quote:

Originally posted by ladyteal:

quote:

Originally posted by squeezer:

ladyteal, the benzene 10,000 deaths is fine. But now you have to find ALL deaths from workplace exposures.

I will try to find the information on this over the weekend. I think I understand now.

It's okay. There's nothing wrong with your benzene deaths. It's just that you'd have to find say carbon monoxide deaths, run over by forklifts, etc also just to get up to the official tally. It's just better/easier to find some group claiming 1/2 a million deaths happen in the workplace every year. Like that.

Whatever we come up with isn't going to be correct. For example the NVSR says:
2,855 die from "Complications of medical and surgical care". There are probably a few more medical type ones like that, but instead of listing them all, just look for some gigantic claim made by some group or some supposed expert researcher on how many people die. The number's apt to be far higher than the official numbers because otherwise there wouldn't be some group screaming about it.

When we come up with bigger numbers for anything already listed they'll replace the previous ones so for now anyway 10,000 benzene deaths stay. Like we figured out though, there's more mining to be done in occupational deaths.

Because what we need are more deaths than there actually are. LOL

Teal, the idea is to come up with an annual number of deaths far in excess of the number of deaths that actually occur in the USA and then squeezer is going to say, "ha the numbers are all made up and there are enough spare deaths by adding up all the causes of death that if we deduct the surplus from the number of deaths that have been atributed to tobacco we can prove that tobacco didn't killed anyone and prove that the smoking kills myth is just an anti lie."

Are you up to speed yet?

By the way, even if you come up with a total over double the number of actual deaths it won't stop you from dying an average of 5 years younger and being in poor health for on average 12 years longer.

Squeezer,

That Dennis Prager/Glantz transcript post kicks ass. I've listened to Prager's show and, though I don't always agree with him, Prager seems to be one of the few people in our country deeply concerned with the importance of moral issues.

I remember recently Prager saying that he would rather his child grew up to be a person who smoked than be a person who used foul language.

Another favorite, frequently used line of Prager's is "You had to have gone to college to believe that to be true".

VERY IMPORTANT: One of the words Prager uses to dismiss Glantz's view is "demagogic". It's root, demagogue, is a pretty good word for anti-smoking in whole. Demagogue...

"...refers to a political strategy for obtaining and gaining political power by appealing to the popular prejudices, fears and expectations of the public — typically via impassioned rhetoric and propaganda, and often using nationalistic or populist themes."

quote:

Demagogue...

"...refers to a political strategy for obtaining and gaining political power by appealing to the popular prejudices, fears and expectations of the public — typically via impassioned rhetoric and propaganda, and often using nationalistic or populist themes."

You mean like the Malboro man and Alpine country Joe Camel Newport Winston Virginia Slims and all the other patriotic American simbolism? When only the best will do, and isn't that all the time?

I did this investigation once using the information from the state's health department taken from death certificates. The latest information was 3 years old at the time.

Deaths are categorized by broad definitions and then actual causes underneath.

In the long run the classifications are based on what the person was being treated for or the actual component that failed and why. Since rarely are actual investigations made, it is up to the doctor who signed the death certificate.

Because of the high mortality figures from hospitols, they are currently releasing patients to nursing homes and assisted living centers. The patients actually die in this setting leaving their primary doctor or a staff doctor to describe the cause of death.

The breakdown of some component relieves the doctor from responsibility.

Statistics given for any cause of death are computer models, not factural information.

Smoking deaths are created by a computer program, locked in a guarded closet in the east. The population is entered for an area and the computer spits out a number of deaths and the economics of health care, lost productivity, and revenue. No one knows who wrote the program or what logic was applied in generating the numbers.

Therefore, it is impossible to tie the number of deaths to any actual figures.

"Melanoma...will account for...(about 7,910) of the 10,710 deaths due to skin cancer each year."

ACS

From: BMJ 2002;324:696 ( 23 March )

Sunlight prevents cancer, study says

"The paper estimates that in 2002 insufficient exposure to ultraviolet B among Americans will lead to about...30 000 additional deaths...compared with what would occur if the entire country could obtain the same ultraviolet B levels as the southern states."

"The total number of additional deaths that might occur in the United States from melanoma and other skin cancers with the same increased level of ultraviolet B would be about 3000."

To sum up:
10,710 deaths from skin cancer (90% of skin cancers are thought to be caused by the sun)

30,000 deaths from not enough sunlight

3,000 additional deaths from the increase in sun exposure (can't be counted yet, hasn't happened)

Total: 40,710 deaths (39,639 from either too much/little sunlight)

From Gilster: "73,249 death certificates in which diabetes was listed as the underlying cause of death."

