Smoking and Lung Cancer Stats

I got interested in the geographical prevalence of smoking, lung cancer, and rainfall. I found that tradingeconomics had figures for the percentage prevalence of smoking among men and women for most countries in the world. And I also found a handy interactive map that provided lung cancer incidence and mortality for men and women at Globocan. Next thing I was building tables.

Reproduced below is the lung cancer incidence map. Click on it to visit the source interactive map. Beneath that is a table showing the figures for a few selected countries. I may try and add annual rainfall too.

male lung cancer incidence

Country % m % f LCI m LCI f
UK 26 24 41.6 23.7
Ireland 34 28 37.9 24.4
Norway 30 30 36.8 24.7
Sweden 17 23 19.4 18.1
Denmark 35 30 43.4 36.3
Belgium 30 24 58 16.3
Holland 33 28 46.2 26.1
France 36 27 47.8 14.3
Spain 37 27 53.3 7.7
Portugal 34 15 29 6
Germany 37 26 42.4 16.4
Poland 30 38 70.6 18.3
Czech R 35 27 52.9 15.8
Slovakia 41 20 49.2 10.6
Austria 47 41 36 16.2
Hungary 45 35 79.3 28.4
Switzerld 32 23 38.4 17
Italy 34 19 45.4 11.4
Slovenia 32 21 50.4 16.7
Bosnia 49 35 42 9.6
Croatia 38 28.5 63.9 14.3
Serbia 40 27 64.9 17.8
Albania 43 4 44 18.6
Greece 63 39 53 8.5
Finland 33 23 29.9 10.8
Russia 70 28 55.2 7
Iraq 29 3 14.7 3.6
Yemen 28 6 3.5 1.4
Egypt 24 1 9.6 2.5
Congo 10 1 3 0.7
India 28 1 10.9 2.5
China 59 4 45.9 21.3
Japan 42 13 38.7 13.3
Brazil 19 12 20 8.4
Mexico 36 12 14 5.4
Australia 22 19 32.9 19.2
Canada 21 18 40.3 32.3
USA 25 19 49.5 36.2
Country % m % f LCI

The table at right shows country, percentage prevalence of male (m) and female (f) smoking in 2006, and age-adjusted lung cancer incidence per 100,000 for male (m), and female (f) in 2008. Almost all countries in Europe are present – except Macedonia and Montenegro – and they’re arranged roughly geographically west to east. The remaining countries are a selection from around the world, ending up with the anglo-saxon countries. (Note: these tables have been transcribed by hand, and errors may have crept into them. Treat with caution!)

In Europe, Sweden has the lowest prevalence of male smoking, and also the lowest incidence of lung cancer. Greece has the highest prevalence of male smoking, but doesn’t have the highest incidence of male lung cancer. That honour goes to Hungary, where there are slightly fewer smokers than in neighbouring Austria.

Russia wins the prize for having the highest prevalence of male smoking, but it doesn’t have the highest incidence of lung cancer.

China is another hard-smoking country, not too far behind Russia, but it has male lung cancer incidence less than the USA, where less than half as many men smoke.

There is a higher prevalence of male smokers in India than in the USA, but only a fifth as much lung cancer.

There is a higher prevalence of smokers in the Yemen than in the USA, but the USA has 14 times as much lung cancer.

Why do so many Danish women get more lung cancer than anybody else?

Sweden and Poland are noteworthy for having more women smokers than men.

There are 10 times as many Greek women smokers as there are Chinese women smokers, but the Chinese women get almost 3 times as much lung cancer. I’ve heard the high incidence of lung cancer among Chinese women being explained by the fact that they cook indoors on open fires. Are they the only women in the world who do that? I bet there are plenty of women who cook on open fires in India and Africa. And anyway, if the smoke from cooking fires is causing their lung cancer, doesn’t that mean that it isn’t just smoking tobacco that causes it?

Finland is planning to make smoking illegal. Yet a third of Finnish men are smokers. That should be interesting to watch.

At some point I’ll see if I can plot a scatter diagram of smoking against lung cancer to see if there’s any obvious trend. I’m not optimistic, given that the two countries with the highest prevalence of smoking – Russia and Greece – aren’t the two countries with the highest incidence of lung cancer – Hungary and Poland -.

I may edit this post to add other countries. Would anyone like a particular country?

P.S. I’ve just hand-drawn a couple of scatter charts for the data, and scanned them.

smoking and lung cancer I’ve also drawn lines from the origin to produce the highest and lowest slopes through the charts. This shows, for men, increased lung cancer incidence per percentage increase in smoker prevalence ranging from 2.33 to 0.13.

