Letter: Housing rule can cut smoking-related illness

Aug 26, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Today's Sunbeam

Zameska made assertions that I did not know what I was writing about. I am a retired registered nurse and a clinical risk manager, and I am an ex-smoker. Like Zameska, I felt that my health was not affected until I was admitted twice in the past year with asthma and pneumonia I live in low-income tax-exempt senior apartments for which seniors on ... (more)

Comments
1 - 11 of 11 Comments Last updated Sep 5, 2012
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Aug 26, 2012
 

Judged:

3

3

2

Reducing exposure of seniors--particularly low-income seniors--to tobacco smoke should unquestionably reduce the rates of smoking-related illnesses. As to other illnesses, environmental exposure might increase instance among addicts who choose exposure over holding off on indulgence, but at the same time stepping outside should provide more exercise and there are established benefits derived from that.
Einstein Smoked

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Aug 26, 2012
 

Judged:

4

4

3

Hugh Jass wrote:
Reducing exposure of seniors--particularly low-income seniors--to tobacco smoke should unquestionably reduce the rates of smoking-related illnesses.
Not when the figures from the CDC, Surgeon General, and others have shown that NON SMOKERS aquire and die from more "Smoking related diseases" than smokers do!!

Again - Do us ALL a favor - and quit trying to pretend that you care about ANYONE (Children or seniors) more than yourself!

Doesn't have A THING to do with health - ONLY MONEY!!!!
Old Guy

Brookville, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Aug 26, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Einstein Smoked wrote:
<quoted text>
Not when the figures from the CDC, Surgeon General, and others have shown that NON SMOKERS aquire and die from more "Smoking related diseases" than smokers do!!
Then why do smokers die earlier than nonsmokers?

"On average, the Surgeon General says, smokers die 13 to 14 years before nonsmokers."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5077308/ns/health...
Hugh Jass Jr

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Aug 26, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Old Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
Then why do smokers die earlier than nonsmokers?
"On average, the Surgeon General says, smokers die 13 to 14 years before nonsmokers."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5077308/ns/health...
Surgeon General again huh???- when are you going to learn?????

The Surgeon General ALSO says that cervical cancer is caused by smoking - IT'S A LIE - Like SOOOO many other things they say

Virtually all cervical cancers are caused by human papilloma virus (HPV). HPV is a common virus that is spread easily by skin-to-skin contact during sexual activity with another person.
http://www.cdc.gov/Features/dsCervicalCancer/...

Funny - The CDC knows this - but didn't bother telling the SG

The Surgeon General also says that Oral cancers are caused by smoking - Maybe a FEW - but they now know that HPV causes at least 70% of all oral cancers.
http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/03/incr...

Also looks like HPV is a MAJOR cause of Lung Cancer - at least 25% of lung cancers (in the US)- up to 80% in other countries are caused by HPV!
The data suggest that HPV is the second most important cause of lung cancer after cigarette smoking.(I believe it has ALWAYS been number 1 - and they are just "Fudging" the statement for "Political correctness" )
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19019488
(This study states 17% in the US - most others state 25% or more)

Gee - I Guess you should forget about the smoking bans - and start banning "Oral Sex"!

Hope you are not "partial" to oral sex old guy - you could end up dying - LONG BEFORE MOST SMOKERS!!
Old Guy

Brookville, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Aug 26, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Hugh Jass Jr wrote:
<quoted text>
The Surgeon General also says that Oral cancers are caused by smoking - Maybe a FEW - but they now know that HPV causes at least 70% of all oral cancers.
http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/03/incr...
The oral cancers caused by tobacco have been dropping, because of a decline in smoking. Still, they account for 30% of oral cancers (and those cancers are more deadly. From your link:

"They found the HPV-positive cancers increased 225% while HPV-negative oropharynx cancers dropped 50%–most likely because of a reduction in smoking and tobacco use. Even so, patients with HPV-positive cancers live longer."
Hugh Jass Jr wrote:
<quoted text>

