Page 1 2
|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
Are these people careless or do they think we are to stupid to notice?
Gary K. ACS vs SG,ACS, and ALA ACS says: Secondhand Smoke The 2006 US Surgeon General's report reached several important conclusions: The scientific evidence shows that there is no "safe" level of exposure to secondhand smoke. (Note:This says that evidence 'proves' that SHS exposure is always 100% hazardous.-GK) .................................................... This is what the SG's Report actually says: Surgeon General’s Report 2006 Introduction, Summary, and Conclusions page 11 Major Conclusions 4. The scientific evidence "INDICATES" that there is no 'risk-free level' of exposure to secondhand smoke. (Note:This says that evidence suggests there might be some risk;but, they will not say how much!!-GK) .......................... ACS says: At this time there are no studies that clearly show a link between cigar smoking and either peripheral vascular disease or stroke. However, a recent study found cigar smoking, as well as cigarette smoking, is linked to a man's inability to achieve erection (a condition known as erectile dysfunction, or ED). Surgeon General says: 2004 Surgeon General's Report—The Health Consequences of Smoking Executive Summary Page 2 Table 1.1 Diseases and other adverse health effects for which smoking is identified as a cause in the current Surgeon General’s report (Note:erectile dysfunction is not mentioned!!-GK) Chapter Conclusions,page 12 Chapter 6. Other Effects Erectile Dysfunction 11. The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between smoking and erectile dysfunction ........................... Amer.Cancer Soc.(ACS) can not agree with itself or with The Amer.Lung Assoc.(ALA) as to whether smoking is the cause or only a risk factor for some diseases or how many deaths are caused by SHS!! ACS says: Secondhand smoke can be harmful in many ways. In the United States alone, each year it is responsible for: an estimated 35,000 deaths from heart disease in non-smokers who live with smokers about 3,400 lung cancer deaths in non-smoking adults. Total deaths from SHS= 38,400 ALA says: Secondhand smoke involuntarily inhaled by nonsmokers from other people's cigarettes is classified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as a known human (Group A) carcinogen, responsible for approximately 3,400 lung cancer deaths and 46,000 (ranging 22,700-69,600) heart disease deaths in adult nonsmokers annually in the United States. TOTAL DEATHS FROM SHS = 49,400 ACS says: Other Health Problems Smoking is also a major cause of heart disease, aneurysms, bronchitis, emphysema. ACS also says: Do Cigars Cause Other Health Problems? Cigarette smoking is known to increase the risk of lung diseases such as emphysema and chronic bronchitis. My,my, my; which 'facts' should we believe??? ALA says: The list of diseases caused by smoking includes chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD, including chronic bronchitis and emphysema). ACS says: Cigarette smoking is known to increase the risk of lung diseases such as emphysema and chronic bronchitis. ALA says: The list of diseases caused by smoking includes cervical, kidney, stomach, and pancreatic cancers. ACS says: Cigarette smoking contributes to the development of cancers of the pancreas, cervix, kidney, stomach, ALA says: The list of diseases caused by smoking includes pneumonia. ACS says: Smoking makes pneumonia and asthma worse. These people have to get their crap together,whom are we supposed to believe??? Sources: http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_10_2X_Sec...Clean_Indoor_Air.asp http://www.lungusa.org/site/c.dvLUK9O0E/b.39853/k.5D05/...g_101_Fact_Sheet.htm http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_10_2X_Cigar_Smoking.asp http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_10_2X_Cig...ing.asp?sitearea=PED |
|||
|
The Amer. Heart Assoc. has published a report that shows that smoking is not a risk factor for heart disease.