P.P.S. I found another source of smoking prevalence stats at nationmanster which seems to give much higher figures than the tradingeconomics ones I’ve used above. Instead of 28% prevalence of male smoking in Yemen, it gives 77% prevalence. And according to Globocan there’s only 3.5 lung cancers per 100,000 among Yemeni males. I wonder how they explain that away?

There was a 82% prevalence of smoking in Afghanistan in 1990, yet only 9.5 lung cancer incidence per 100,000 in 2008.

Advertisements

About Frank Davis

smoker
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

66 Responses to Smoking and Lung Cancer Stats

  1. Anonymous says:

    I’m willing to bet if one digs through this and many, many other sources of data and plots them out on a simple double line chart in a spreadsheet program, one could very easily demonstrate that as one thing increases/decreases, smoking or smoking bans for example, another thing decreases/increases – either in syncronization or in opposition – and a lot of sifting through these various facts would even yield some interesting results, some of which could prove the smoking bans detrimental in ways not even thought of yet.
    I once plotted on bar charts using a spreadsheet program all the probabilities of dying from various means, including struck by lightening, hit by a car, bicycle accident, murder, other things – and compared them to the then persistently stated 5,000 deaths per year from SHS extrapolated over the population of the entire US from which these deaths were supposed to have occurred.
    Using probabilities of death from all these causes and comparing back to the purported SHS caused deaths resulted in more odds of dying from lightening in some of the tables from which numbers were pulled.
    It was of course verbotten to publicly post statistical data presented in graphic form on some public discussion boards where the politicall-correct ever-anti-smokers ran amuck and name-called anyone who would say anything contrary to their beliefs, including going so far as to have me banned from several boards which were otherwise owned and operated by “liberal progressives” who extolled great virtues about “freedom of speech”.
    But the graphs demonstrated quite quickly and unarguably that the anti-smoking and SHS hysteria was just that, manufactured pabulum to feed the ignorant willing to believe it.
    Good job there with the numbers and if you plot them out on a chart, would be interesting to see some of the results.
    Imagine plotting the rise in asthma rates with the decline in smoking, or the rise in smoking bans with the decline in pubs and other business trade falling off. I imagine there’s lots of that sort that could be put in graphic form for quick assimilation by the public eye.
    Maybe you could even demonstrate graphically the correlation between liars in government and the rise of quangos, money wasted on ASH, etal. alongside the general economic decline over all and bankruptcy of the nation along with loss of sovereignty – and the plotting of the numbers, in a graph is obviously something the anti-smokers “must believe” – because they believe it when they plot their little figments of cause and effect, which in nearly all studies were proven to be non-correlated, no cause/effect at all.

  2. Anonymous says:

    I’m willing to bet if one digs through this and many, many other sources of data and plots them out on a simple double line chart in a spreadsheet program, one could very easily demonstrate that as one thing increases/decreases, smoking or smoking bans for example, another thing decreases/increases – either in syncronization or in opposition – and a lot of sifting through these various facts would even yield some interesting results, some of which could prove the smoking bans detrimental in ways not even thought of yet.
    I once plotted on bar charts using a spreadsheet program all the probabilities of dying from various means, including struck by lightening, hit by a car, bicycle accident, murder, other things – and compared them to the then persistently stated 5,000 deaths per year from SHS extrapolated over the population of the entire US from which these deaths were supposed to have occurred.
    Using probabilities of death from all these causes and comparing back to the purported SHS caused deaths resulted in more odds of dying from lightening in some of the tables from which numbers were pulled.
    It was of course verbotten to publicly post statistical data presented in graphic form on some public discussion boards where the politicall-correct ever-anti-smokers ran amuck and name-called anyone who would say anything contrary to their beliefs, including going so far as to have me banned from several boards which were otherwise owned and operated by “liberal progressives” who extolled great virtues about “freedom of speech”.
    But the graphs demonstrated quite quickly and unarguably that the anti-smoking and SHS hysteria was just that, manufactured pabulum to feed the ignorant willing to believe it.
    Good job there with the numbers and if you plot them out on a chart, would be interesting to see some of the results.
    Imagine plotting the rise in asthma rates with the decline in smoking, or the rise in smoking bans with the decline in pubs and other business trade falling off. I imagine there’s lots of that sort that could be put in graphic form for quick assimilation by the public eye.
    Maybe you could even demonstrate graphically the correlation between liars in government and the rise of quangos, money wasted on ASH, etal. alongside the general economic decline over all and bankruptcy of the nation along with loss of sovereignty – and the plotting of the numbers, in a graph is obviously something the anti-smokers “must believe” – because they believe it when they plot their little figments of cause and effect, which in nearly all studies were proven to be non-correlated, no cause/effect at all.

