|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
THE TRUTH ABOUT SMOKING CAUSED DISEASES:
TRENDS AND INCIDENCE RATES If smoking was bad for us and caused heart disease and cancers, as the anti-smokers claim,; then, the fact that smoking rates have decreased by 50% over the last 40 years should bring about an equal decrease in heart disease and cancer incidence rates. This decrease has not happened!! http://www.nj.gov/health/ces/reports.shtml Data,Statistics and Reports: Trends in Cancer Incidence and Mortality in New Jersey, 1979-2002 [pdf 312k] (11/28/05) NOTE: U.S. rates are also shown. Tables 5+6,pages 46 and 47 Total cancer incidence rate- U.S.(per 100,000) 1979 male + female total = 861.5 2001 male + female total = 963.4 2004 male + female total = 970.9 www.cdc.gov.mill1.sjlibrary.org/nchs/data/hus/hus06.pdf[/URL] Health,United States,2006 Page 229 Table 39 (page 1 of 3). Death rates for malignant neoplasms of trachea, bronchus, and lung, by age: United States, selected years 1950–2004 [Data are based on death certificates] All persons: Deaths per 100,000 resident population All ages, age-adjusted 1970.........2004 37.1.........53.2 This is a 43% increase in lung cancer deaths!! Smoking can not be the major cause of lung cancer!! HEART DISEASE http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/uncategorized/cancer...disease-and-smoking/ The AHA doesn’t particularly want us to know about the incidence of heart disease; they just want us to know that deaths from it are declining. To find the incidence you have to go to a table called Hospital Discharges with Cardiovascular Disease as the First Listed Diagnosis. Hospital Discharges With Cardiovascular Disease as the First Listed Diagnosis United States: 1979-2003 1969 = about 3,200,000 2003 = 6,434,000 As you can see the rate of these discharges is increasing. When you correct for the increase in population over the years, the line doesn’t increase as rapidly, but still increases slightly. What does this mean? It means that despite a 50% decrease in smoking rates, that the number of people developing heart disease hasn’t dropped at all. If anything it has increased. Smoking can not be the major cause of Heart Disease!!! This message has been edited. Last edited by: gkayser30, |
|||
|
The Truth-part 2
EMPHYSEMA and BRONCHITIS (COPD) This is from the "American Lung Association(ALA)", we know that they would not lie as they are a public health organization and only interested in our welfare. TRENDS IN CHRONIC BRONCHITIS AND EMPHYSEMA MORBIDITY AND MORTALITY; AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION; EPIDEMIOLOGY & STATISTICS UNIT; RESEARCH AND PROGRAM SERVICES MAY 2005 COPD Age Adjusted Death Rates Population, 1979-2002 Age-Adjusted Death Rate per 100,000 Persons 1979..... 2002 24.2.......42.0 NOTE: Smoking has gone DOWN by almost 50% over the last 40 years, over the last 20 plus years the COPD death rate has GONE UP BY 74%. Yet, the ALA and other health advocates say that smoking causes Emphysema!!!! Clearly, smoking does not cause Emphysema and Chronic Bronchitis. Smoking and the Asthma Epidemic: The most recent study to exonerate smoking and tobacco smoke as a cause of asthma was published in the British Medical Journal July 8, 2000. In this 20-year, inter generational study, researchers found that the rate of asthma had doubled between l976 and l996, even as the smoking rate dropped by half during that same period. Asthma and hay fever increased for both smokers and non-smokers, but the increase was higher for non-smokers. The steep rise in asthma was dramatically underscored by the fact that prescriptions for steroid inhalants for treatment of the disease rose more than six-fold between l980 and l990 alone. This pattern of precipitous increases in asthma coupled with significantly diminishing smoking rates is not unique to the population described by the Scottish researchers in their BMJ article. In the United States, too, the incidence of adult and childhood asthma has climbed to an unprecedented high during the past twenty years, while smoking and exposure to environmental tobacco smoke [ETS] have decreased significantly during the same period. "...Between 1980 and l995, the number of people reporting asthma in the U.S. more than doubled (from 6.7 million to 13.7 million), a 75% increase in the rate per 100,000 population. The Centers for Disease Control estimates the l998 rate at 17.3 million, a 150% increase since 1980. "...Between l980 and l995, the adult smoking rate decreased from 33.2 to 24.7, a drop of 25%. In the late l990s the overall smoking rate has remained steady at between 24 and 25 percent of the adult population, far less than its peak of 42.6% in l966. The inverse relationship between asthma rates and smoking and between asthma rates and exposure to ETS can be seen quite clearly. Smoking and SHS can not be causing Asthma!! |