If smoking is not a risk factor,SHS certainly is not a risk factor for heart disease!! Thus: Heart Disease deaths caused by SHS(according to AHA published data)= 'ZERO'  This study was done by doctors at Northwestern Univ.’s Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago. This was published in “Circulation” the journal of the American Heart Association. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,184016,00.html 'First Lifetime Heart Disease Risk Assessment Developed' Monday , February 06, 2006 The first-ever comprehensive lifetime risk assessment for cardiovascular disease highlights the importance of reducing risk early in life to prevent heart and vascular disease later on. Cardiovascular disease events included heart attack, angina, coronary heart disease, stroke, and claudication (peripheral arterial disease). The researchers reviewed the medical records of 3,564 men and 4,362 women who did not have any record of cardiovascular disease at age 50. The men and women were followed for several decades and all cases of heart attack, coronary heart disease, angina, stroke, claudication (pain in the legs caused by circulation problems), and death from cardiovascular disease were recorded. When the researchers calculated the impact of modifiable risk factors such as body weight, smoking history, cholesterol levels, and blood pressure, they found that: “Smokers and nonsmokers had similar lifetime risks for cardiovascular disease.” The study appears in the Feb. 14 2006 issue of the American Heart Association journal’ Circulation.’ SOURCES: Lloyd-Jones, D.M. Circulation, Feb. 14, 2006, vol. 113: online. Donald M. Lloyd-Jones, MD, ScM, department of preventive medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago. |
||||
|
|
Moderator |
Gary, it didn't say that smoking is not a risk factor for heart disease. It said that while lifetime risk was similar between smokers and nonsmokers, smokers had their CVD sooner.
It also said that because other diseases cause smokers to die sooner their risk of CVD is lessened. To use an extreme example of what they're saying, let's say half of all smokers and half of all nonsmokers get CVD. Seems pretty even. But let's say all smokers die by age 20 and all nonsmokers die at 90. Pretty uneven now. And now add that because of other diseases also killing smokers by age 20, that 100% of smokers would be dead by age 20 from CVD if those other diseases weren't around. That's what they're saying. "Lifetime risk for CVD was similar for smokers and nonsmokers (Table 2 and Figure 1). Smokers had CVD events much earlier than nonsmokers; eg, through 70 years of age, smokers had almost twice the adjusted cumulative incidence of CVD as nonsmokers. However, the competing risk of death from other smoking-related causes shortened median survival by 5 years and limited lifetime risk for CVD among smokers." |
|||
|
............ However, the competing risk of death from other smoking-related causes shortened median survival by 5 years and limited lifetime risk for CVD among smokers." .................. This sounds damning;but,is it really? If the average/median age of smokers was 5 years younger than nonsmokers(say,65 and 70),of course the all cause average/median death age would be would be 5 years younger. As happens to be the case in the age groups studied here, there is a higher percentage of smokers at the lower end and fewer smokers at the higher end. A while back I did a estimation of the average age of smokers and the average of nonsmokers in the USA. It worked out to be an average age of 42 for smokers and 47.5 for nonsmokers. Of course the all cause average death age will be about 5 years lower for smokers!! Age..Smoke everyday/Smoke somedays/Former/Never 45-54== 16.8///////5.2////////////25.5////51.7 55-64== 12.3///////3.9/////////// 36.3/// 45.3 65+==== 6.6/////// 2.0/////////// 42.5/// 48.9 Nationwide (States, DC, and Territories) - 2006 Tobacco Use [URL=http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/brfss/age.asp?yr=2006&state=US&qkey=4394&grp=0] This message has been edited. Last edited by: gkayser30, |
||||
|
................. Note that they do not say 'neversmokers',just 'nonsmokers'. Nonsmokers would include former smokers. The percentage of never smokers stays about the same in these age groups,about 50%. Smokers drop from about 22% to 8.8%. Former smokers increase from 25.5% to 42.5%. The decline in cvd events to smokers was not because they were dying from other diseases;rather, it is because there are fewer of them due to their having become former smokers. Statistictly speaking,about 1 in 5 deaths before age 65 would have been smokers and over age 65 only about 1 in 10.That is the % of smokers in the age groups. Was smoking the 'SOLE' cause of these deaths; or,are they using associations to prove causality? If they had included former smokers in the smokers' deaths would the age differential still be 5 years? |
||||
|
|
Moderator |
I'm not arguing your numbers or explanations. But you basically quoted them out of context.
