Vital Prime Male Enhancement : Where Can...
Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Gorey Anti Smoking Ads....
http://
Waste of time and money? We must be down to the hard core addicts by now, they must know the dangers. I suppose these may serve to stop the kids starting but going by the numbers of young fools I see smoking probably not.
Waste of time and money? We must be down to the hard core addicts by now, they must know the dangers. I suppose these may serve to stop the kids starting but going by the numbers of young fools I see smoking probably not.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ZedBloke. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
@Sqad - Yeah, but that statistic says pretty much the same thing. Only 10-15% of lung cancers occur in non-smokers.
And Sqad, we can state with a high degree of confidence that smoking causes cancer. Thats what the epidemiology tells us, thats what analysis of whats in the smoke and its mutagenic effect tells us. Thats what Sir Richard Doll was clever enough to notice, all those years ago,when he organised the British Doctors Survey of 40,000 doctors over 20 years, back in the1950s.
Its true that you cannot point to an individual who starts smoking at, say age 16 and state that they will 100% certainly develop lung cancer at age 70, but that is a trivial point. It may very well be that taking up smoking has caused them to develop another disease, such as emphysema, COPD, cardiovascular disease, or any of a number of other cancers that are significantly related to smoking.
You quote from what looks to be about.coms piece on lung cancer, which makes this rather strange point - "the majority of people currently diagnosed with lung cancer do not smoke" - But this is a trivial point. Most of those that comprise this "majority" are former smokers. Only around 1 in 10 of all cases of lung cancer occur in non-smokers.
The same article emphasizes the point -
"Smoking is considered the cause of lung cancer in 90% on men, and 80% of women diagnosed with the disease"
"Men who smoke are 23 times more likely to develop lung cancer than men who do not smoke, and female smokers are 13 times more likely to develop the disease"
What no one is saying is that smoking is the exclusive cause of cancer, although the link between smoking and lung cancer is so strong that it might as well be.
And sure, there will be anecdotal cases of people who smoked 60 a day and have never developed cancer ,but that does not invalidate the epidemiological or scientific/clinical evidence showing smoking as a significant cause.
And Sqad, we can state with a high degree of confidence that smoking causes cancer. Thats what the epidemiology tells us, thats what analysis of whats in the smoke and its mutagenic effect tells us. Thats what Sir Richard Doll was clever enough to notice, all those years ago,when he organised the British Doctors Survey of 40,000 doctors over 20 years, back in the1950s.
Its true that you cannot point to an individual who starts smoking at, say age 16 and state that they will 100% certainly develop lung cancer at age 70, but that is a trivial point. It may very well be that taking up smoking has caused them to develop another disease, such as emphysema, COPD, cardiovascular disease, or any of a number of other cancers that are significantly related to smoking.
You quote from what looks to be about.coms piece on lung cancer, which makes this rather strange point - "the majority of people currently diagnosed with lung cancer do not smoke" - But this is a trivial point. Most of those that comprise this "majority" are former smokers. Only around 1 in 10 of all cases of lung cancer occur in non-smokers.
The same article emphasizes the point -
"Smoking is considered the cause of lung cancer in 90% on men, and 80% of women diagnosed with the disease"
"Men who smoke are 23 times more likely to develop lung cancer than men who do not smoke, and female smokers are 13 times more likely to develop the disease"
What no one is saying is that smoking is the exclusive cause of cancer, although the link between smoking and lung cancer is so strong that it might as well be.
And sure, there will be anecdotal cases of people who smoked 60 a day and have never developed cancer ,but that does not invalidate the epidemiological or scientific/clinical evidence showing smoking as a significant cause.
Sqad...if you are going to quote just as well to quote the paragraph in its entirety..
'Smoking is considered the cause of lung cancer in 90% on men, and 80% of women diagnosed with the disease. Men who smoke are 23 times more likely to develop lung cancer than men who do not smoke, and female smokers are 13 times more likely to develop the disease. Even though smoking is the leading cause of lung cancer, the majority of people currently diagnosed with lung cancer do not smoke; 50% of these cancers occur in former smokers, and 15% in those who have never smoked at all.'