For now that'll stand, but if anyone comes up with a huge obesity death claim this number will likely be absorbed into that one.

Salt-150,000
Benzene-10,000
Car accidents-43,000
Adverse Drug Reactions, Medical error, Bedsores, Infection, Malnutrition, Outpatients, Unnecessary Procedures,Surgery-Related-999,936
Smoking-500,000
Diabetes-73,249
Skin cancer/Too little sunlight-40,710

Total so far: 1,816,895

I guess I'll add one more. Deaths from being underweight:

Flegal et al (2005)...underweight with 33,746 excess deaths (95% CI, 15,726-51,766).

CDC

Total so far: 1,850,641

Whooo doing great!!! wwwhhooooo!!

Yow! I'm underweight....

and again

quote:

Originally posted by squeezer:
To sum up:

Salt-150,000
Benzene-10,000
Car accidents-43,000
Adverse Drug Reactions, Medical error, Bedsores, Infection, Malnutrition, Outpatients, Unnecessary Procedures,Surgery-Related-999,936
Smoking-500,000
Diabetes-73,249
Skin cancer/Too little sunlight-40,710
Deaths from being underweight: 33,746
Total so far: 1,850,641

I ran across this a little while ago. Trans fat kills 100,000 a year.

quote:

Doctors at Harvard University have reported that: "By our most conservative estimate, replacement of partially hydrogenated fat in the U.S. diet with natural unhydrogenated vegetable oils would prevent approximately 30,000 premature coronary deaths per year, and epidemiologic evidence suggests this number is closer to 100,0000 premature deaths annually."

"Any substance which kills 100,000 Americans each year -- more than all automobile accidents, crimes, and AIDS combined -- cannot continue to escape regulation, legislation, and ultimately successful litigation," argues Banzhaf.

link
Salt-150,000
Benzene-10,000
Car accidents-43,000
Adverse Drug Reactions, Medical error, Bedsores, Infection, Malnutrition, Outpatients, Unnecessary Procedures,Surgery-Related-999,936
Smoking-500,000
Diabetes-73,249
Skin cancer/Too little sunlight-40,710
Deaths from being underweight: 33,746
Trans fats-100,000

New Total: 1,950,641

this is from the riskometer that gilster posted

I really find it odd that the top two risk factors and percentages are so out of sink with the other risk factors.. one would think that there is an exaggerated percentage beyond truth or reasonableness..and that was in year 2002



Table 5. Estimated Percentage of Total Cancer Deaths Attributable to established causes
of Cancer (3)
Risk Factor Percentage
Tobacco 30
Adult diet/obesity 30
Sedentary lifestyle 5
Occupational factors 5
Family History of cancer 5
Viruses/other biologic agents 5
Perinatal factors/growth 5
Reproductive factors 3
Alcohol 3
Socioeconomic status 3
Environmental pollution 2
Ionizing/ultraviolet radiation 2
Prescription drugs/medical procedures 1
Salt/other food additives/contaminants 1

That's a great list. Too bad it's only for cancer. Take salt, for instance. They have it at 1% of cancer deaths. "Our" salt number comes out to 6.25%, but for all deaths.

I didn't even know salt was a risk factor for cancer. But I suppose, what isn't?

quote:

Originally posted by Jemeyes:
I really find it odd that the top two risk factors and percentages are so out of sink with the other risk factors.. one would think that there is an exaggerated percentage beyond truth or reasonableness..and that was in year 2002

Kevin at Dr Siegel's blog posted the link that I put here.

I'm surprised ACSH posted it, this is Dr Whelan's outfit.

But they ARE working with [studied] science.

if you go to the site that gilster listed

and click on the data link upper corner there are two tables I am looking and on table 5 tobacco death is at 30% and then on table 6 the tobacco related deaths are at 18% and the adult obesity on table 5 is 30% compared to table 6 at 5%

something isn't right here.. all the rest of the %'s are in sink with both tables 5&6 except the tobacco and obesity

quote:

Originally posted by Jemeyes:
I am looking and on table 5 tobacco death is at 30% and then on table 6 the tobacco related deaths are at 18% and the adult obesity on table 5 is 30% compared to table 6 at 5%

something isn't right here..

I think the problem you're having is table 5 is cancer deaths and table 6 is all causes of deaths. That's why the percentages are different.