If someone here quoted what you highlighted without knowing what the next sentence said, they could be left looking stupid if an anti quoted the next line to them. |
|||
|
However, the competing risk of death from other smoking-related causes shortened median survival by 5 years and limited lifetime risk for CVD among smokers."
................... We should ask if there are other factors that lead to disease and premature death. Factors such as Socio-Economic Status(SES). With a few exceptions, disease is more prevalent and life expectancy shorter the lower one is in the SES hierarchy. It just happens that there is a higher percentage of smokers in the lower SES stratums. Yet excess death is not just a problem for the very poor. More than half of America’s excess deaths occur in the middle class in families that earn $20,000 to $100,000 a year. People with less education have fewer financial resources, less access to health insurance or stable employment, and less health literacy. White men in the higher SES can expect to live 7.9 years longer. Black men in the higher SES can expect to live 8.6 years longer. Education is a good indicator of what one’s income and SES will be. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5320a2.htm Cigarette Smoking Among Adults --- United States, 2002 Table 3 Percentage of persons aged over 18 who were current smokers, by selected characteristics-National Health Interview Survey, United States, 2002 Characteristic-Education-Total 0-12 yrs(no diploma) = 27.6% 9-11 yrs = 34.1% GED(Diploma) = 42.3% 12 yrs(Diploma)= 25.6% Associate degree = 21.5% Some college(no degree)=23.1% Undergraduate degree= 12.1% Graduate degree= 7.2% Income is a good indicator of one’s SES. http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/brfss/income.asp?cat=TU&yr=2006&qkey=4396&state=US Nationwide (States, DC, and Territories) - 2006 Tobacco Use-Adults who are current smokers Income: Yes Less than $15,000= 31.4 $15,000- 24,999 = 27.7 $25,000- 34,999 = 24.3 $35,000- 49,999 = 21.7 $50,000+ = 15.0 Widening of Socioeconomic Inequalities in U.S. Death Rates, 1993–2001 Ahmedin Jemal1*, Elizabeth Ward1, Robert N. Anderson2, Taylor Murray1, Michael J. Thun1 Epidemiology and Surveillance Research, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America, 2 Division of Vital Statistics, National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Hyattsville, Maryland, United States of America Methodology/Principal Findings We calculated annual age-standardized death rates from 1993–2001 for 25–64 year old non-Hispanic whites and blacks by level of education for all causes and for the seven most common causes of death using death certificate information from 43 states and Washington, D.C. The inequalities in all cause death rates between Americans with less than high school education and college graduates increased rapidly from 1993 to 2001 due to both significant decreases in mortality from all causes, heart disease, cancer, stroke, and other conditions in the most educated and lack of change or increases among the least educated. Results The all cause death rate decreased significantly during this interval among the most educated (≥16 years) men and women, with the largest decrease in black men. In contrast, the all cause death rate increased in those with less than a high school education. Discussion Our principal finding is that socioeconomic inequalities in mortality continue to increase in the U.S. due to reductions in death rates among the most educated combined with lack of progress or worsening trends in the least educated. Lower educational attainment, a marker of socioeconomic position, is associated with a host of environmental, social and economic factors that detrimentally affect health over a life time. People with less education have fewer financial resources, less access to health insurance or stable employment, and less health literacy. People without health insurance are less likely to receive basic preventive services or standard timely treatment. Those with lower health literacy are less likely to seek medical attention for asymptomatic conditions or to navigate the health care system effectively. In conclusion, socioeconomic inequalities in mortality rates are increasing in the U.S. due to continuing reductions in death rates among the most educated white and black men and white women, but lack of progress or worsening trends in the least educated persons. http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/313/7066/1177 BMJ 1996;313:1177-1180 (9 November) Papers Do socioeconomic differences in mortality persist after retirement? 