  3. Anonymous says:

    I’m sorry, it was the persistent and proverbial 45,000 deaths from SHS, not 5,000, that was the “popular” number being used back then, when reference was made to any and all countries, no matter what the population, the number quoted was ALWAYS 45,000 – 5,000 was a subset of the 45,000 (at that time).

  4. Anonymous says:

    I’m sorry, it was the persistent and proverbial 45,000 deaths from SHS, not 5,000, that was the “popular” number being used back then, when reference was made to any and all countries, no matter what the population, the number quoted was ALWAYS 45,000 – 5,000 was a subset of the 45,000 (at that time).

  5. Anonymous says:

    Smoking and Lung Cancer Stats
    “Would anyone like a particular country?”
    Cyprus?

  6. Anonymous says:

    Smoking and Lung Cancer Stats
    “Would anyone like a particular country?”
    Cyprus?

  7. Anonymous says:

    Smoking and Lung Cancer Stats
    Perhaps another cause for lung cancer
    Genetics the cause of lung cancer Frank?

  8. Anonymous says:

    Smoking and Lung Cancer Stats
    Perhaps another cause for lung cancer
    Genetics the cause of lung cancer Frank?

  9. Frank Davis says:

    Re: Smoking and Lung Cancer Stats
    I couldn’t find any smoking prevalence data for Cyprus in either of the two sources I’ve been using.
    I’ve got Cuba, though. 36% prevalence of male smoking, 28% female. 43.9/100,000 lung cancer incidence for males, 20.2 for females.
    Frank

  10. Frank Davis says:

    Re: Smoking and Lung Cancer Stats
    I couldn’t find any smoking prevalence data for Cyprus in either of the two sources I’ve been using.
    I’ve got Cuba, though. 36% prevalence of male smoking, 28% female. 43.9/100,000 lung cancer incidence for males, 20.2 for females.
    Frank

  11. Frank Davis says:

    Imagine plotting the rise in asthma rates with the decline in smoking, or the rise in smoking bans with the decline in pubs and other business trade falling off.
    The latter has been done several times. But the former would be interesting.
    The more I think about this whole business of comparing one thing with another, the more it seems like astrology. Jupiter is in conjunction with Mars, and the crops have failed, and so one causes the other. Nobody has a clue how.
    The other thing is what John Brignell calls “chartmanship”, which is the ability to plot things in such a way as to make them look scary. The “hockey stick” of global warming is a great example of this.
    Frank

  12. Frank Davis says:

    Imagine plotting the rise in asthma rates with the decline in smoking, or the rise in smoking bans with the decline in pubs and other business trade falling off.
    The latter has been done several times. But the former would be interesting.
    The more I think about this whole business of comparing one thing with another, the more it seems like astrology. Jupiter is in conjunction with Mars, and the crops have failed, and so one causes the other. Nobody has a clue how.
    The other thing is what John Brignell calls “chartmanship”, which is the ability to plot things in such a way as to make them look scary. The “hockey stick” of global warming is a great example of this.
    Frank

  13. Anonymous says:

    Lung cancer cause ?
    How about bad luck ?

  14. Anonymous says:

    Lung cancer cause ?
    How about bad luck ?

  15. Frank Davis says:

    I’ve pulled up another source of smoking prevalence in 1998 at nationmaster.com This has much higher figures for smoking prevalence than the source I used in the article above.
    Health Statistics > Smoking prevalence, males > % of adults (most recent) by country
    # 1 Afghanistan: 82 % 1990
    # 2 Yemen: 77 % 1998
    # 3 Djibouti: 75 % 1999
    # 4 Mongolia: 67.8 % 2001
    # 5 China: 67 % 2005
    # 6 Cambodia: 66.7 % 1999
    # 7 Kazakhstan: 65.3 % 2001
    # 8 Korea, South: 64.9 % 1999
    # 9 Armenia: 61.8 % 2001
    # 10 Russia: 60.4 % 2001
    = 11 Samoa: 60 % 1995
    = 11 Albania: 60 % 2000
    # 13 Guinea: 58.9 % 1998
    # 14 Laos: 58.7 % 2003
    # 15 Indonesia: 58.3 % 2001
    # 16 Kiribati: 56.5 % 1999
    # 17 Bangladesh: 54.8 % 2003
    # 18 Georgia: 53.3 % 2001
    # 19 Belarus: 53.2 % 2003
    # 20 Tonga: 52.9 % 2000
    Frank

