Albania ranks second in Europe for smoking rate
The data suggests about 40% of Albanian citizens smoke regularly. Specialist Roland Shuperka says one of the most concerning trends is the increasing number of young, female consumers.
Join the discussion below, or Read more at Tajikistan News.Net.
#1 Jul 25, 2012
because they are muslims and they dont drink %
#2 Jul 29, 2012
You don't know what you are talking about... A majority of Albanians are non-Muslim.
Roman Catholics 16.8%
#3 Jul 29, 2012
Topix removed the indentations. Roman Catholics, Orthodox, Protestant, and Independent are subcategories of Christian.
#4 Jul 29, 2012
There is a GREAT example here!
In Albania 60% of all males Smoke
In the US 24% of all males smoke
Lung cancer rates in Albanian men - are 38 per 100,000
Lung Cancer rates in US men - are 79.5 per 100,000
So the Albanian Smoking rate is 150% higher than the US
While the Albanian Lung cancer rate is 109% lower than the US
Doe ANYONE REALLY SEE the "PROOF" of SMOKING and lung cancer there???
Does ANYONE still doubt that it's ALL LIES??
#5 Jul 29, 2012
Junior, you act as if lung cancer is the only illness associated with smoking. The top three causes of death in Albania are:
2. Coronary Heart Disease
3. Lung Cancer
All of which are outcomes associated with smoking. Albania is #8 in the world for death by stroke. The U.S. is #186. Albania is #46 for coronary heart disease, the U.S is #135. Albanians aren't immune to the dangers of smoking --- it just kills them in different ways.
#6 Jul 30, 2012
OK Mr "I'm not an Anti - but I just can't stop defending their rhetoric"
Then show me the correlation with both (CHD and stroke) with smoking
Albania smoking rate is 40% 60% of men
Albania Stroke rate is 171.61 in 100,000
Albania CHD rate is 154 in 100,000
Greece smoking rate at 42 percent, Over 60% of men
Greece stroke rate is 61.65 in 100,000
Greece CHD rate is 60.33 in 100,000
The Japanese smoking rate was 29% in 2008, 43% of men
Japan Stroke rate is 36.71 .100,000
Japan CHD rate is 31.17 in 100,000
United States smoking rate is 21%, 24% of men smoke
United States Stroke rate is 25.36 in 100,000
United States CHD rate is 80.48 in 100,000
The figures are ALL OVER THE BOARD - WHERE IS THE CORRELATION??????
The risk rates for smoking and Lung Cancer is calculated at anywhere from 4.74 (474%) to 12 times (1200%)
The risk rate for smoking and (Both) CHD and Stroke - is calculated at 200%(2 times)
Interesting Side note: ran into this study while researching
the RR for any stroke was 1.94-fold (95% CI, 0.95-3.96; P = 0.070) and 2.58-fold (95% CI, 1.24-5.36; P = 0.011) for ischemic stroke among men with hangovers. Additional adjustment of atrial fibrillation and cardiac failure and risk was 2.45-fold (95% CI, 1.18-5.12; P = 0.017) for ischemic strokes.
CONCLUSION: This study shows that at least one hangover a year increases risk of ischemic stroke in men up to 258%.
Higher than the risk of SMOKING and Stroke - beginning to see the LIES YET???
#8 Jul 30, 2012
BTW - ALL the above figures were taken from the same WHO link you provided above
#9 Jul 30, 2012
#10 Jul 30, 2012
#11 Jul 30, 2012
But at the bottom you can read:
OUR DATA: We use the most recent data from these primary sources: WHO, World Bank, UNESCO, CIA and individual country databases for global health and causes of death.
The WHO - IS ALWAYS IN THERE SOMEWHERE!!!!
#12 Jul 30, 2012
In case You HAVE NOT seen them:
Here are a few Exerpts from the "4th World conference on Smoking and Health" 1979
Larry Garfinkel of the American Cancer Society addressed the topic of cardiovascular disease and smoking instead of E . Cuyler Hammond who was listed in the Program. Several people made critical comments about this paper . For example, Fletcher noted that the data on smoking cessation made it appear as if smoking had nothing to do with cardiovascular disease . And, a questioner from New Zealand, noting that the recent Surgeon General's Report had played down smoking as a cause of stroke, asked what the American Cancer Society's position was on this issue . Garfinkel conceded that in the United States the recent decrease in stroke has been greater than the decrease in smoking but would not go any farther in defining the ACS's position .
Malmberg presented a paper entitled the Effect of Tobacco Smoke on Pulmonary Function. Malmberg noted that the majority of smokers get neither lung cancer nor emphysema . Malmberg also indicated that age is the strongest determinant of pulmonary function in healthy smokers and that differences in pulmonary function between smokers and nonsmokers disappear as they get older.