25 Year follow up of civil servants from the first Whitehall study M G Marmot, professor,a Martin J Shipley, senior lecturer in medical statistics a a Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London Medical School, London WC1E 6BT Setting: The first Whitehall study. Subjects: 18 133 male civil servants aged 40-69 years who attended a screening examination between 1967 and 1970. Main outcome measure: Death. Results: Grade of employment was a strong predictor of mortality before retirement. For men dying at ages 40-64 the lowest employment grade had 3.12 times the mortality of the highest grade. White men in the higher SES can expect to live 7.9 years longer. Black men in the higher SES can expect to live 8.6 years longer. http://www.macfound.org/site/c.lkLXJ8MQKrH/b.951947/k.1...tatus_and_Health.htm Socioeconomic Status and Health Chronic disease, disability, and early death are destructive forces in individual lives and in whole communities. Their toll is high-and they do not strike at random. A large body of evidence indicates that socioeconomic status (SES) is a strong predictor of health. Better health is associated with having more income, more years of education, and a more prestigious job, as well as living in neighborhoods where a higher percentage or residents have higher incomes and more education. With a few exceptions, disease is more prevalent and life expectancy shorter the lower one is in the SES hierarchy. Reaching for a Healthier Life http://www.macses.ucsf.edu/News/Reaching%20for%20a%20Healthier%20Life.pdf Page 6 The impact on health can be seen by taking a careful look at those who are dying prematurely; that is, those dying before age 65. The nature of the U.S. ladder is such that the risk of dying before the age of 65 is more than three times greater for those at the bottom than for those at the top. Yet this is not simply a question of the large gap between the bottom and top. People in the middle are also at greater risk than those at the top. Premature death is more than twice as likely for middle income Americans as for those at the top of the income ladder. Page 7 About a quarter of these excess deaths (those before age 65) cluster among the poorest 8% of the population --- families with annual incomes of less than $10,000. Yet excess death is not just a problem for the very poor. More than half of America’s excess deaths occur in the middle class in families that earn $20,000 to $100,000 a year. Page 32 Figure 12. Life Expectancy at age 25 for U.S. Black and White Men with Similar Income Levels. White men in the higher SES can expect to live 7.9 years longer. Black men in the higher SES can expect to live 8.6 years longer. This message has been edited. Last edited by: gkayser30, |
||||
|
More:
Smokers are only 25%-30% of the people in the average to lower income groups. http://www.commissiononhealth.org/Charts.aspx?Driver=23831 Higher Income, Longer Life Adult life expectancy increases with increasing income. Men and women in the highest-income group can expect to live at least six and a half years longer than poor men and women. Prepared for the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation by the Center on Social Disparities in Health at the University of California, San Francisco; and Norman Johnson, U.S. Bureau of the Census http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5720a5.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypertension Persistent hypertension is one of the risk factors for strokes, heart attacks, heart failure and arterial aneurysm, and is a leading cause of chronic renal failure. Even moderate elevation of arterial blood pressure leads to shortened life expectancy. QuickStats: Age-Adjusted Percentage of Adults* Aged >20 Years with Hypertension,† by Poverty Level§ --- National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, United States, 2003--2006 Hypertension is defined as having measured elevated blood pressure. The percentage of U.S. adults with hypertension was associated with income, with those at the lowest income level more likely to have hypertension than those in the highest income group. SOURCE: CDC. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. |
||||
|
|
Moderator |
I couldn't find it in my computer so I may be off a bit, but I think it was the American Cancer Society's CPS1 study (survey) that found basically no difference in life expectency between smokers and nonsmokers. Cigar and pipe smokers were shown to live the longest.
The explanation given (by someone) was that the survey wasn't representative of the population. It was almost all (or exclusively) the upper income levels. |
|||
|
This is all I have.