  16. Frank Davis says:

    I’ve pulled up another source of smoking prevalence in 1998 at nationmaster.com This has much higher figures for smoking prevalence than the source I used in the article above.
    Health Statistics > Smoking prevalence, males > % of adults (most recent) by country
    # 1 Afghanistan: 82 % 1990
    # 2 Yemen: 77 % 1998
    # 3 Djibouti: 75 % 1999
    # 4 Mongolia: 67.8 % 2001
    # 5 China: 67 % 2005
    # 6 Cambodia: 66.7 % 1999
    # 7 Kazakhstan: 65.3 % 2001
    # 8 Korea, South: 64.9 % 1999
    # 9 Armenia: 61.8 % 2001
    # 10 Russia: 60.4 % 2001
    = 11 Samoa: 60 % 1995
    = 11 Albania: 60 % 2000
    # 13 Guinea: 58.9 % 1998
    # 14 Laos: 58.7 % 2003
    # 15 Indonesia: 58.3 % 2001
    # 16 Kiribati: 56.5 % 1999
    # 17 Bangladesh: 54.8 % 2003
    # 18 Georgia: 53.3 % 2001
    # 19 Belarus: 53.2 % 2003
    # 20 Tonga: 52.9 % 2000
    Frank

  17. Frank Davis says:

    I’ve pulled up another source of smoking prevalence in 1998 at nationmaster.com This has much higher figures for smoking prevalence than the source I used in the article above.
    Health Statistics > Smoking prevalence, males > % of adults (most recent) by country
    # 1 Afghanistan: 82 % 1990
    # 2 Yemen: 77 % 1998
    # 3 Djibouti: 75 % 1999
    # 4 Mongolia: 67.8 % 2001
    # 5 China: 67 % 2005
    # 6 Cambodia: 66.7 % 1999
    # 7 Kazakhstan: 65.3 % 2001
    # 8 Korea, South: 64.9 % 1999
    # 9 Armenia: 61.8 % 2001
    # 10 Russia: 60.4 % 2001
    = 11 Samoa: 60 % 1995
    = 11 Albania: 60 % 2000
    # 13 Guinea: 58.9 % 1998
    # 14 Laos: 58.7 % 2003
    # 15 Indonesia: 58.3 % 2001
    # 16 Kiribati: 56.5 % 1999
    # 17 Bangladesh: 54.8 % 2003
    # 18 Georgia: 53.3 % 2001
    # 19 Belarus: 53.2 % 2003
    # 20 Tonga: 52.9 % 2000
    Frank

  18. Anonymous says:

    Uraguay
    Interesting the way Uraguay is isolated in south America the red one ,east coast.

  19. Anonymous says:

    Uraguay
    Interesting the way Uraguay is isolated in south America the red one ,east coast.

  20. Anonymous says:

    Uraguay
    Interesting the way Uraguay is isolated in south America the red one ,east coast.

  21. Anonymous says:

    What is the average age life expectancy for Yemen?

  22. Anonymous says:

    What is the average age life expectancy for Yemen?

  23. Anonymous says:

    What is the average age life expectancy for Yemen?

  24. Anonymous says:

    The anti-smokers have done it, with their SHS Fraud charts and graphs, “proving” nothing of course, as the science and statistics truly reveal, that they are a lie – Jupiter aligning with Mars, that sort of thing.
    I’m simply saying the same could be done with other statistics and plotted on a graph, makes the same degree of argument using the exact same approach as the anti-smoking liars, right back at them.
    The scared the people one way using two lines on a graph – I’m saying find two lines on a graph to scare people right back again, in the opposite direction – and publicize it.
    As for plotting on a chart, to normalize the numbers when one statistic might be of a different nominal number range than another and to keep the two lines in close proximity, I would suggest pulling the data into a spreadsheet, adjacent to the data run a second column using the base year as the 1/1 or 100% value, then each subsequent year divided by the base year to indicate in percent, and running that on both sets of data would result in two lines that would both fit nicely on the chart, even if one set of statistics is quoted in 100,000’s while the other is quoted in 100’s maybe, but by percentage they would all fall into that 0 to 1 range and thus be comparable, side by side.