And one more just to show their tactics:
Donovan's most interesting remarks related to smoking and pregnancy . He admitted that he couldn't explain how or why smoking harmed the fetus but suggested that, instead of worrying about such fine points, women be told that all unborn children of smoking women will be hurt . Donovan urged every participant to go back to their countries and publish estimates of the lethality of smoking and pregnancy based on the number of pregnant smokers . He urged this as an effective method to get women to stop smoking .(p.14)
Julian Peto - brother of Richard Peto who collaborates with Sir Richard Doll - challenged Donovan on his smoking and pregnancy remarks . He said that Donovan couldn't establish how many pregnancies are harmed by smoking and that it is unscientific to estimate this simply estimating the number of pregnant smokers . He then showed a slide from his own study supporting his view that smoking has not been established as a cause of neonatal mortality . Donovan vigorously disagreed with Peto's view . Fletcher came to the rescue, noting there was yet room for disagreement in some areas over smoking and health .(p.14, 15)
#13 Jul 30, 2012
1979? You're going to go back more than 30 years to find something which casts doubt on the relationship between smoking and stroke? Here's what the 2010 Surgeon General's Report says:
"After adjustment of data for other risk factors, cigarette smokers have higher risk of stroke and higher mortality from cerebrovascular disease than do lifetime nonsmokers, and a dose-response relationship is evident." "In addition, in the 20-year follow-up of a prospective study of mortality that controlled for other cardiovascular risk factors, cigarette smoking increased the risk of death from stroke and mortality rates grew the number of cigarettes smoked increased"
#14 Jul 31, 2012
Indeed, a good example--of using apples and oranges. Where are your statistics comparing lung cancer rates among Albanian smokers, nonsmokers, and passive smokers? How about comparisons on diagnostic technologies and the frequency with which those are used?
#15 Jul 31, 2012
Ah, yes, the dastards! Somehow the work of the World Health Organization always seems to crop up when people are looking at questions of health on a global level. Dang how that happens.
#16 Jul 31, 2012
I didn't have the patience to track down all of that in the site you claim it came from. It is not clear what connects with what in your post either. However, the portion of that mess that actually addresses the link between smoking and the diseases mentioned seems to be saying that smoking AT LEAST doubles the likelihood of--what, having or dying of?--the diseases. The rest has nothing to do with a difference between smokers and nonsmokers, but only compares one country to another. Lots of confounders involved there.
"This study"? What study?
Okay, and how about a correlation between smoking and having hangovers? Are smokers disproportionately represented among the people who have hangovers? Folks on TOpix have been telling us for years that smokers account for so high a portion of the drinking done in the country that just taking away the portion of SMOKERS who would stay away rather than step outside to smoke would drive bars out of business right and left. That sounds to me like most of the people who have hangovers are smokers, and that what you're pointing to is largely a second cause added to the first.
#17 Jul 31, 2012
Yeah, the missing element in many posts is the whole idea of dose-response and co-variates. The person that smokes a cigar once a month is not equivalent to the person that smokes a couple of packs of cigarettes a day. And a lot of heavy drinkers are also heavy smokers --- they are both bad for you, but together they are worse.
The real problem with trying to analyze population data is that it IS complicated. It requires a lot of math and training in epidemiology to try to make sense of it. That's a pretty daunting task for most folks.
#18 Jul 31, 2012
WHERE'S YOUr BRAIN???- Those statistics weren't on the page he linked to!!!!!!!!!!
WAKE UP POPS!- The world is passing you by!!
#19 Jul 31, 2012
YEA - THOSE DASTARDS - They who feel that NO ONE DARE OPPOSE THEM!
And NO ONE DARE try to stop their Meddling in ALL AFFAIRS!
#20 Jul 31, 2012
Gee - The "Old Guy" seemed to have no problems figuring it out!
If YOU can't figure it out - WHY ARE YOU "ATTEMPTING" AN ANSWER?
The rest of your post is JUST MORE RAMBLING GARBAGE@!
Some times pops - I swear - I think you just like to see yourself talk!!
#21 Jul 31, 2012
TRUE!- And it's ALSO the missing element IN ALL THE ANTI's CLAIMS!
TRUE AGAIN!- And ONLY A PORTION of which is EVER ACCOUNTED FOR in most studies (especially in those done by the Anti's)
3rd TIME TRUE!- but it's NOT JUST DRINKING There are HUNDREDS of things that work together - sometimes synergistically.
Most smokers are also risk takers in MANY other aspects of life!
Most Smokers are "Blue Collar" workers - exposed to MANY MANY carcinogens on a daily basis.
MOST smokers are MEN - who WORLD WIDE (Gender alone) are more prone to CHD, STROKE, and LUNG CANCER.
MOST smokers have LITTLE EXTRA for insurance (med. checkups, early detection, better care)
MOST smokers have LITTLE EXTRA for housing - many times having to be content living "next to the freeway" or next to the foundry, or bus station, or high power station. or the Airport or a thousand other "High Risk" places where the more "Affluent" WON'T
MOST smokers are "Red Meat" eaters - not so big on fruits and veggies!
Etc. Etc. Etc.
As I have said there are HUNDREDS of co-variates or confounders - USUALLY VERY FEW of which are EVER ACCOUNTED FOR IN MOST STUDIES!
THAT is the biggest PART of the reason why - They have NEVER PROVED that SMOKING CAUSES ANYTHING!- and the SHS Garbage is JUST THAT - GARBAGE!
Add your comments below
|Team Obama raising tobacco prices on base to cu...||10 hr||Sneaky Pete||1|
|E-cigarettes 'much less harmful to health than ...||10 hr||Sneaky Pete||1|
|New Montana TV ads illustrate corporate tobacco...||Thu||Wrong||1|
|New Orleans is healthier a year after smoking ban||Thu||Pete||1|
|Should smoking be allowed again in Michigan bar...||Thu||RushFan666||31|
|Lonely people at greater risk of heart disease||Apr 26||Live Love and Laugh||3|
|Study: No suicide risk for anti-smoking pills||Apr 25||SUS||2|
Find what you want!
Search Smoking Forum Now
Copyright © 2016 Topix LLC