 Gary K. In 1981 and again in 1988, the American Cancer Society did two major US studies (CPS-1 and CPS-2) and "major" means major: the first studied 1 million people, the second. 1.2. In addition to looking into the correlations of secondhand smoke and lung cancer, it also looked for links to heart disease. And found no connection. In either study. -"Environmental Tobacco Smoke And Mortality," Lee; Karger, 1992 - also LeVois and Layard, "Publication Bias in the Environmental Tobacco Smoke/Coronary Heart Disease Epidemiologic Literature," Regul Toxicol Pharmacol, 1995; 21 Further, the subjects from CPS-1 continued to be followed through 1998, for a total of 39 years. Focusing on a large (35,561 subject) subset of California never-smokers married to smokers for the full period, a statistical analysis, peer-reviewed and published in the British Medical Journal in 2003, repeated these results-- showing incontrovertibly (0.97 @ 95% confidence) that there was no increased risk of coronary heart disease from lifelong exposure to secondhand smoke. Similar non-associations with secondhand smoke were found for lung cancer, asthma, and other allegedly tobacco-related diseases, leading the authors to state in their conclusion: "The results do not support a causal relationship between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality." -"Environmental Tobacco Smoke And Tobacco-Related Mortality In A Prospective Study Of Californians, 1960-98," Enstrom & Kabat, BMJ 5/17/03 |
||||
|
|
Moderator |
I just did an online search for that ACS study I mentioned. This was the 1st google result. It's from Lauren Colby's book. Seeing how I read his book some time ago this might be where I saw this on pipe and cigar smokers. link
That's at least part of what I was saying. I do recall remember reading (somewhere else how most respondents were upper income as the ACS volunteers who conducted the survey mostly just asked friends to do the survey. |
|||
|
SES and Premature Death and Diseases
(A combining of my previous posts-GK) Antis claim that smoking causes many diseases and a shortened life expectancy. Since 1965 the adult smoking rate is down by 51% and exposure to SHS is down by 75%. In spite of this since 1960 Lung Cancer deaths are up by 121%. Since 1970 Coronary Heart Disease is up by 30%. Since 1980 Emphysema and Chronic Bronchitis(COPD) deaths are up by 74%. Since 1980 Asthma incidence is up by about 150%. Smoking can ‘NOT’ be the cause of these diseases if less smoking brings about there being more of them. We should ask if there are other factors that lead to disease and premature death. Factors such as Socio-Economic Status(SES). With a few exceptions, disease is more prevalent and life expectancy shorter the lower one is in the SES hierarchy. (NOTE: They speak of 'excess deaths'; but, if this was about smoking,these deaths would be called 'Preventable premature deaths'!!-GK) 72% of the adult smokers in this country earn less than $50,000 per year. Yet, smokers are only about 25% of those earning less than $50,000, about 75% of those lower SES people do not smoke and still suffer a lower life expectancy and more disease. Yet excess death is not just a problem for the very poor. More than half of America’s excess deaths occur in the middle class in families that earn $20,000 to $100,000 a year. People with less education have fewer financial resources, less access to health insurance or stable employment, and less health literacy. Men and women in the highest-income group can expect to live at least six and a half years longer than poor men and women. SHS exposure down by 75% The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke(2006 Sur Gen's Report) Table 10.1, page 575 2005 The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issues the Third National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals, which documents that cotinine levels decreased 68 percent for children, 69 percent for adolescents, and 75 percent for adults from the early 1990s to 2002. http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/tables/adult/table_2.htm Smoking Status Percentage of adults* who were current smokers 1965 = 42.4% 2004 = 20.9% This is a 51% decrease in the adult smoking rate!! Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics — 2005 Update, American Heart Association http://www.americanheart.org/downloadable/heart/1105390...SStats2005Update.pdf Page-6 Hospital Discharges for Cardiovascular Diseases United States: 1970–200 Note: Hospital discharges include people both living and dead. Source: CDC/NCHS. 1970=3.4 million 2003=6.2 million Population in 1970 was about 203.3 million, 3,400,000 equals an incidence rate of about 16,724/100,000. Population in 2003 was about 285 million, 6,200,000 equals an incidence rate of about 21,754/100,000. This is about a 30% 'INCREASE' in heart disease incidence rates over a time period when smoking rates were 'DECREASING' by 50%. http://0-www.cdc.gov.mill1.sjlibrary.org/nchs/data/hus/hus06.pdf 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] If you go back to 1960: Lung Cancer deaths (age adjusted) were 1960=24.1 per 100,000 2004= 53.2 per 100,000 This is a 121% increase. 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.....24.2 2002.....42.0 NOTE: Smoking has gone DOWN by 50% over the last 40 years, over the last 20 plus years the COPD death rate has GONE UP BY 74%. 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. 