H/T Gary K in the comments. US non-whites smoke more than whites:
Smoking rates for various racial groups:
Whites = 19.6%.
Blacks = 22.1%.
Multiracial = 24.7%.
Less educated Americans smoke more than educated Americans.
Education.
Less than high school = 32.4%.
high school degree = 26.5%.
college degree = 10.1%.
What about obesity in the USA?
Obesity Rates:
White total = 26.8%.
male = 27.5%.
female = 24.5%.
Black total = 36.9%.
male = 31.6%.
female = 41.2%.
American Indian total = 39.6%..
Gary’s original link to cdc data didn’t work (perhaps he could provide it again? Ta.), but I did a quick check on the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, and found some similar figures:
29% of US adults below poverty line smoke, 18% of those above it.
Percent of adults who smoke by racial/ethnic group
American Indian/Alaska native = 31.4%
Multiple race (non-hispanic) = 25.9%
White (non-hispanic) = 21%
Hispanic = 12.5%
Asian = 9.2%
Percent of adults who smoke by education level
Undergraduate degree = 9.9%
High school graduate = 23.8%
General Educational Development (GED) = 45%
So antismoking and anti-obesity taxes and restrictions and campaigns fall hardest on poor, uneducated, black or multiracial or American Indian populations.
Isn’t that racism? Disguised racism? Perhaps antismoking and obesity campaigns are in part just another way of attacking racial minorities?
Apart from that, from Giles Fraser in the Guardian:
The TV show How to Look Good Naked is an instrument of torture, which is every bit as self-flagellating as the Christian mortification of the flesh. Over the entrance of every gym ought to be written St Paul’s words: “I chastise my body and bring it into subjection.”
I came across the above via Heresy Corner:
All that said, the use of theological language to describe overindulgence in food is telling, as Fraser is right to point out. He might have added that the language of health-scare isn’t just one of personal morality – it also does a nice line in apocalyptic, with the “obesity timebomb” and suchlike standing in for Armageddon. Even more significant is the double-edged psychology involved: it leads to self-hatred in those who don’t possess socially approved body shapes, while those who do are able to feel morally superior, to pity, shun and belittle the less virtuous or less fortunate.
It doesn’t stop with food, of course: the language of sin and guilt is equally used of other behaviours such as smoking, drinking or carbon consumption.
Incidentally, Gary has asked if he can collect some of his links in the comments under Mince Pies To Die For. That seems like a good idea. It’ll maybe become a bit like Rose’s Garden (see right) at Forces.
Eugenicism from Nazis!?
Say it ain’t so!
What aboot Scottish cunts?
American Nazis are the worse,especially Californicators!
The black/white and upper vs. lower income disparity also provides a very “convenient” way for landlords to advertise for particular demographics in attracting tenants.
Yes, it’s illegal to say “Attractive two-room apartments with an ocean view. Whites only.” It’s totally acceptable to say “Attractive two-room apartments with an ocean view. Non-smokers only.”
And yes, Antismoking extremists will try to argue that “Even smokers want to be forbidden to smoke in their own homes.” but anyone with about three brain cells or more knows that’s a lie.
There are a lot of nasty racist people out there who are using this sort of thing as an excuse. And the “liberals,” who would normally be exposing the ruse for what it is, simply look the other way — because it’s convenient.
Sad.
:/
Michael J. McFadden
Author of “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains” <- in case anyone is wondering about my OWN bias on the issue!
I noticed this a while back and wondered about the racial aspects.
Smoking reduces the risk of breast cancer particularly in those women who have inherited the mutated BRCA 1 & 2 genes. These genes are common in jewish women and “have been identified as causes of predisposition to breast, ovarian, and other cancers”. Are women informed of the potentially protective effects of smoking ?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1288193/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10343884
A study by Jean-Sebastien Brunet et al, (Toronto, Canada) 1998, published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, that studied breast cancer in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene mutation. The study found that the incidence of breast cancer in women with a BRCA gene, were up to 54% lower if they smoked and this was dose related (heavier smoker = less risk) conclusion: “cigarette smoke may be protective against breast cancer.”! While only around 10 % of women have the mutation of the BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes, by some estimates, about eighty percent (80%) of such women will likely develop breast cancer during their lifetime.