||||
|
Regarding asthma rates, it's interesting to also note that we've had a half dozen or or more Federal "Clean Air" provisions passed since the 1960s, not to mention similar state and local acts including, of course, "Clean Indoor Air" legislation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Air_Act Not to mention that leaded gasoline is now a thing of the past in the U.S. More people, at a higher rate, died of heart disease in 1972 than in 1998, even when population increase is taken into account. At the same time, cancer rates have increased from 165.1 per 100,000 in 1972 to 200.3 per 100,000 in 1998. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/lead1900_98.pdf Average life expectancy at birth has increased from 71.2 in 1972 to 77.9 in 2004. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005148.html In short, as people live longer and die from heart disease at a lesser degree, cancer increases as a cause of death. Overall, though, lifespans just keep on increasing. About 1 out of 10 smokers ever get lung cancer. If you're 70 years old and you've smoked 3 packs a day, you have an 11% statistical risk of getting lung cancer (of course, even this is misleading because other factors aren't taken into account. If you smoked more than this, longer than this, I take it that the calulator below either presumes you are dead, or simply doesn't have data for you). http://www.mskcc.org/mskcc/html/12463.cfm ******************************************** I, for one, am far from ready to dismiss smoking as a major contributor to lung cancer, because the statistical correlations are so strong, but it clearly isn't the sole determining factor, if such a thing exists at all. For example, obesity probably has strong correlations with consuming cheeseburgers, but eliminating cheeseburgers isn't a silver bullet for eliminating obesity. Similarly( and I'm completely making this up), if I were to say that the rate for obesity among people who have never consumed a cheeseburger is 10 to 20 times less than that of people who have consumed cheeseburgers , you would be able to make somewhat accurate overall assumptions regarding the mentality and lifestyle of such people. (I'd like to give more accurate info here, but a quick Google search reveals that only 1% to 3% of the population is vegetarian or vegan, and these demographics appear to be in question.) There are men of my age and race, with very similar genetic backgrounds, and upbringings that weren't too disimilar, who make many millions of dollars a year to play professional football or baseball or whatever. When I was, say, 16, I was extremely similar to these men in almost every way that could be measured by modern science. Except for some key differences. For instance, they could run a 40 yard dash in close to 4 seconds, when I could only do it in 5 seconds. They could hit a curveball 40% of the time when I could only do it, say, 30% of the time. They could throw an accurate spiral pass 70 yards every day, while I could only throw it 50 yards, with accuracy, on a good day. Meanwhile, perhaps I could benchpress 250 lbs. while they could only bencpress 200 lbs, but it turned out in the final equation that the benchpress didn't matter, given my other inadequacies. Meanwhile, this better athlete may drop dead at 50 after a lifetime of health while I might live to 100 with a smoke burning in my hand. Who knows? Now, let me ask, do you think that epidemiology would be a good tool for assessing these differences? These problems aren't problems of health, they're problems of politics. Public health isn't an effort towards health, it's a political effort towards all-or-none, one-size-fits-all solutions. I caught some of the Obama/Clinton debate tonight. As these two cretins discussed healthcare, they both actually outlined their plans using the word "force" indiscriminately, as if it were perfectly acceptable to discuss "forcing" people to conform to their agendas. Bad times, folks. Fascinating, but really, really bad. ____________________________________________________ Hope. Change.... Is "American Idol" on? |
||||
|