My reading of this is that 50% are ex-smokers, 15% are never smokers, and the remaining 35% are smokers.
People vary, presumably genetically, in their ability to repair DNA mutations, which is one of the reasons why not all smokers get lung cancer.
'Smoking is considered the cause of lung cancer in 90% on men, and 80% of women diagnosed with the disease. Men who smoke are 23 times more likely to develop lung cancer than men who do not smoke, and female smokers are 13 times more likely to develop the disease. Even though smoking is the leading cause of lung cancer, the majority of people currently diagnosed with lung cancer do not smoke; 50% of these cancers occur in former smokers, and 15% in those who have never smoked at all.'
My reading of this is that 50% are ex-smokers, 15% are never smokers, and the remaining 35% are smokers.
People vary, presumably genetically, in their ability to repair DNA mutations, which is one of the reasons why not all smokers get lung cancer.
slaney/LazyGun
Doll and Hill understood, of course, that a few non-smokers would get lung cancer (so
smoking was not a ‘necessary cause’ of the disease) and that many smokers would not get lung
cancer (so smoking was not a ‘sufficient cause’ of the disease), but that among otherwise similar smokers, there was a substantial increase in the probability of developing the disease in the
near future (so smoking was an important cause of the disease). appropriate use of the term
causality to describe increased probabilities rather than certainties is now widely accepted, but
some found difficulty with it at first.
My point is that if anti smoking ads are to be effective, then the true facts should be given, as there are many anecdotal stories that would seem to invalidate medical opinion.....and that seems to be the problem.
Doll and Hill understood, of course, that a few non-smokers would get lung cancer (so
smoking was not a ‘necessary cause’ of the disease) and that many smokers would not get lung
cancer (so smoking was not a ‘sufficient cause’ of the disease), but that among otherwise similar smokers, there was a substantial increase in the probability of developing the disease in the
near future (so smoking was an important cause of the disease). appropriate use of the term
causality to describe increased probabilities rather than certainties is now widely accepted, but
some found difficulty with it at first.
My point is that if anti smoking ads are to be effective, then the true facts should be given, as there are many anecdotal stories that would seem to invalidate medical opinion.....and that seems to be the problem.
@ Slaney - No problems ;)
@Sqad. Well, anti-smoking adverts have been effective, and will continue to be effective. The more graphic the advertising, the more effective the advertising campaign. And of course most authorities recognise that increasing the price, along with the advertising, acts as a very effective deterrent to smoking and a means of changing public opinion and reinforcing public disapproval of smoking.
I am still unsure what "true facts" you think are being obscured.
Does smoking automatically guarantee the development of lung cancer, and can we say that smoking is the sole and only cause of lung cancer? No, but no one is really trying to say that, are they?
However, what is beyond doubt, from Doll and Hill onwards, and from laboratory studies even earlier than that, is that smoking is a significant cause of cancer. The link between smoking and lung cancer is so strong that 9 out of 10 cases of lung cancer in men and 8 out of 10 cases of lung cancer in women occur in smokers ( or ex-smokers).
Maybe I am missing your point - are you attempting to argue that smoking is not a cause of cancer?
@Sqad. Well, anti-smoking adverts have been effective, and will continue to be effective. The more graphic the advertising, the more effective the advertising campaign. And of course most authorities recognise that increasing the price, along with the advertising, acts as a very effective deterrent to smoking and a means of changing public opinion and reinforcing public disapproval of smoking.
I am still unsure what "true facts" you think are being obscured.
Does smoking automatically guarantee the development of lung cancer, and can we say that smoking is the sole and only cause of lung cancer? No, but no one is really trying to say that, are they?
However, what is beyond doubt, from Doll and Hill onwards, and from laboratory studies even earlier than that, is that smoking is a significant cause of cancer. The link between smoking and lung cancer is so strong that 9 out of 10 cases of lung cancer in men and 8 out of 10 cases of lung cancer in women occur in smokers ( or ex-smokers).