  25. Anonymous says:

    The anti-smokers have done it, with their SHS Fraud charts and graphs, “proving” nothing of course, as the science and statistics truly reveal, that they are a lie – Jupiter aligning with Mars, that sort of thing.
    I’m simply saying the same could be done with other statistics and plotted on a graph, makes the same degree of argument using the exact same approach as the anti-smoking liars, right back at them.
    The scared the people one way using two lines on a graph – I’m saying find two lines on a graph to scare people right back again, in the opposite direction – and publicize it.
    As for plotting on a chart, to normalize the numbers when one statistic might be of a different nominal number range than another and to keep the two lines in close proximity, I would suggest pulling the data into a spreadsheet, adjacent to the data run a second column using the base year as the 1/1 or 100% value, then each subsequent year divided by the base year to indicate in percent, and running that on both sets of data would result in two lines that would both fit nicely on the chart, even if one set of statistics is quoted in 100,000’s while the other is quoted in 100’s maybe, but by percentage they would all fall into that 0 to 1 range and thus be comparable, side by side.

  26. Anonymous says:

    The anti-smokers have done it, with their SHS Fraud charts and graphs, “proving” nothing of course, as the science and statistics truly reveal, that they are a lie – Jupiter aligning with Mars, that sort of thing.
    I’m simply saying the same could be done with other statistics and plotted on a graph, makes the same degree of argument using the exact same approach as the anti-smoking liars, right back at them.
    The scared the people one way using two lines on a graph – I’m saying find two lines on a graph to scare people right back again, in the opposite direction – and publicize it.
    As for plotting on a chart, to normalize the numbers when one statistic might be of a different nominal number range than another and to keep the two lines in close proximity, I would suggest pulling the data into a spreadsheet, adjacent to the data run a second column using the base year as the 1/1 or 100% value, then each subsequent year divided by the base year to indicate in percent, and running that on both sets of data would result in two lines that would both fit nicely on the chart, even if one set of statistics is quoted in 100,000’s while the other is quoted in 100’s maybe, but by percentage they would all fall into that 0 to 1 range and thus be comparable, side by side.

  27. Anonymous says:

    Also, if using Excel for example, after creating the chart, by right clicking on each line and adding a trend line and extending the number of periods into the future to about 10 or 20, then it shows even more graphically what the future may hold – since SHS and AGW liars like to extend forecasts – these charts could do the same. Fancy them up a bit with colors and format changes and you’d have a right acceptable presentation to release by a PR newswire service and voila, the media would have a ready-made argument they can copy and paste into their MSM.

  28. Anonymous says:

    Also, if using Excel for example, after creating the chart, by right clicking on each line and adding a trend line and extending the number of periods into the future to about 10 or 20, then it shows even more graphically what the future may hold – since SHS and AGW liars like to extend forecasts – these charts could do the same. Fancy them up a bit with colors and format changes and you’d have a right acceptable presentation to release by a PR newswire service and voila, the media would have a ready-made argument they can copy and paste into their MSM.

  29. Anonymous says:

    Also, if using Excel for example, after creating the chart, by right clicking on each line and adding a trend line and extending the number of periods into the future to about 10 or 20, then it shows even more graphically what the future may hold – since SHS and AGW liars like to extend forecasts – these charts could do the same. Fancy them up a bit with colors and format changes and you’d have a right acceptable presentation to release by a PR newswire service and voila, the media would have a ready-made argument they can copy and paste into their MSM.

  30. Anonymous says:

    Lung Cancer
    Hi Frank,
    Martin from Cyprus here. I meant to send this link to you ages ago but forgot. I think this doctor was on the right track to explaining the causes of lung cancer. I’ll leave it to your better judgment to decide whether this research is worth further examination:
    http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/smoking_lung_cancer.html

  31. Anonymous says:

    Lung Cancer
    Hi Frank,
    Martin from Cyprus here. I meant to send this link to you ages ago but forgot. I think this doctor was on the right track to explaining the causes of lung cancer. I’ll leave it to your better judgment to decide whether this research is worth further examination:
    http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/smoking_lung_cancer.html

  32. Anonymous says:

    Lung Cancer
    Hi Frank,
    Martin from Cyprus here. I meant to send this link to you ages ago but forgot. I think this doctor was on the right track to explaining the causes of lung cancer. I’ll leave it to your better judgment to decide whether this research is worth further examination:
    http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/smoking_lung_cancer.html

  33. Frank Davis says:

    I don’t have Excel or any graph drawing utilities. But I can write Java a bit. I’ve been writing some code today to produce graphs.