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDUQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjnci.oxfordjournals.org%2Fcontent%2F90%2F10%2F761.full.pdf&ei=D1PtULHSN9Ga0QWZr4D4Dg&usg=AFQjCNEki_A5gqcZDk3JG3SnXwPjTYOgpg&bvm=bv.1357316858,d.d2k&cad=rja
“ Our data provide strong evidence of a protective effect of smoking against breast cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. In light of the known antiestrogenic effects of smoking, this association is plausible. The magnitude of the risk reduction was large, and the possibility that this finding was due to chance is remote. The risk reduction was greater for women with more than 4 pack-years of smoking than for women with less than or equal to 4 pack-years of smoking. “
That’s a good one too.
Very interesting. And a little surprising (to me) also.
m J Obstet Gynecol. 1990 Feb;162(2):502-14.
The antiestrogenic effect of cigarette smoking in women.
Baron JA, La Vecchia C, Levi F.
Source
Department of Medicine, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Hanover, NH.
Abstract
Epidemiologic results indicate that women who smoke cigarettes are relatively estrogen-deficient. Smokers have an early natural menopause, a lowered risk of cancer of the endometrium, and an increased risk of some osteoporotic fractures. Moreover, women who smoke may have a reduced risk of uterine fibroids, endometriosis, hyperemesis gravidarum, and benign breast disease. Several possible mechanisms for these effects have been identified. Smoking does not appear to be clearly related to estradiol levels, at least in postmenopausal women, although levels of adrenal androgens are increased. Moreover, smoking appears to alter the metabolism of estradiol, leading to enhanced formation of the inactive catechol estrogens.
PMID:
2178432
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2178432
It gets even wilder
Cigarette smoking: A review of possible associations with benign prostatic hyperplasia and prostate cancer
Keywords:
BPH;
androgens;
estrogens
Abstract
There are conflicting data on the effect of cigarette smoking on serum levels of the various sex hormones. Some studies suggest that cigarette smoke produces an antiestrogenic effect. Smoking may also affect the metabolism of other sex steroids such as testosterone and adrenal hormones, and thereby influence the incidence of benign and malignant growth of the prostate.
Epidemiologic studies analyzing a possible association between cigarette smoking and prostate cancer are not conclusive, although some show a positive relationship. The etiology of BPH is undoubtedly multifactorial. Estrogens as well as androgens may be involved in the pathogenesis of BPH. There are several studies that indicate that cigarette smokers have a lower likelihood of requiring surgery for BPH.
Growth of the prostate may not correlate with serum levels of androgens and estrogens. The local hormonal milieu of the target cells in the prostate are probably more critical than the more easily measured serum levels. This review examines the literature dealing with cigarette smoking and both BPH and prostate cancer. If there is an effect, then elucidation of the mechanism by which smoking affects the growth of the prostate may improve our understanding of BPH and prostate cancer, and may suggest preventive strategies for high risk groups.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pros.2990220402/abstract
There are several studies that indicate that cigarette smokers have a lower likelihood of requiring surgery for BPH.
Kin, the predictable response of the Antismokers of course will be the following:
1) Breast cancer is far less deadly than LC.
2) That cutting the BC risk from 80% to 40% by taking up regular smoking is not comparable to the increased risk of LC from less than 1% to 5% or 10% by smoking, particularly given the difference in mortality rate expressed in (1).
3) That it can be easily protected against by having simple, safe, and enjoyable double mastectomies.
What the Antismokers always FAIL to consider though is that there may be many women out there who might prefer a lifetime of the enjoyment they feel they get from smoking (It’s actually irrelevant whether that enjoyment comes from the positive enjoyment of the act, feeling, and effects of smoking and nicotine or from its deprivation ) and the increased absolute risk of LC from smoking that medical authorities claim will largely occur in their 60s through 80s to depriving themselves of that enjoyment and undergoing the “simple, safe, and enjoyable” experience of double mastectomies to reduce their breast cancer risk. ( * & ** )
I would hold that such a decision should be left up to the women in question after being given the best advice they can get from current medical knowledge, their own fears and desires with regard to their own lives and bodies, and with full consideration of the possibilities of medical advancement over the next 20 to 50 years.