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19019488
(This study states 17% in the US - most others state 25% or more)
So, in the U.S., 17% of lung cancer may be attributed to HPV. That means that tobacco may only be responsible for 80% of lung cancer, instead of the 90% figure usually quoted. HPV is a minor cause by comparison. From your link:

"The data suggest that HPV is the second most important cause of lung cancer after cigarette smoking..."
Hugh Jass Jr

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Aug 26, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Old Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
So, in the U.S., 17% of lung cancer may be attributed to HPV. That means that tobacco may only be responsible for 80% of lung cancer, instead of the 90% figure usually quoted. HPV is a minor cause by comparison.
Time to do a LOT MORE STUDY old Guy!!!!!

You seem to have PURPOSELY OMITTED DOZENS of other risk factors!!
Now WHY would you PURPOSELY DO THAT!!!!

What Factors?- Here are are few of the better known ones

Occupational risks are a big one

It has been estimated that 13 to 29% of lung cancers in men are secondary to on-the-job exposure to chemicals and materials that increase the risk of lung cancer.
•Examples of substances found at some workplaces that increase risk include asbestos, arsenic, diesel exhaust, and some forms of silica and chromium.- For many of these substances, the risk of getting lung cancer is even higher for those who also smoke - cdc.gov/cancer/lung/basic_info/risk_factors.h...

Genetic Risks

There is a genetic predisposition to lung cancer. In relatives of people with lung cancer, the risk is increased up to 11 times (1100%)- Overall, it has been estimated that up to 7% of lung cancers up to the age of 68 are hereditary

Infections and diseases

COPD - Copd increases risks for Lung Cancer 4 to 6 fold ( 400 to 600%)
HPV -(More than 50% of all americans have it) certain strains can increase risks up to 17 times (1700% increase)- In the US - according to the WHO - Up to 25% of all lung cancers Have HPV associations

Many environmental exposures contribute

air pollution

It is uncertain to what degree air pollution contributes to lung cancer in the United States, but according to the largest study to date, more than 10% of lung cancers in Europe may be secondary to air pollution.

Radon

the World Health Organization estimates that up to 15% of lung cancers worldwide are due to radon exposure.- According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), radon causes about 20,000 cases of lung cancer each year - about 12 - 15%

Radiation

Ionizing radiation has enough energy to damage the DNA in cells, which in turn may lead to cancer. Gamma rays, x-rays, some high-energy UV rays (tanning Beds), and some sub-atomic particles such as alpha particles and protons are forms of ionizing radiation.

Some cancers most strongly linked to radiation exposure in studies include:
Lung cancer - Skin cancer - Thyroid cancer - Multiple myeloma - Breast cancer - Stomach cancer
These are not necessarily the only cancer types that may be linked to radiation, however.

One report estimates that approximately 29,000 future cancers could be related to the approximately 70 million CT scans performed in the US in 2007.(wikipedia)- what about all the X-rays used (and misused) when the technology was still young!
Hugh Jass Jr

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Aug 26, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Let's talk about radiation alittle more
While Nuclear testing - Between 1950 and 1963, Over 400 Mega Tons of Radiation was released into the atmosphere around the world - a much smaller amount was still released until 1980.- about 100 MEGA TONS was in the US and US territories - epa(DOT)gov/rpdweb00/rert/nucl earblast.html

If you look at the figures for lung cancer incidence that the National Cancer Institute keeps - you will see that Lung cancer began rising RAPIDLY around the mid 60's - and from the the mid 70's to 1992 when it PEAKED at it's highest - the curve is almost vertical - the Anti-smokers all claim that this is a direct correlation to Tobacco Use - It's possible - but it's also a direct correlation to the radiation released from 1950 to 1963

There has been such a STRONG tie between "government" radiation and ALL cancers (especially Lung cancer). that the US GOVERNMENT GOT TIRED OF BEING SUED ON A CONSTANT BASIS, and just set up a multi Billion dollar slush fund to pay claims of all those exposed (Millitary, Uranium workers, and "Downwinders")- BTW -the "downinders" consist of about 30% of the US - This Fund to date has paid out almost 5 Billion dollars (at an average of about $60,000 a claim)- most people are NOT aware of this - look it up!