Winston, I have the solution for your worries!! Gary K.  American Indian/Alaska Native have the highest smoking rates and the lowest total cancer incidence rate and a much lower lung cancer incidence and mortality rate than most of the other groups. http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparetable.jsp?ind=82&cat=2 Smoking Rates for Adults by Race/Ethnicity, 2005 White- Black-American-Indian/Alaska Native 20.9%----20.8%.............34.8% Cancer facts and Figures 2008 In 2005, 6% of adults aged 18 and older had smoked cigars in the past month. American Indian/Alaska Natives (11%) had the highest prevalence of past month cigar use, followed by African Americans (7%),whites (6%). Cancer facts and Figures 2008 Cancer Incidence by Site, Race, and Ethnicity, US, 2000-2004 Incidence- All sites White American/African merican/AmericanIndian/ Alaskan Males+Females Total-980.6--------1,060.6--------603.6 American Indians have a 38% lower cancer incidence than whites!!! Cancer Incidence and Mortality Rates* by Site, Race, and Ethnicity, US, 2000-2004 Lung & bronchus(total male+female) White--African American--American Indian/Alaska Native Incidence 135.6----164.3--------------90.4 Mortality 114.7----135.6--------------82.3 American Indians have a 33.33% lower lung cancer incidence rate that whites!! American Indians have a 28% lower lung cancer mortality rate than whites!!!! Over the last 40 years smoking rates have decreased by about 50%, cancer incidence has steadily increased. http://www.nj.gov/health/ces/reports.shtml Data,Statistics and Reports: Total cancer incidence rate- U.S.(per 100,000) 1979 male + female total = 861.5 2001 male + female total= 963.4 (Cancer facts and Figures 2008) 2004 male + female Total = 970.9 Cancer facts and Figures 2008 Who Is at Risk of Developing Cancer? The risk of being diagnosed with cancer increases as individuals age, most cases occur in adults who are middle-aged or older. About 77% of all cancers are diagnosed in persons 55 and older. http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/brfss/age.asp?yr=2006&state=US&qkey=4394&grp=0 Age: 55-64 Median % Smoke everyday/some days/Former smoker/Never smoked 12.3------3.9---------36.3----------45.3 65+ Median % 6.6-------2.0---------42.5----------48.9 Cancer facts and Figures 2008 Quitting smoking substantially decreases the risk of lung, laryngeal, esophageal, oral, pancreatic, bladder,and cervical cancers. Old age equals most cancers and fewer smokers and more ex-smokers!! The risk of developing lung cancer is about 23 times higher in male smokers and 13 times higher in female smokers compared to lifelong non-smokers. SOOOO; if a man wants to decrease his risk of getting lung cancer by about 1/2, all he has to do is have a sex-change and not change his lifestyle. Then; if he/she became an American Indian and went to live on a reservation, he/she would lower his/her risk of getting lung cancer by another 33.33%. DATA FROM THE ACS PROVES THESE FACTS TO BE TRUE!!  This message has been edited. Last edited by: gkayser30, |
||||
|
Part-3
Smoking: addiction or habit? http://www.forestonline.org/output/page134.asp USING the modern sense of the word 'addiction', it is now widely accepted (even by some tobacco companies) that nicotine is 'addictive'. Unfortunately the word is now used so often - in relation, for example, to sex or chocolate or even television - that it is largely meaningless. The late Professor Hans Eysenck, one of world's leading psychologists, argued that 'Smoking is not an addiction because the term 'addiction' really has no scientific meaning ... You can call anything addictive which a person does routinely and which he would be sorry to stop doing and which might have all sorts of repercussions on his mental and physical life.' Using the more traditional definition ('a habit that has become impossible to break', Chambers Dictionary, 1992) it is even easier to argue that smoking is not addictive. Professor John Davis (University of Strathclyde) put things in perspective when he said, 'What I don't agree with is the idea that people who use nicotine become ... helpless addicts who have no say in the choice of this activity - that the nicotine compels them to smoke. The evidence is simply not there. People give up smoking all the time ...' Smoking and common sense’ The February,2008, American Cancer Society Report Cancer facts and Figures 2008 page 49 Among adults aged 18 and older in 2006, national or state data showed: • An estimated 45.7 million adults were former smokers,representing 50.2% of persons who ever smoked. Dr Tage Voss, author of Smoking and Common Sense (1992), agrees. According to Voss, tobacco consumption is a habit not an addiction because it doesn't conform to the criteria of addiction that consumers exhibit 'social collapse, mental dissolution and require an escalation of dosage'. In other words - and unlike alcohol or drugs such as heroin or cocaine - nicotine does not dramatically change people's behaviour patterns. Unlike those who are