Antismokers of course would hold differently.
- MJM
*P.S. No, there are no actual medical authorities out there claiming that a DM is “enjoyable,” but I’m guessing that in this context that’s practically how it would be pictured by Antismokers in describing the decision making here.
** Not being a doctor or having any specialized knowledge in this area I also should note that I know nothing about alternative safeguards that women with this genetic variant could take to reduce their risks or other studies that have been done on this particular problem. Obviously, if there were something out there as simple as taking a multivitamin every day to eliminate the increased risk then my argument here would be substantially weakened!
The truer question this brings forth,is what in Tobacco smoke is making this cancer gene be retarded from turning into cancer………The we find that now quitting increases the risk of getting LC. In the newer stats……….Interesting ehh!
Lung Cancer is a rare disease and Breast Cancer is even a rarer disease.
I do not have data for breast cancer; but,the data is available for comparing heavy smokers and never-smokers and their chances of NOT DYING from lung cancer.
Doll’s doctor study shows that:
999.83/1,000 per year of the never-smokers did not die from lung cancer
995.83/1,000 per year of the heavy smokers(25+/day) did not die from lung cancer.
That 995.83 vs 999.83 ratio can be shown two ways;
1) If a never-smokers chances of NOT dying is 1, a heavy smokersmokers chances are 0.996.
2) A never-smoker is only 1.004 times as likely, as is a heavy smoker, to NOT DIE from lung cancer in any given year.
When you have to go to the 3rd decimal place to find a difference, the difference is not significant.
Realistically, never-smokers and heavy smokers have the same chance of not dying from lung cancer.
Antis claim that heavy smokers are about 25 times as likely, as never-smokers, to die from lung cancer; but, 25 times very darn little is still very darn little.
Gary that seems to be the case on everything claimed by the anti-tobacco forces on anything………Its always a farce,after you dig a little bit you start finding just what they did to make a statement…..Mike has done a great job of showing us how they manipulat data to squeeze out some kind of claim. You have to Gary,thanks
That’s a new one on me.
Erm, nothing on carbon monoxide but plenty on nitric oxide including -
JS-K, a nitric oxide-releasing prodrug, induces breast cancer cell death while sparing normal mammary epithelial cells
However, JS-K did not induce apoptosis or autophagy in normal human mammary epithelial cells. These data indicate that JS-K selectively induces programmed cell death in breast cancer cells while sparing normal mammary epithelial cells under the same conditions. The selective anti-tumor activity of JS-K warrants its further investigation in breast tumors.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21271218
Nitric Oxide Donors Are a New Class of Anti-cancer Therapeutics for the Reversal of Resistance and Inhibition of Metastasis
“Hence, NO donors can exert simultaneously a multitude of anti-cancer activities, including enhancement of apoptotic stimuli, inhibition of metastasis, inhibition of angiogenesis, and inhibition of hypoxia, depending on the concentration of the NO donor and on the cancer type and stage. Therefore, while novel therapeutics are being tested for specific anti-tumor targeting effects, we suggest that activation of endogenous iNOS or exogenous NO donors can substitute a large number of specific agents and may be considered as universal anti-cancer therapeutics when used alone or in combination with subtoxic cytotoxic drugs. Thus, the development of a new generation of NO donors with minimal toxicity and higher anti-tumor efficacy is warranted for investigation in clinical trials in cancer patients”
http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-1-4419-1432-3_24?LI=true
Hear, hear – and the ‘best advice they can get’ should not leave out all the words like ‘maybe’ and ‘suggests’ and ‘indicates’ that appear in the studies.
Obesity is defined by BMI which is such a crap system that it doesn’t take into account racial differences. So naturally blacks will have a different body shape to whites just like Western Europeans have a different body shape to Japanese.
Education only has a factor in smoking because the more educated will take the tobacco control arguments about health etc and think they must be true because they have been taught to believe in authority.
Sad its quite easy to create and I mean create public health epidemics:
http://easydiagnosis.com/secondopinio….