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. Using data from the two sources below, we can calculate the number of adults earning less than $50,000 per year, the number of smokers earning less than $50,000 per year, and what percentage of the total number of smokers they are. Nationwide (States, DC, and Territories) - 2006 Tobacco Use-Adults who are current smokers http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/brfss/income.asp?cat=TU&yr=2006&qkey=4396&state=US Household Income range http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States For instance, 15.3% of the US population lives in households with earnings of less than $15,000 per year, that is 45.9 million. Adults are about 75% of the population, there are 34.4 million adults in this earnings group. The smoking rate for this earnings group is 31.8% of the adults or 10.95 million adult smokers earning less than $15,000 per year. Doing the same math for the other earnings groups up to $49,999 per year, we find that 32.6 million adult smokers earn less than $50,000 per year. 32.6 million smokers is about 72% of the 45 million or so adult smokers in this country. 32.6 million smokers is only about 26% of the 123.4 million adults living in households with an income of less than $50,000 per year. Widening of Socioeconomic Inequalities in U.S. Death Rates, 1993–2001 Ahmedin Jemal1*, Elizabeth Ward1, Robert N. Anderson2, Taylor Murray1, Michael J. Thun1 Epidemiology and Surveillance Research, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America, 2 Division of Vital Statistics, National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Hyattsville, Maryland, United States of America Our principal finding is that socioeconomic inequalities in mortality continue to increase in the U.S. due to reductions in death rates among the most educated combined with lack of progress or worsening trends in the least educated. Lower educational attainment, a marker of socioeconomic position, is associated with a host of environmental, social and economic factors that detrimentally affect health over a life time. People with less education have fewer financial resources, less access to health insurance or stable employment, and less health literacy. People without health insurance are less likely to receive basic preventive services or standard timely treatment. Those with lower health literacy are less likely to seek medical attention for asymptomatic conditions or to navigate the health care system effectively. In conclusion, socioeconomic inequalities in mortality rates are increasing in the U.S. due to continuing reductions in death rates among the most educated white and black men and white women, but lack of progress or worsening trends in the least educated persons. BMJ 1996;313:1177-1180 (9 November) Papers Do socioeconomic differences in mortality persist after retirement? 25 Year follow up of civil servants from the first Whitehall study M G Marmot, professor,a Martin J Shipley, senior lecturer in medical statistics a a Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London Medical School, London WC1E 6BT Setting: The first Whitehall study. Subjects: 18 133 male civil servants aged 40-69 years who attended a screening examination between 1967 and 1970. Main outcome measure: Death. Results: Grade of employment was a strong predictor of mortality before retirement. For men dying at ages 40-64 the lowest employment grade had 3.12 times the mortality of the highest grade. http://www.macfound.org/site/c.lkLXJ8MQKrH/b.951947/k.1...tatus_and_Health.htm Socioeconomic Status and Health A large body of evidence indicates that socioeconomic status (SES) is a strong predictor of health. Better health is associated with having more income, more years of education, and a more prestigious job, as well as living in neighborhoods where a higher percentage or residents have higher incomes and more education. With a few exceptions, disease is more prevalent and life expectancy shorter the lower one is in the SES hierarchy. Reaching for a Healthier Life Page 6 The impact on health can be seen by taking a careful look at those who are dying prematurely; that is, those dying before age 65. The nature of the U.S. ladder is such that the risk of dying before the age of 65 is more than three times greater for those at the bottom than for those at the top. Yet this is not simply a question of the large gap between the bottom and top. People in the middle are also at greater risk than those at the top. Premature death is more than twice as likely for middle income Americans as for those at the top of the income ladder. Page 7 About a quarter of these excess deaths (those before age 65) cluster among the poorest 8% of the population --- families with annual incomes of less than $10,000. Yet excess death is not just a problem for the very poor. More than half of America’s excess deaths occur in the middle class in families that earn $20,000 to $100,000 a year. Page 32 Figure 12. Life Expectancy at age 25 for U.S. Black and White Men with Similar Income Levels. White men in the higher SES can expect to live 7.9 years longer. Black men in the higher SES can expect to live 8.6 years longer. http://www.commissiononhealth.org/Charts.aspx?Driver=23831 Higher Income, Longer Life Adult life expectancy increases with increasing income. Men and women in the highest-income group can expect to live at least six and a half years longer than poor men and women. Prepared for the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation by the Center on Social Disparities in Health at the University of California, San Francisco; and Norman Johnson, U.S. Bureau of the Census This message has been edited. Last edited by: gkayser30, |
||||
|
|
Moderator |
A couple of points.