Maybe I am missing your point - are you attempting to argue that smoking is not a cause of cancer?
// I don't know how funds devoted to finding a cure for cancer are spent but I wonder how much of it goes into finding out why so many smokers DON'T get it as opposed to finding treatments for those who do. //
Maybe they're just lucky. Not everyone who hits themselves in the head with a baseball bat gets brain damage.
Maybe they're just lucky. Not everyone who hits themselves in the head with a baseball bat gets brain damage.
It doesn`t matter how many campaigns the government partake in to stop people smoking. They`ve had graphic images of cancer-ridden lungs on packets of cigarettes in Australia for years but my friends there still continue to buy their Longbeach 25s. Smoking is both peer-driven and cultural. I used to work in the tobacco industry and when the culture of smoking started to decline in the UK, we focused on China and the (then) USSR. They were huge smokers and still are. You can`t walk anywhere in Shanghai without seeing workmen sitting on the pavement puffing away. When smoking was banned on UK aircraft, it continued on Japanese flights because the airlines didn`t want to lose the revenue of smokers to airlines that allowed it. Jake-the peg has the right idea. You have to make it unfashionable/anti-social. All other tactics are a waste of time and money.
You're absolutely right, and it's so strange how in a matter of 60 or so years, it was recommended by doctors and highly fashionable to downright disgusting. I am an ex-smoker and proud to say so, but have to admit that even when I saw the horrifying pictures on the packs, or happened to see something on the internet and even knowing the full facts of what cigarettes do to you both inside and out, and of course harming others by passively smoking, none of these things put me off. I'm not sure how much of a concerted effort the Government actually put in to deterring people as the taxes gained are abundant to them, but the realisation is that the NHS is hit hard...where do you draw a line? I initially switched to electronic cigarettes because my ear, nose and throat specialist said my throat was so damaged that unless I quit, he wouldn't and couldn't treat me! After 14 weeks of using an e-cigarette, my throat was much better, my hearing returned to normal and I stopped getting earaches. For me I've found that using an e-cig has allowed me to 'vape' nicotine, and now I've slowly reduced how much, and I will continue until I don't have nicotine at all. What frightened me most of all was finding out that cigarettes have 4000 ingredients in and when lit became 4800+ highly toxic chemicals both to me and my husband, or indeed anyone around me. I had, until I started using an e-cigarette always believed that there were 76 ingredients in a cigarette! Now I know that more than 40 of these ingredients are carcinogens plus other scary stuff like embalming fluid! Why? I think what is needed is an educational approach and it should be on every school's curriculum. It should be taught in such a way that it incorporates biology and chemistry and not scare-mongery and this I believe, is the only way that our future generations can rid the world of this terrible death stick.
-- answer removed --
LazyGun/slaney
\\\Maybe I am missing your point - are you attempting to argue that smoking is not a cause of cancer?\\
No, I am not arguing that point and yes I think that you have "missed my point"
To blatantly utter that smoking causes cancer would infer that all people who smoke develop cancer. We know that that isn't true, so to me, the statement needs amending to "smoking markedly increases your chances of getting lung cancer."
I know that neither of you like anecdotes and i am in sympathy, as i don't, but saying that smoking CAUSES lung cancer plays into their hands and no amount of money spent on advertising will reverse that trend.
\\\Maybe I am missing your point - are you attempting to argue that smoking is not a cause of cancer?\\
No, I am not arguing that point and yes I think that you have "missed my point"
To blatantly utter that smoking causes cancer would infer that all people who smoke develop cancer. We know that that isn't true, so to me, the statement needs amending to "smoking markedly increases your chances of getting lung cancer."
I know that neither of you like anecdotes and i am in sympathy, as i don't, but saying that smoking CAUSES lung cancer plays into their hands and no amount of money spent on advertising will reverse that trend.
Latest Posts
News12 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles19 mins ago
The Perils Of Privatisation - Part X
News41 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.