Build Your Own Arcade Controls Forum
Main => Everything Else => Topic started by: danny_galaga on November 29, 2006, 08:08:32 am
-
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/29112006/356/anti-smoking-guru-carr-dies-cancer.html
a little ironic, doncha think? he spent a lot of time in smokey seminar rooms, so there may be something in passive smoking after all...
i actually read this guys book years ago. i wasnt a smoker, but i was giving it to one. if you are a smoker i recommend it! honestly! the good thing about his method is he says right at the start not to quit while reading the book.
-
Crikey! 100 a day. At a relaxed pace (which I would hope he was at that many) you figure 5 min per cig. Ok that is 500 min. That is over 8 hours of smoking a day. 8 hours of breathing smoke will not do good things for anybody. It says he quit over 20 years ago. There is a good chance that he was smoking filterless too.
I smoked back in highschool up till college. Asthma kicked in and I decided that I liked being able to breath (something I like to do fairly regularly.)
-
Your chance of getting lung cancer without smoking is 3%. Your chance of getting it while smoking is 6%
-
Your chance of getting lung cancer without smoking is 3%. Your chance of getting it while smoking is 6%
Interesting statistic. Where'd you find it?
-
In 1965.
-
That would've been my guess.
-
The chances of getting lung cancer
The chance of getting some form of invasive cancer in your lifetime is high: almost one in two women and more than one in three men in the United States will develop cancer (excluding certain skin cancers). Lung cancer is much less frequent, however. The chance of ever developing lung cancer is about one in 13 if you are female, and one in 18 if you are male.
These statistics obviously change if you are a smoker or not, and whether you have other risk factors. Though varying sources come up with different risk assessments, according to the Centers for Disease Control, women are twelve times more likely to get lung cancer if they smoke than if they don’t. Men are more than twenty times as likely. And the more you smoke, the worse it is.
http://www.stats.org/stories/lung_cancer_rates_mar08_06.htm
-----------------------
-
A report I did in 1982. Back when they didn't bias results as much as now.
-
Don't you think things have changed as far as medical discoveries in 24 years?
-
A report I did in 1982. Back when they didn't bias results as much as now.
I saw an old tv commercial that claimed that smoking was healthy. Somehow I have a feeling that the statistics today are more accurate, not because of bias, but because of better diagnostics and recognition of causality.
-
Don't you think things have changed as far as medical discoveries in 24 years?
Who cares? Smoking increases your chance of getting lung cancer. This was factual in 1982 and it still is today. Every smoker knows it is bad for them and the decision to smoke is not influenced by the latest statistical discovery.
If statistics had any effect whatsoever on people’s decision to look after themselves the world would not find itself in the grips of a lard-ass obesity epidemic.
Now please excuse me, I am off to have some unprotected sex.
-
Will anyone else be taking part?
Now please excuse me, I am off to have some unprotected sex.
-
Yes, but he has to have him back to his pen by 6.
-
I remember when the guy that wrote the book "Run for Life" died while running.
-
Q: " Didn't your Doctor ever told you that smoking is bad for you ? "
A: " My Doctor is Dead" (by George Burns)
-
I remember when the guy that wrote the book "Run for Life" died while running.
Jim Fix? Dennis Leary goes on and on about him on his No Cure For Cancer Disc. Pretty good album.
-
I remember when the guy that wrote the book "Run for Life" died while running.
Jim Fix? Dennis Leary goes on and on about him on his No Cure For Cancer Disc. Pretty good album.
why dont you just shut up and sing this song, pal ;D
-
Jim Fix? Dennis Leary goes on and on about him on his No Cure For Cancer Disc. Pretty good album.
Yep... it was great material when the original author/performer did it, too.
-
A report I did in 1982. Back when they didn't bias results as much as now.
You think politics, corruption, corporate influence, etc, etc are all things that started in the last couple decades? No. What changed is YOU went from an ignorant kid who knew nothing (and cared nothing) about such things and then you grew up and started paying attention. (Like most of us). But that kind of ---steaming pile of meadow muffin---'s been going on since the dawn of man.
-
A report I did in 1982. Back when they didn't bias results as much as now.
You think politics, corruption, corporate influence, etc, etc are all things that started in the last couple decades? No. What changed is YOU went from an ignorant kid who knew nothing (and cared nothing) about such things and then you grew up and started paying attention. (Like most of us). But that kind of ---steaming pile of meadow muffin---'s been going on since the dawn of man.
I think (at least I hope) he is refering to smoking statistics only. I think they are a bit more biased now due to the fact that tobacco companys have been under extreme gunfire lately.
anyway, eff statistics. they don't matter anyway. A study says that over 95% of statistics are wrong anyway. :P
-
A study says that over 95% of statistics are wrong anyway.
I want to believe your statistic, but your statement instructs me to know better...
I'm at a crossroads here... :dunno