If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
is the risk of smoking exaagerated?........
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
everyone knows smoking increases the risk of lung cancer, but the way it is portrayed i thought you were virtually guaranteed to die at some time if you smoked, unless you were one of the 'lucky ones'.......
this study of white males in the u.s. show that non-smokers have a 1% chance of lung cancer in their lifetime, whilst smokers have an 8% chance..........now while thats 8x as much, its still only 8%..............im sure smoking does other damage to your body but as a smoker your main worry is lung cancer no?.....
so this study looks pretty extensive, is it bogus or is the threat blown out of proportion? based on ads and the news i would've thought the chance of getting lung cancer increases dangerously if you smoke, like 50% more or something.......and yes i am a smoker, never touched fags tho :thumb:
this study of white males in the u.s. show that non-smokers have a 1% chance of lung cancer in their lifetime, whilst smokers have an 8% chance..........now while thats 8x as much, its still only 8%..............im sure smoking does other damage to your body but as a smoker your main worry is lung cancer no?.....
so this study looks pretty extensive, is it bogus or is the threat blown out of proportion? based on ads and the news i would've thought the chance of getting lung cancer increases dangerously if you smoke, like 50% more or something.......and yes i am a smoker, never touched fags tho :thumb:
0
Comments
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4232703.stm
Even if you don't get lung cancer it wrecks your lungs and leaves you short of breath.
Everyone dies, but as a smoker you stand a greater chance of dying younger.
That said you could be cynical and point out most smokers wait until after they've retired before dying and then save the country a fortune in pension benefits.
The risks of passive smoking are sometimes overplayed, but there is evidence that passive smoking is harmful too.
what a right prick you sound.
greeks are the heaviest users of tobacco, yet have the lowest incidence of lung cancer.....japanse smoke twice as much as the yanks but have half the rate of lung cancer per 100,000
around the end of WWII about 90% of the british adult male population smoked, which means we should have seen an epidemic in the 60's and 70's.......
70% of cancers occur in non-smokers, so to what extent does smoking really influence the risk?.......this statistic is actually quite important, because it suggests that some smokers would have contracted cancer regardless of smoking, hence the results of any studies can be skewed to fit an anti-smoking agenda.......
Spend some time on a cancer unit, and then do the math.
http://www.ash.org.uk/html/factsheets/html/fact02.html
the point of the post is i was asking for info, i dont need to go to cancer unit if you've been do i?......if you werent being derrogatory i apologise.
Smoking is a pet hate of mine I must confess.
http://www.vialls.com/vialls/laetrile1.html
(incidentally RDA values are based on the minimum amount necessary to prevent diseases like scurvy and therefore not very helpful as a guide to stay healthy......)
But most would agree that smoking is a signifanct contributing factor, given that Lung Cancer is more prevalent in smokers.
Having said that, you have only latched on to a single disease. Perhaps you should look into COPD (Chronic Obstructive Pulmoary Disease) and then tell me that the risk of smoking is exagerrated.
The incidence of COPD is rising rapidly, most notably in the thirs world. It is believe by the WHO that COPD will become the world's fourth biggest killer within 20 years...
most lung cancer is caused by smoking though