Diabetes:
Old Definition: Blood sugar > 140 mg/dl
People under old definition: 11.7 million
New Definition: Blood sugar > 126 mg/dl
People added under new definition: 1.7 million
Percent increase: 15%
The definition was changed in 1997 by the American Diabetes Association and WHO Expert Committee on the Diagnosis and Classification of Diabetes Mellitus.
Hypertension:
High blood pressure is reported as two numbers, systolic or peak pressure and diastolic pressure when heart is at rest) in mm Hg.
Old Definition: cutoff Blood Pressure > 160/100
People under old definition: 38.7 million
New Definition: Blood Pressure > 140/90
People added under new definition: 13.5 million
Percent Increase: 35%
The definition was changed in 1997 by U.S. Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure.
Prehypertension, a new category created in 2003: blood pressure from 120/80 to 138/89 includes 45 million additional people! If one includes this category, we have a grand total of 97.2 million total numbers of hypertensives and prehypertensives (whatever that is).
High (Total) Cholesterol:
Old Definition: Cholesterol > 240 mg/dl total cholesterol
People under old definition: 49.5 million
New Definition: Cholesterol > 200 mg/dl total cholesterol
People added under new definition: 42.6 million
Percent increase: 86%
The definition was changed in 1998 by U.S. Air Force/Texas Coronary Atherosclerosis Prevention Study.
Overweight:
Body Mass Index (BMI) is defined as the ratio of weight (in kg) to height (in meters) squared and is an inexact measure of body fat, though it supposedly establishes cutoff points of normal weight, overweight, and obesity.
Old definition: BMI > 28 (men), BMI > 27 (women)
People under old definition: 70.6 million
New definition: BMI > 25
People added under new definition: 30.5 million
Percent Increase: 43%
The definition was changed in 1998 by U.S. National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute.
“The new definitions ultimately label 75 percent of the adult U.S. population as diseased,” conclude the two researchers.
…
Indeed, that link was out of date.
Here is the newer one.
http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/brfss/race.asp?cat=TU&yr=2011&qkey=8161&state=US
white = 20.8%
black = 26.4%
multiracial = 32.5%
American Indian = 40%
(from a different source)
Education
less than high school = 34.9%
high school grad = 26.17%
college grad = 8.8%
Smoking bans are a vile,vicious form of discrimination.
At least, when there was racial dicrimination, blacks had the option of having their own pubs and diners.
Blacks were not allowed into the ‘white only’ establishments; but, they were allowed to have their own establishments.
If they chose to do so, whites could frequent the Black places.
Many whites did, the food was very good and the prices were very reasonable.
Few whites went into black pubs/bars.
Antis will say that smokers are not denied access to public places, they just can’t smoke in them.
I am a smoker and I dislike having to become a non-smoker in order to please the nannies.
I, for one, am not impressed nor overwhelmed by their sanctimonious generousity.
Nor were the blacks that could work in a ‘white only’ diner; but, not eat there.
Hense why smoking bans are ”JIM CROWE LAWS”
http://www.ishib.org/journal/20-4/ethn-20-04-334.pdf
American Indians have the highest prevalence of cigarette smoking of all
US ethnic groups (40.8%),
Additionally, American Indian women are the only group in whom
smoking prevalence has increased over the past two decades, from 34.1% to
40.9%.
Smoking rates among American Indian smokers vary by region and
are highest in the Northern Plains at 44.1%, and lowest in the Southwest
21.2%.
Apparently, the CDC cherry-picked a middle number in order to minimize the results.
What CDC fudge numbers,take pharma grant money to do economic effects of smoking bans in the south and state it has no effect before the study even begins. It reprints Anti-tobacco claims as its standard policy directive on second hand smoke without proof of any claim. It fudges heart attack studies and then prints a retraction only seen by a few in an far off cyber hideaway by its lead junk scientist………The quietly tells others not to quote that junk study after a big hoodoo press release…….
Illicit trade in tobacco products is becoming an increasingly serious problem in southern Africa. South Africa is considered the largest market for contraband cigarettes mostly smuggled from Zimbabwe. Namibia is considered a transit country. Contraband cigarettes in the region now account for 30% of the market.
The Southern African Customs Union (Sacu) loses an estimated N$1,5 billion in excise revenue yearly due to smuggling of tobacco products.