    Seems my hand-drawn scatter graph was quite accurate.
    Frank

  34. Frank Davis says:

    I don’t have Excel or any graph drawing utilities. But I can write Java a bit. I’ve been writing some code today to produce graphs.

    Seems my hand-drawn scatter graph was quite accurate.
    Frank

  35. Frank Davis says:

    I don’t have Excel or any graph drawing utilities. But I can write Java a bit. I’ve been writing some code today to produce graphs.

    Seems my hand-drawn scatter graph was quite accurate.
    Frank

  36. Frank Davis says:

    Re: Lung Cancer
    I’ve heard of Dr Kitty Little. She said that as diesel trucks started to come into use, lung cancer incidence near to roads started rising. But nobody seems to have pursued it any further.
    Frank

  37. Frank Davis says:

    Re: Lung Cancer
    I’ve heard of Dr Kitty Little. She said that as diesel trucks started to come into use, lung cancer incidence near to roads started rising. But nobody seems to have pursued it any further.
    Frank

  38. Frank Davis says:

    Re: Lung Cancer
    I’ve heard of Dr Kitty Little. She said that as diesel trucks started to come into use, lung cancer incidence near to roads started rising. But nobody seems to have pursued it any further.
    Frank

  39. Anonymous says:

    Kitty Little
    “Benzpyrene has never been shown to cause a lung cancer. This is most probably because it is oxidized before the necessary over-proliferation of cells is reached.
    There seems to have been a peculiar reluctance to publish data on the oxidizing characteristics of 3:4 benzpyrene, although after the first draft of these notes was written, a peculiar statement appeared, unsupported by evidence, suggesting that it was an oxidation product that was the carcinogenic agent.”
    Diesel
    “One would have expected the results of such definitive experiments to have been published by 1957 or 1958, or by 1960 at the very latest.
    Instead, publication of papers on the subject suddenly ceased; funds for research on the effects of diesel smoke were withdrawn; lawyers issued instructions on how to confuse a court should an action for damages be initiated; and articles on diesel fuel tended to have the unsupported statement “diesel smoke is harmless” as a frequent non sequitor.
    If it had not been for this cut off of information, together with the brainwashing techniques of the anti-smoking campaign, all lung cancer of the type under discussion could have been eliminated by now.
    The cut off of information about the carcinogenic action of diesel smoke seems to have coincided with the availability of final proof that smoking was not, and could not be, responsible for the rise in lung cancer; with an acceleration of the campaign to make industrial nations more dependant on oil as a source of energy; and with the EEC decision to rely primarily on road transport for the carriage of industrial products.”
    http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/action/document/page;jsessionid=1A622975CD35D2F66C01526368B52B33?tid=yth67a99&page=17
    Rose

  40. Anonymous says:

    Kitty Little
    “Benzpyrene has never been shown to cause a lung cancer. This is most probably because it is oxidized before the necessary over-proliferation of cells is reached.
    There seems to have been a peculiar reluctance to publish data on the oxidizing characteristics of 3:4 benzpyrene, although after the first draft of these notes was written, a peculiar statement appeared, unsupported by evidence, suggesting that it was an oxidation product that was the carcinogenic agent.”
    Diesel
    “One would have expected the results of such definitive experiments to have been published by 1957 or 1958, or by 1960 at the very latest.
    Instead, publication of papers on the subject suddenly ceased; funds for research on the effects of diesel smoke were withdrawn; lawyers issued instructions on how to confuse a court should an action for damages be initiated; and articles on diesel fuel tended to have the unsupported statement “diesel smoke is harmless” as a frequent non sequitor.
    If it had not been for this cut off of information, together with the brainwashing techniques of the anti-smoking campaign, all lung cancer of the type under discussion could have been eliminated by now.
    The cut off of information about the carcinogenic action of diesel smoke seems to have coincided with the availability of final proof that smoking was not, and could not be, responsible for the rise in lung cancer; with an acceleration of the campaign to make industrial nations more dependant on oil as a source of energy; and with the EEC decision to rely primarily on road transport for the carriage of industrial products.”
    http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/action/document/page;jsessionid=1A622975CD35D2F66C01526368B52B33?tid=yth67a99&page=17
    Rose