addicted to heroin, for example, there is no evidence that consumers of tobacco are so desperate for their next 'fix' that they have ever mugged anyone for the money to pay for it. Likewise, on an average Friday or Saturday night, it is alcohol not nicotine that is responsible for hospital casualty departments being rather busier than usual. Interestingly, in 1996 Dr Sandy Macara, the then chairman of the British Medical Association and a former smoker, wrote (Western Daily Press), 'I don't accept that smokers are truly addicted to tobacco. I think they have a habit ... I believe the majority of smokers could stop tomorrow - no, today - if they really wanted to.' Language of addiction Dr Macara was possibly influenced by his own experience of giving up and by a BMA handbook, 'Help Your Patient Stop', which stated that 'A balance needs to be struck, acknowledging the potential difficulties of stopping as well as the ease with which many smokers manage to stop.' That was published in 1988 when 2,000 people a day were said to be giving up. For once the evidence is in the statistics. In the 1950s 80% of all men smoked. Since then the figure has dropped to just 28% of men and 26% of women. In total eleven million people have given up smoking in Britain alone, hardly the sign of a nation addicted to nicotine. |
||||
|
Part-4
Why the addiction argument is so popular There's a great deal of hypocrisy surrounding the addiction argument. After all, if smoking is so addictive why does the anti-smoking lobby try so hard to ban smoking in all public places? Surely, if smokers are as addicted as they say, prohibition is simply going to increase their suffering. No, the reason the addiction argument is so popular among anti-smokers is because it takes away the important concepts of free choice and personal responsibility. By arguing so vociferously that smokers are 'slaves to the weed', the anti-smokers are trying to undermine the idea: "that by choosing to smoke,adult smokers are old enough to decide their own lifestyle and are merely exercising their own free will." This in turn gives anti-smokers the excuse to insist that the state must apply the tightest restrictions on smokers 'for their own good'. What the killjoys cannot accept is that a great many people enjoy smoking and take pleasure from it. The fact that they smoke has NOTHING to do with addiction. |
||||
|
Hope all is well with everyone.
In regards to the first truth, I submit this article for your consideration regarding cohort effects of lung cancer mortality and smoking rates. I am assuming it is okay to link to this article since it is free. http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/93/4/277 |
||||
|
.......................................... The decrease in Lung Cancer mortality is not true,according to the CDC's 'Health,United States,2006'. This report left out many of the people in the US. The only facts that it shows for certain are these: 1. Older people die more often than younger people. 2.Women die from lung cancer less often than men. 3. In spite of the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on tobacco control and smoking prevention and the 'Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids' claim that for every 10% increase in the cost of cigarettes there is a 7% decrease in teen-age smoking,the high school smoking rates have been increasing by quite a lot. 4. Any decrease in lung cancer death rates is probably due to better screening and curative proceedures by the medical folks. More to the point,Lung Cancer incidence has not decreased over the last couple of decades,in spite of the 50% decrease in smoking rates over the last 4 decades. http://www.nj.gov/health/ces/reports.shtml Trends in Cancer Incidence and Mortality in New Jersey, 1979-2002 TABLE 9+10 Lung Cancer Incidence Rates U.S., 1979-2002* Incidence Rate/100,000 1979 male= 95.8 female=31.6 Total = 127.4 2001 male= 77.7 female= 49.1 Total=126.8 Considering that blacks and white have about the same smoking rate and whites have a lower lung cancer mortality rate,Amer.Indians have a higher smoking rate and a much lower lung cancer mortality rate than either group, the Japanese and Isreali people have very high smoking rates and much lower lung cancer death rates than the US, economic and environmental factors have a much greater impact on LC incidence and death rates than does smoking. This message has been edited. Last edited by: gkayser30, |
||||
|
.............................. In case your are curious.  lung cancer death rate(lcdr) http://www.kidon.com/smoke/percentages3.htm Smokers Prevalence(%)- LCDR/100,000 smokers MALE Japan--- 59.0 ('94)-- --- 81.2 Israel---- 45.0 ('90)----- 84.7 USA ----- 28.1 ('91)---- 305.7 FEMALE Israel---- 30.0 ('90)------- 40.3 Spain---- 25.0 ('93)------- 21.6 USA------ 23.5 ('91)------ 157.0 |