A TISA report indicates that Namibia loses more than N$143 million, or about 25% of its annual Sacu revenue.
http://allafrica.com/stories/201301090385.html
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/studies/nc/nc2b.htm
History of Tobacco Regulation*
The anti-tobacconists were led by Lucy Gaston, the greatest, warrior in the anti -cigarette campaign who was trained in the office of the Women’s Christian Temperance Union and then moved over into the anti-tobacco Movement in the 1890′s. Miss Gaston encouraged children to wear anti-tobacco pins or buttons and organized armies of children to sing and preach to and against their smoking elders (Wagner, 1971: 40).
“All hostility to tobacco seems nowadays to be concentrated on cigarettes,” noted Harper’s Weekly, observing the scene in 1905 (Robert, 1949: 169). It was scarcely a startling revelation. Twenty years earlier, the New York Times editorialized that:
A grown man has no possible excuse for thus imitating the small boy…. The decadence of Spain began when the Spaniards adopted cigarettes and if this pernicious habit obtains among adult Americans the ruin of the Republic is close at hand . . . (Brooks, 1952: 253).
Miss Gaston witnessed some legislation victories. Between 1895 and 1921, 14 states banned the sale of cigarettes (Neuberger, 1963: 52). Even in the city of New York it was declared unlawful for women to smoke in public (Brooks, 1952: 271). Curiously, However, the city of Boston repealed its law which prohibited smoking in public in 1880 (Gottsegen, 1940: 153).
The apparent success of the prohibitionists revived the anti-tobacconists’ enthusiasm. “Prohibition is won; now for tobacco!” pledged Billy Sunday. Miss Gaston also renewed her dedication and actually announced her candidacy for the presidency of the United States in 1920 on an antitobacco platform.
For many anti-tobacconists, when it became apparent that the elder generation may be lost, the war against tobacco was focused on the youth of the country. The National Education Association pledged its membership to cooperate in efforts made in the city, state and nation to safeguard the health and morals of youth from cigarette smoking to the end that high ideals for American manhood may be, preserved for the coming generation (Hamilton, 1927: 168).
The National Congress of PTA, in Atlanta, Georgia, in 1926 resolved “to lend its force to the cause of eliminating throughout the United State-, the use of cigarettes by minors and make this a special work for the ensuing year for the good of our youth” (Hamilton, 1927: 168).
It is for these reasons that the WCTU declared an educational war against tobacco, but declined to seek prohibitory legislation (Robert, 1949: 247).
The disenchanting experience of Prohibition, the omnipresence of the tobacco industry, the need for new sources of state revenues and the prevalence and popularity of cigarette smoking combined to frustrate the anti-tobacco campaign. Cigarettes did provide a new source of revenue. Federal income from tobacco taxes soared to new heights because of increased cigarette consumption and advanced rates.
In any event, by 1927, each of the 14 states which had enacted prohibitory laws against cigarettes had repeated them (Neuberger, 1963: 52). Immediately thereafter these, states imposed taxes upon the once forbidden product (Robert, 1949: 256; Federal Trade Commission, 1970: 3).
Two men, at the Pearly Gates, strike up a conversation.
‘How’d you Die?’ the first man asks.
‘I Froze to Death’ .
‘That’s awful,’ says the first man. ‘How does it feel to Freeze to Death?’
‘It’s very unComfortable at first.
I got the Shakes, then Pains.
Eventually, it’s a very Calm way to go.
I got Numb and Drifted off, as if Sleeping.
How did you Die?’
‘I had a Heart Attack,’ says the first man.
‘I knew that my Wife was Cheating, so one day I showed up at home unExpectedly.
I ran up to the BedRoom, and found her alone, Knitting.
I ran to the Basement, but no one was hiding there, either.
I ran up to the second Floor, but no one was hiding there either.
I ran as fast as I could to the Attic, and just as I got there, I had a massive Heart Attack and Died.’
The second man shakes his head.
‘That’s so ironic,’ he says.
‘What do you mean?’ asks the first man.
‘If you had only stopped to look in the Freezer, we’d both still be alive.’
:-D
Racism and Bigotry for no reason.