While smoking rates may be down, the actual number of smokers has stayed the same. (Growing population accounts for this) You have to also consider that former smokers are still at higher risk of lung cancer than never smokers. When you add current and former smokers together I'm sure this group is larger now than ever before. "Smoking is not the ‘CAUSE’ of premature death, being in a lower SES is the cause." But Socio-economic status does NOT cause lung cancer as SES is not carcinogenic. SES itself does not cause anything. I think it's too general to just say SES causes more/less premature deaths. It's some thing(s) in the SES that does it. That could just be a faster way for them to describe a group, but I think it's an easy way for them to hide the causes they don't want to highlight and spotlight the ones they want to. |
|||
|
........... Note: I posted "being in a lower SES is the cause of premature death." Indeed,there are numerous things about being in the lower SES groups that cause the people in these groups to die prematurely.These include less health care and health literacy,a worse diet(less vitamins),and worse working and living conditions. |
||||
|
"Never smoking as a CAUSE of diseases."
To show cause and effect you must have a direct correlation. A = B More A = More B Less A = Less B. You can not show cause and effect with an inverse correlation. Less A = More B Common sense says that. If A is smoking and B is the Lung Cancer death rate and the COPD death and the Asthma rate; then, smoking can not be a 'CAUSE' of these diseases because you have less A(smoking) = more B(diseases). If A is never smoking and B is the Lung Cancer death rate and the COPD death and the Asthma rate; then never smoking is a 'CAUSE' of these diseases because more A(never smoking) = more B(the diseases). http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/tables/adult/table_2.htm Smoking Status Percentage of adults Current smokers 1965 = 42.4% 2004 = 20.9% This is a 51% decrease in the adult smoking rate!! http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/tables/adult/table_2.htm Smoking Status Total Population Never smokers 1970--44.2% 2004--57.7% This is a 31% increase in never smokers http://0-www.cdc.gov.mill1.sjlibrary.org/nchs/data/hus/hus06.pdf 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] If you go back to 1960: Lung Cancer deaths (age adjusted) were 1960=24.1 per 100,000 2004= 53.2 per 100,000 This is a 121% increase. 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.....24.2 2002.....42.0 Over the last 20 plus years the COPD death rate has GONE UP BY 74%. ASTHMA http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5101a1.htm 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. |
||||
|
|
Moderator |
Okay. I was going by the actual number of deaths (by my recollection) as remaining virtually unchanged for the last number of years.
Yes you did, but that's not correct. Lower SES is not a disease. It does not cause disease. It's things found in there that do. You say smoking (known carcinogens) does not cause cancer, but a clssification, a label someone made up, causes premature death. There has to be biologic plausibility for something to cause disease. A label is neither. Risk factor is probably a better term to use. That's what I'm getting at. |
|||
|
How about:
Being in a lower SES causes people to lead shorter more disease burdened lives. This message has been edited. Last edited by: gkayser30, |
||||
|