tobacco leaves from across the country and calculated the average radiation dose that would be received by people smoking 30 cigarettes a day. He found that the dose from natural radionuclides was 251 microsieverts a year, compared with 0.199 from Chernobyl fallout in the leaves (Radiation Protection Dosimetry, vol 123, p 68). Though the radiation dose from smoking was only 10 per cent of the average dose anyone receives from all natural sources, Papastefanou argues that it is an increased risk. "Many scientists believe that cancer deaths among smokers are due to the radioactive content of tobacco leaves and not to nicotine and tar," he says. One might want to avoid European cigarettes... FWIW. [link\|http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/Factsheets/cig_smoking_mort.htm\|Smoking-related mortality from the CDC] has some more numbers. Cheers, Scott.
Post #289,326 by boxley 7/18/07 12:26:27 PM Reply	naw, low dose radiation therapy cures cancer :-) Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep reach me at [link\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
Post #289,336 by a6l6e6x 7/18/07 2:58:20 PM Reply	The CDC link is much more informative than mine! Alex Nobody has a more sacred obligation to obey the law than those who make the law. -- Sophocles (496? - 406 BCE)
Post #289,328 by crazy 7/18/07 12:40:43 PM Reply	It does if the smoke gets dropped in your lap I spent years putting out cigarettes with my fingertips so I could build up calluses and be able to grasp red hot tips when I drove.
Post #289,346 by Seamus 7/18/07 5:54:47 PM Reply	According the National Cancer Institute the 440K figure is correct. There is a link to the NCI web site from the smoking section of the CDC website. It doesn't explain how it got the 440K figure, but I bet that it doesn't show up on the list because most of the deaths fall under other categories, such as cancer, because smoking isn't the disease it is the delivery mechanism. [link\|http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/tobacco/statisticssnapshot\|NCI] Seamus
Post #289,350 by boxley 7/18/07 7:34:20 PM Reply	certainly smoking is an exerbating feature now a 5 ft 400 lb smoker who dies from heart disease, what killed him, obesity smoking or genetic bad heart genes? thanx, bill Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep reach me at [link\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
Post #289,366 by Seamus 7/18/07 9:47:46 PM Reply	So, you are looking for the diagnostic criteria they use to determine when death due to heart problems is attributable to smoking? I think you are going to need to go to the medical journals for that information. Do you have any information that they do a bad job diagnosing heart problems caused by smoking or that they are jacking up the stats? Seamus
Post #289,379 by boxley 7/19/07 8:42:38 AM Reply	depends on who is funding them if its a tobacco company its obesity and genes, if its the american cancer society its tabacco all the way. If its Al Gore its smoking causing global warming. thanx, bill Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep reach me at [link\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
Post #289,381 by Seamus 7/19/07 9:22:59 AM Reply	Your opinion was pretty obvious what I was looking for was impartial facts and figures. Seamus

Welcome to IWETHEY!