Antis claim that smoking ‘Kills’ and smokers should quit so as to improve their chances of ‘NOT DYING’ from the diseases ’caused’ by smoking.
Bull Crap, heavy smokers and never-smokers have almost precisely the same chances of NOT dying from those diseases.
Doll’s doctor mortality report.
http://www.bmj.com/highwire/filestream/400720/field_highwire_article_pdf/0/bmj.38142.554479.AE
The table on page 3 shows this:
Lung cancer deaths per year.
heavy smokers(25+/day) = 4.17/1,000 = 995.83 did not die.
never-smokers = 0.17/1,000 = 999.83 did not die.
999.83 divided by 995.83 = 1.004.
Never-smokers are only 1.004 times more likey than heavy smokers, to not die from lung cancer!!!
When you have to go to 3 decimal places to find a difference, that difference is, for all practicality, non-existent.
Other results:
mouth/throat cancers = 1.001 times more likely to not die.
all other cancers = 1.002 times.
COPD = 1.002 times.
other respiratory = 1.002 times.
heart attack = 1.005 times.
stroke = 1.002 times.
other vascular = 1.003 times..
Smokers smoke til they die,non-smokers breathe til they die. Smoking and non-smoking both have a 100% risk factor for death!
NOOOOO, not much like Rose’s Garden.
More like weeds in window pots as compared to Rose’s Garden.
Rose is awesome!!!!!!
The complete list of things that give you cancer (according to epidemiologists)
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/cancer%20list.htm
Acetaldehyde, acrylamide, acrylonitril, abortion, agent orange, alar, alcohol, air pollution, aldrin, alfatoxin, arsenic, arsine, asbestos, asphalt fumes, atrazine, AZT, baby food, barbequed meat, benzene, benzidine, benzopyrene, beryllium, beta-carotene, betel nuts, birth control pills, bottled water, bracken, bread, breasts, brooms, bus stations, calcium channel blockers, cadmium, candles, captan, carbon black, carbon tetrachloride, careers for women, casual sex, car fumes, celery, charred foods, cooked foods, chewing gum, Chinese food, Chinese herbal supplements, chips, chloramphenicol, chlordane, chlorinated camphene, chlorinated water, chlorodiphenyl, chloroform, cholesterol, low cholesterol, chromium, coal tar, coffee, coke ovens, crackers, creosote, cyclamates, dairy products, deodorants, depleted uranium, depression, dichloryacetylene, DDT, dieldrin, diesel exhaust, diet soda, dimethyl sulphate, dinitrotouluene, dioxin, dioxane, epichlorhydrin, ethyle acrilate, ethylene, ethilene dibromide, ethnic beliefs,ethylene dichloride, Ex-Lax, fat, fluoridation, flying, formaldehyde, free radicals, french fries, fruit, gasoline, genes, gingerbread, global warming, gluteraldehyde, granite, grilled meat, Gulf war, hair dyes, hamburgers, heliobacter pylori, hepatitis B virus, hexachlorbutadiene, hexachlorethane, high bone mass, hot tea, HPMA, HRT, hydrazine, hydrogen peroxide, incense, infertility, jewellery, Kepone, kissing, lack of exercise, laxatives, lead, left handedness, Lindane, Listerine, low fibre diet, magnetic fields, malonaldehyde, mammograms, manganese, marijuana, methyl bromide, methylene chloride, menopause, microwave ovens, milk hormones, mixed spices, mobile phones, MTBE, nickel, night lighting, night shifts, nitrates, not breast feeding, not having a twin, nuclear power plants, Nutrasweet, obesity, oestrogen, olestra, olive oil, orange juice, oxygenated gasoline, oyster sauce, ozone, ozone depletion, passive smoking, PCBs, peanuts, pesticides, pet birds, plastic IV bags, polio vaccine, potato crisps (chips), power lines, proteins, Prozac, PVC, radio masts, radon, railway sleepers, red meat, Roundup, saccharin, salt, sausage, selenium, semiconductor plants, shellfish, sick buildings, soy sauce, stress, strontium, styrene, sulphuric acid, sun beds, sunlight, sunscreen, talc, tetrachloroethylene, testosterone, tight bras, toast, toasters, tobacco, tooth fillings, toothpaste (with fluoride or bleach), train stations, trichloroethylene, under-arm shaving, unvented stoves, uranium, UV radiation, Vatican radio masts, vegetables, vinyl bromide, vinyl chloride, vinyl fluoride, vinyl toys, vitamins, vitreous fibres, wallpaper, weedkiller (2-4 D), welding fumes, well water, weight gain, winter, wood dust, work, x-rays.