||||
|
|
Moderator |
Is that age-adjusted? They have relatively low life expectancies, don't they? I think an RR ranging from 10-20 and a linear dose-response tends to point smoking as a contributor to lung cancer. |
|||
|
--------------------------------------- I was pimping Winston a little bit; but,not very much. Gary K. *Per 100,000, age adjusted to the 2000 US standard population. †Data based on Contract Health Service Delivery Areas (CHSDA), 624 counties comprising 54% of the US American Indian/Alaska Native population; for more information, please see: Espey DK, Wu XC, Swan J, et al. Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1975-2004, featuring cancer in American Indians and Alaska Natives. Source: Ries LAG, Melbert D, Krapcho M, Et al (eds.). SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975-2004, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, www.seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2004/, 2007. |
||||
|
 http://dceg.cancer.gov/cgi-bin/atlas/mapview2?direct=luncwf70 ---------------------------------------------- "I think an RR ranging from 10-20 and a linear dose-response tends to point smoking as a contributor to lung cancer." ----------------------------------------- The linear dose-response is not what the antis would have you believe. The real question is just how much does smoking contribute to Lung Cancer and Lung Cancer Deaths? The answer= NOT MUCH!!! This information is not for the antis, they believe what they want to believe and no amount of 'Truth' will influence them.  This is for the smokers and will help to free them from the decades of propaganda and brain-washing that they have received.  Gary K. This is 'THE TRUTH-5'. We will use the map above and female smoking rates from here. http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparetable.jsp?ind=81&cat=2 In 'The Truth-4', we saw that American Indians/Alaskan Natives had a 35% higher smoking rate and a 28% lower LC Death rate than white smokers. These a just a few of the dose-response comparisons that can be done. Using the map and female smoking rates,we find that New York has a lower smoking rate than Penn.(18.1%-22.3%) and about a 200% higher LC death rate!! The Penn. smoking rate is about 100% higher than Calif's(22.3%-11.3%) and Calif has LC death rate that is about 200% higher!! Iowa and Neb both have a smoking rate slightly higher than does Fla(19.1%-18.8%) and Fla has a LC death rate about 100% higher!! Utah and Calif have about the same smoking rate(9.3%-11.3%) and Calif has a LC death rate that is about 300% higher!! Do the smokers living on the coast of No.and So. Carolina smoke more toxic cigarettes?? lung cancer death rate(lcdr) http://www.kidon.com/smoke/percentages3.htm Smokers Prevalence(%)- LCDR/100,000 smokers MALE Japan--- 59.0 ('94)-- --- 81.2 Israel---- 45.0 ('90)----- 84.7 USA ----- 28.1 ('91)---- 305.7 FEMALE Israel---- 30.0 ('90)------- 40.3 Spain---- 25.0 ('93)------- 21.6 USA------ 23.5 ('91)------ 157.0 For females we see that both Spain and Israel have slightly higher smoking rates and the USA's LC death rate is about 700% and 300% higher!! This message has been edited. Last edited by: gkayser30, |
||||
|
|
Moderator |
One has to consider more than just smoking rates to come to the assumption that smoking contributes little to lung cancer.
Just a couple examples to show that other variables may be at work. I believe the map showed Florida to be a high lung cancer state. Florida also happens to have an older population. Regardless of current smoking rates, lung cancer deaths should be higher than what one would expect if not age-adjusted. And really stretching.....smoking causes blood vessels to restrict and for that reason, smokers get cold easier. Smokers from northern states are more likely to move to Florida. LOL California, at least southern California, has air quality problems. It could be they all ride bicycles out there and sucking up all that air pollution is the cause of their lung cancer rates. Personally, I think smoking pushes some people over the edge in getting lung cancer. If they hadn't smoked they wouldn't have gotten it. By the same token, if they had lived further away from a busy street, or worked in a different environment they wouldn't have gotten it. |
|||
|
I believe the map showed Florida to be a high lung cancer state. Florida also happens to have an older population. Regardless of current smoking rates, lung cancer deaths should be higher than what one would expect if not age-adjusted.