  41. Anonymous says:

    Kitty Little
    “Benzpyrene has never been shown to cause a lung cancer. This is most probably because it is oxidized before the necessary over-proliferation of cells is reached.
    There seems to have been a peculiar reluctance to publish data on the oxidizing characteristics of 3:4 benzpyrene, although after the first draft of these notes was written, a peculiar statement appeared, unsupported by evidence, suggesting that it was an oxidation product that was the carcinogenic agent.”
    Diesel
    “One would have expected the results of such definitive experiments to have been published by 1957 or 1958, or by 1960 at the very latest.
    Instead, publication of papers on the subject suddenly ceased; funds for research on the effects of diesel smoke were withdrawn; lawyers issued instructions on how to confuse a court should an action for damages be initiated; and articles on diesel fuel tended to have the unsupported statement “diesel smoke is harmless” as a frequent non sequitor.
    If it had not been for this cut off of information, together with the brainwashing techniques of the anti-smoking campaign, all lung cancer of the type under discussion could have been eliminated by now.
    The cut off of information about the carcinogenic action of diesel smoke seems to have coincided with the availability of final proof that smoking was not, and could not be, responsible for the rise in lung cancer; with an acceleration of the campaign to make industrial nations more dependant on oil as a source of energy; and with the EEC decision to rely primarily on road transport for the carriage of industrial products.”
    http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/action/document/page;jsessionid=1A622975CD35D2F66C01526368B52B33?tid=yth67a99&page=17
    Rose

  42. Anonymous says:

    Frank Davis !!!!
    Hmmmm…….
    I was just reading an article about Barrack Obama and they mentioned that his marxist dad’s name was, Frank Davis !!!
    Is that a coincidence – or tell us the truth, you really Obama’s daddy and you posting here on his behalf?

  43. Anonymous says:

    Frank Davis !!!!
    Hmmmm…….
    I was just reading an article about Barrack Obama and they mentioned that his marxist dad’s name was, Frank Davis !!!
    Is that a coincidence – or tell us the truth, you really Obama’s daddy and you posting here on his behalf?

  44. Anonymous says:

    Frank Davis !!!!
    Hmmmm…….
    I was just reading an article about Barrack Obama and they mentioned that his marxist dad’s name was, Frank Davis !!!
    Is that a coincidence – or tell us the truth, you really Obama’s daddy and you posting here on his behalf?

  45. Anonymous says:

    Thanks, Frank!
    I can’t hope to match the erudition of you or your commentators . . so I’ll have to wait for the final proof, but it’s good to know that people of real intellect are working on the no-smoking problem. Now we want a few legal champions to back it all up.
    “Jupiter aligning with Mars” I know the idea that the alignment of the heavenly bodies affecting our lives is utter rubbish (unless, of course, you happen to be a sailor) :-)

  46. Anonymous says:

    Thanks, Frank!
    I can’t hope to match the erudition of you or your commentators . . so I’ll have to wait for the final proof, but it’s good to know that people of real intellect are working on the no-smoking problem. Now we want a few legal champions to back it all up.
    “Jupiter aligning with Mars” I know the idea that the alignment of the heavenly bodies affecting our lives is utter rubbish (unless, of course, you happen to be a sailor) :-)

  47. Anonymous says:

    Thanks, Frank!
    I can’t hope to match the erudition of you or your commentators . . so I’ll have to wait for the final proof, but it’s good to know that people of real intellect are working on the no-smoking problem. Now we want a few legal champions to back it all up.
    “Jupiter aligning with Mars” I know the idea that the alignment of the heavenly bodies affecting our lives is utter rubbish (unless, of course, you happen to be a sailor) :-)

  48. Anonymous says:

    The first mention I found of the protective effect.
    “The hands of tar workers develop skin cancer, the marked drenchings of the fingers, the skin of the fingers which holds the cigarette, which are sometimes deeply brown stained have never so far as I know, developed cancer of the skin.
    One of the gentlemen, the proponents of the cigarette theory, has tried to explain that phenomenon by saying that the first three fingers of the right hand of man have a natural immunity against cancer.”
    http://tobaccodocuments.org/rjr/503243231-3367.html?zoom=750&ocr_position=above_foramatted&start_page=81
    From Lickint, no less.
    The worse the air pollution, the more they smoke.
    So wonderfully counter-intuitive, you just have to study the plant chemistry.
    Rose