That list is so long perhaps it would be easier and more honest to say ‘epidemiologists give you cancer’. Ah, the power of suggestion: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120606142818.htm
What are we told the likelihood of getting cancer, any cancer, is?
Last line of the article: “If we can harness the power of suggestion, we can improve people’s lives.”
I think it already has been harnessed quite successfully but not for our betterment.
The only proven cause of cancer is radioactivity in a sufficient amount to cause cell change…….. Nothing else has been proven to do that yet.
But theres radioactivity in everything around us even in us. But how much is in a cigarette equivalency;
The U.S. national annual background dose for humans is approximately 360 mrem. A mrem, or millirem, is a standard measure of radiation dose. Examples of radiation doses from common medical procedures are:
Chest x-ray (14 x 17 inch area) – 15 mrem
Dental x-ray (3 inch diameter area) – 300 mrem
Spinal x-ray (14 x 17 inch area) – 300 mrem
Thyroid uptake study – 28,000 mrem to the thyroid
Thyroid oblation – 18,000,000 mrem to the thyroid
Average Annual Total
361 mrem/year
Tobacco (If You Smoke, Add ~ 280 mrem)
Not quite 1 dental xray for a whole years smoking ehh!
or
Thyroid oblation – 18,000,000 mrem to the thyroid /shrinking the thyroid
Tobacco (If You Smoke, Add ~ 280 mrem)
18,000,000 / 280 = roughly 64,000 years of equivalent years of smoking!
http://www.doh.wa.gov/ehp/rp/factsheets/factsheets-htm/fs10bkvsman.htm
http://www.doh.wa.gov/portals/1/Documents/Pubs/320-063_bkvsman_fs.pdf
http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancerbasics/lifetime-probability-of-developing-or-dying-from-cancer
Here were told that:
Men have a 1 in 2 chance of developing cancer and 1 in 4 of dying from it.
Women have a 1 in 3 chance of developing cancer and 1 in 5 of dying from it.
When you’re told you only have these odds of not getting cancer, and here are all the things that will give it to you, then it’s easy to believe you will get cancer. The power of suggestion. Why are ‘cancer’ charities constantly referred to as that and not as ‘anti-cancer’ charities? Using the shorthand effectively promotes cancer.
It’s like global warming where carbon dioxide is shortened to carbon as in ‘carbon-free’ or ‘zero carbon’. A repulsion to carbon is promoted but the human body is made up of 18% carbon. The suggestion is to feel disgusted with ourselves, our bodies, making it so much easier to believe that your stupid, dirty body will be the 1 in 2 or the 1 in 3 to get cancer.
Fortunately this power of suggestion used by experts and traditional media is starting to wane thanks to the internet. The spell can be broken by not submitting to use of the shorthand terms and phrases promoted by the political class and the lazy press.
Ex-Lax may cause cancer; but,you will be tooooo busy to notice!!!!
Gawd, they just keep pumping out this bilge. It’s relentless…
http://scienceblog.com/59014/passive-smoking-increases-risk-of-severe-dementia/
I can’t even be bothered to leave a comment there tonight. Probably wouldn’t pass moderation anyway. Maybe tomorrow. I’m off to bed.
The above says it just right for the DEMENTIA BS
If we can harness the power of suggestion, we can improve people’s lives.”
You’ve gotta’ wonder whether the theme of this post goes through Obama’s head while he’s in a Health & Human Services cabinet meeting where they’re discussing the latest agenda of kicking smokers out of federal housing and de facto banning them from the college campus.
And when his Black Surgeon General joins the conversation do they perhaps exchange one of those knowing glances?
Id say their all to busy laughing their asses off at our expense! Paybacks hell……and payback will come and I bet ole Barry Hussein will be the first one in the restaraunt smoking with his kids when this shits over.