California, at least southern California, has air quality problems. It could be they all ride bicycles out there and sucking up all that air pollution is the cause of their lung cancer rates. ---------------------------------------------  Do Calif women get out more than men? Calif male smoking rate is almost twice the female smoking rate(19.1%-11.3%),and women are supposed to have less risk for LC;about 50% less. Yet; the Calif female LC death rate is 100% greater than the male.  Data here: http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/brfss/age.asp?yr=2006&state=US&qkey=4394&grp=0 shows that old farts like me only have a 8% smoking rate. If there is a high LC death rate in Fla, old age is the cause,not smoking! More comparisons that show smoking is not a major cause of LC deaths. 1.Pa. has a male smoking rate(24.9%) higher than NY(22.7%) and Maine(22.1%). Yet;NY and Maine have about a 100% higher male LC death rate!! 2.Il(21.1%), Ohio(21.8%),Wisc(22%),Minn(20.8%),and Ia(21.7%)all have about the same male smoking rates. Yet,Il and Ohio have about a 100% greater LC death rate. Something is causing the higher LC death rates in Maine,NY,Ohio, and Ill and it is not smoking!! 3.Why do the men in southern Ohio and Mo have a 100% higher LC death rate than the men in northern Ohio and Mo?? Squeezer; since your Guv Doyle wants a smoking ban for health reasons,you might ask him why the Wis Indians have a higher smoking rate and a lower LC death rate(if SHS is supposed to cause LC)?? This message has been edited. Last edited by: gkayser30, |
||||
|
More than likely because they die of other causes before dying from LungCa (assuming that they would have gotten LungCa had they lived long enough) such as liver cancer, cirrhosis, or any other cause of death related to alcohol use or health conditions related to low socioeconomic status. Also, I know it's beating a dead horse, but current smoking rates do not predict current LungCa mortality rates. Like all cancers, lung cancer takes many years to develop, and you need to take this into account when making your ecological comparisons between smoking rates and LungCa mortality rates. |
||||
|
Perhaps, I'm butting in here, but I have to say that this is not a "dead horse". It really doesn't make sense to compare, let's say, 1992 smoking rates with 1992 lung cancer rates, for the reasons that Russel mentioned. It's worth mentioning, though, that institutionalized anti-smoking interests seem to be less willing to hold themselves to similar standards of accuracy. If it would serve their purposes, I'm sure that anti-tobacco special interests would adopt the very same statistics that GKayser proposed and simply disregard any inaccuracies with the justification of "public health". After all, in my home state, Russell, there is an anti-smoking TV ad depicting a young, pretty, laughing woman developing instantaneous arterial closure through incidental exposure to secondhand smoke. She laughs in a wisp of smoke as the camera zooms into her body to show us the blood and guts of decades of arteriosclerosis taking place in a magical instant! I hope your standards for truth and accuracy cut both ways. This message has been edited. Last edited by: WinstonSmith, ____________________________________________________ Hope. Change.... Is "American Idol" on? |
||||
|
Regardless, there are over 300,000,000 Americans and 1,000 die of cancer each year which means we each have 1 chance out of 300,000 of dying of any form of cancer.
|
||||
|
|
Moderator |
If smoking is not a risk factor for lung cancer, what is it that smokers do that increases their risk 1000% above that of nonsmokers?
Why do 3 pack a day smokers carry more risk of lung cancer than 1 pack a day smokers? Smokers are said to be lazier, have worse diets, etc., than nonsmokers so these could be reasons why smokers carry an increased risk, but those variables are supposedly already taken into account. Smoking may produce little to no risk by itself, I don't know, but it certainly has a synergistic effect best seen when smoking is combined with heavy drinking. The risk of esophageal cancer climbs from an RR of around 10 to 100. As far as the discussion that you can't compare current smoking rates with current lung cancer rates, that is true. You'd have to look up smoking rates from decades ago. Also, I mentioned northeners moving to Florida in an example. They'd have to be former smokers to not affect the smoking rate. |
|||
|
---------------------------------------------- So the antis say; but, they never show the data that causes them to arrive at these numbers and we have no way of checking what they say.  It is entirely possible that antis have an agenda and may be not telling the truth and are delibrately lieing!! We should never just accept what we are told and never question numbers and percentages,people can be lieing or be making honest mistakes. For instance; in a previous post I stated that Calif females had 1/2 the smoking rate and 100% more LC deaths than males. I am sad to note that this has not been questioned. The colors for male and female LC deaths have different values, Calif males have a LC death rate of 67/100,000 and Calif females have a LCDR of 35/100,000. This is a wash. I am not trying to be a smart-ass(  ),I am just trying to show the reasons why one should be sceptical and check stuff out.--------------------------------------------- "Also, I mentioned northeners moving to Florida in an example. They'd have to be former smokers to not affect the smoking rate." ------- This too raises some interesting questions. This site: http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/brfss/age.asp?yr=2006&state=US&qkey=4394&grp=0 shows,that in the over 65 age group, 91.2% of the people are former or never smokers. The 2000 ce |