  49. Anonymous says:

    The first mention I found of the protective effect.
    “The hands of tar workers develop skin cancer, the marked drenchings of the fingers, the skin of the fingers which holds the cigarette, which are sometimes deeply brown stained have never so far as I know, developed cancer of the skin.
    One of the gentlemen, the proponents of the cigarette theory, has tried to explain that phenomenon by saying that the first three fingers of the right hand of man have a natural immunity against cancer.”
    http://tobaccodocuments.org/rjr/503243231-3367.html?zoom=750&ocr_position=above_foramatted&start_page=81
    From Lickint, no less.
    The worse the air pollution, the more they smoke.
    So wonderfully counter-intuitive, you just have to study the plant chemistry.
    Rose

  50. Anonymous says:

    The first mention I found of the protective effect.
    “The hands of tar workers develop skin cancer, the marked drenchings of the fingers, the skin of the fingers which holds the cigarette, which are sometimes deeply brown stained have never so far as I know, developed cancer of the skin.
    One of the gentlemen, the proponents of the cigarette theory, has tried to explain that phenomenon by saying that the first three fingers of the right hand of man have a natural immunity against cancer.”
    http://tobaccodocuments.org/rjr/503243231-3367.html?zoom=750&ocr_position=above_foramatted&start_page=81
    From Lickint, no less.
    The worse the air pollution, the more they smoke.
    So wonderfully counter-intuitive, you just have to study the plant chemistry.
    Rose

  51. Anonymous says:

    Re: Lung Cancer
    Actually Doll was on the payroll to throw the blame on tobacco and away from the auto, petrol, chemical and nuclear industries at the time. He earned his value too and managed to pursuade the argument exactly where those non-tobacco industry giants wanted it thrown. Since big capital investments at the top are diversified into all industries, across the board, it’s also the same as saying big capital investment simply sacrificed one of their industries on behalf of growing the others larger, including pharmaceuticals, also in on the Doll payola scheme.

  52. Anonymous says:

    Re: Lung Cancer
    Actually Doll was on the payroll to throw the blame on tobacco and away from the auto, petrol, chemical and nuclear industries at the time. He earned his value too and managed to pursuade the argument exactly where those non-tobacco industry giants wanted it thrown. Since big capital investments at the top are diversified into all industries, across the board, it’s also the same as saying big capital investment simply sacrificed one of their industries on behalf of growing the others larger, including pharmaceuticals, also in on the Doll payola scheme.

  53. Anonymous says:

    Re: Lung Cancer
    Actually Doll was on the payroll to throw the blame on tobacco and away from the auto, petrol, chemical and nuclear industries at the time. He earned his value too and managed to pursuade the argument exactly where those non-tobacco industry giants wanted it thrown. Since big capital investments at the top are diversified into all industries, across the board, it’s also the same as saying big capital investment simply sacrificed one of their industries on behalf of growing the others larger, including pharmaceuticals, also in on the Doll payola scheme.

  54. Frank Davis says:

    Re: Lung Cancer
    Yes, that’s all true. But some people think that while his work for Monsanto and co was obviously compromised, his earlier work on smoking and lung cancer wasn’t. He hadn’t been corrupted back then.
    Frank

  55. Frank Davis says:

    Re: Lung Cancer
    Yes, that’s all true. But some people think that while his work for Monsanto and co was obviously compromised, his earlier work on smoking and lung cancer wasn’t. He hadn’t been corrupted back then.
    Frank

  56. Frank Davis says:

    Re: Lung Cancer
    Yes, that’s all true. But some people think that while his work for Monsanto and co was obviously compromised, his earlier work on smoking and lung cancer wasn’t. He hadn’t been corrupted back then.
    Frank

  57. Anonymous says:

    How about adding a few more datasets?
    I like what you have done, but could I suggest you add two more bits of data. Firstly, as mentioned, the use of Diesel vehicles per country.
    Secondly, the number of Pneumonia cases – I understand that a bacteria called C Pneumonia also causes lung cancer

  58. Anonymous says:

    How about adding a few more datasets?
    I like what you have done, but could I suggest you add two more bits of data. Firstly, as mentioned, the use of Diesel vehicles per country.
    Secondly, the number of Pneumonia cases – I understand that a bacteria called C Pneumonia also causes lung cancer

  59. Anonymous says:

    How about adding a few more datasets?
    I like what you have done, but could I suggest you add two more bits of data. Firstly, as mentioned, the use of Diesel vehicles per country.
    Secondly, the number of Pneumonia cases – I understand that a bacteria called C Pneumonia also causes lung cancer

  60. Pingback: Tobacco – Smokin’ the Propaganda – SAVAGE PLANE

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s