Post #289,323
7/18/07 12:06:10 PM
|
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
7/18/07 12:22:38 PM
|
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
7/18/07 12:26:27 PM
|
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
7/18/07 2:58:20 PM
|
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
7/18/07 12:40:43 PM
|
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
7/18/07 5:54:47 PM
|
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
7/18/07 7:34:20 PM
|
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
7/18/07 9:47:46 PM
|
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
7/19/07 8:42:38 AM
|
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
7/19/07 9:22:59 AM
|
Your opinion was pretty obvious what I was looking for
was impartial facts and figures.
Seamus
|