Diet, physical inactivity, and obesity

Diet, physical inactivity, and obesity are related to approximately 30-35% of all cancer deaths (includes Lung Cancer)
Also - arsenic in drinking water (primarily from private wells) can increase the risk of lung cancer
The relative risk was 3.29 (329% INCREASE)(95% confidence interval, 1.60-6.78) for the highest arsenic level compared with the lowest.

Living in an Urban area

This risk is approximately 1.2 to 2.3 times that of people living in rural areas (anywhere from 30% to 230% INCREASE.

AGE

The most significant risk factor for developing (ALL) cancer is old age. Although it is possible for cancer to strike at any age, most people who are diagnosed with invasive cancer are over the age of 65.[96] According to cancer researcher Robert A. Weinberg, "If we lived long enough, sooner or later we all would get cancer." (Wikipedia)

Aprox. 70% of all lung Cancers patients are over 65 - less than 3% are under 45
The Average age of Lung Cancer diagnosis in smokers is 71

Now if you JUST ADD 25% from Industrial exposure - the 35% from Diet - the 10% from air pollution - the 15% from Radon - and the 25% from HPV
ALL OF A SUDDEN - THERE IS NO MORE ROOM FOR SMOKING!!!!!
Old Guy

Brookville, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Aug 26, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Hugh Jass Jr wrote:
<quoted text>
Time to do a LOT MORE STUDY old Guy!!!!!
You seem to have PURPOSELY OMITTED DOZENS of other risk factors!!
Now WHY would you PURPOSELY DO THAT!!!!
What Factors?- Here are are few of the better known ones
Occupational risks are a big one

"It has been estimated that 13 to 29% of lung cancers in men are secondary to on-the-job exposure to chemicals..."

cdc.gov/cancer/lung/basic_info/risk_factors.h...
From YOUR link: "Cigarette smoking is the number one risk factor for lung cancer. In the United States, cigarette smoking causes about 90% of lung cancers..."
Vaccines Cause Autism

Winnipeg, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Sep 3, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Einstein Smoked wrote:
<quoted text>
Not when the figures from the CDC, Surgeon General, and others have shown that NON SMOKERS aquire and die from more "Smoking related diseases" than smokers do!!
Again - Do us ALL a favor - and quit trying to pretend that you care about ANYONE (Children or seniors) more than yourself!
Doesn't have A THING to do with health - ONLY MONEY!!!!
Hey DUHMEISTER, if smoking kills more nonsmokers than smokers, guess what? Smoking needs to be banned. R.U. so f'n stoopid??
Old Guy

Brookville, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Sep 3, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Hugh Jass Jr wrote:
If you look at the figures for lung cancer incidence that the National Cancer Institute keeps - you will see that Lung cancer began rising RAPIDLY around the mid 60's - and from the the mid 70's to 1992 when it PEAKED at it's highest - the curve is almost vertical - the Anti-smokers all claim that this is a direct correlation to Tobacco Use - It's possible - but it's also a direct correlation to the radiation released from 1950 to 1963
No, actually the dramatic rise in lung cancer in men occurred in the 40s & 50s. This paralleled the rise in cigarette smoking by men, which peaked in the early 1950s. Lung cancer in women followed a different pattern, which reflected their delayed adoption of smoking relative to men.

http://bit.ly/PDJxuh
Vaccines Cause Autism

Winnipeg, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Sep 5, 2012
 

Judged:

1

lip service wrote:
<quoted text>
second hand smoke never killed anyone, just more lies
Yeah...DUH!

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••