Bless you, you need some detangler for all those knotted assumptions in your question.
The relationship between actions, or whatever, and cancer are determined by mathematical correlations. In other words, in X many people who do Y, Z many people will get cancer. The higher the ratio between X(Y)/Z, the more likely it is that the action and the illness are related.
Your assumption that lung cancer is the only self-inflicted cancer is not true. There is plenty of evidence that, for instance, colon cancer has shown a relationship to diet, as has stomach cancer. Skin cancer is related to sun exposure. Some cervical cancers are related to exposure to HPV (a virus), which is transmitted sexually, which means that cervical cancer is at times related to sexual activity. These cancers are all related to some degree to what people do to themselves.
Heredity is another one of those factors. X many people who have Y cancer have Z children who get the same. On the other hand, A many people who have B cancer have C children who don't. You have to determine what the statistical probability of A happening vs C.
In a group of 50 year olds who smoke, Z many will get cancer and C people won't. In this case, the Z/C number is high. Just because you happen to know a C personally doesn't make Z untrue. This is known as confirmation bias--that you tend to think whatever is in front of your face (and whatever you personally believe in) is more true than something that isn't, and you don't look for evidence to the contrary. And then, there may be things that your friend is doing (like eating lots of vegetables) that protect her against cancer.
Now let's deal with your "government scare" claim. In this case, you're onto something. You know, all those nutritionists, cancer researchers, doctors, and politicians have to have someone to blame. If we didn't care, they would mostly be out of jobs. So they scare us to get us to pay attention to what they have to say. On the political end, it is considered politically easy to tax so-called vices, such as drinking alcohol and smoking tobacco. So politicians make this peculiar argument that because it's bad for you, it is reasonable for them to raise taxes on it. This is a conflicted moral stance, because then gov't stands to make money off of other people's bad behavior. But that's what it is. [IMO, people who are buzzed on alcohol, tobacco or anything else are less likely to be politically active.]
On the other hand, sometimes this type of policy backfires. In Oklahoma, cigarette taxes were raised a great deal a couple years ago. Politicians were rubbing their hands with glee that revenues were going to increase, because all those sinners would have to pay double what they were before, and since they were engaging in behavior that is considered less than acceptable (mostly by politicians, who stand to gain), the smokers deserved what they got. In reality, the tax increase led people to quit smoking and to switch to chewing tobacco. So many people stopped smoking (or bought their cigs from Native American sellers, who were not subject to the tax), that tax revenues dropped a great deal. The state had to make up the money elsewhere.
So, here you can see that there are logical and consistent ways of understanding the relationships between behavior and illness. You can also see that sometimes, people will just do crazy stuff anyway, and politicians and other professionals just do whatever gets them the most attention and support first, and make up explanations later.
If you have a brain for math, you can study statistics and perhaps have a career figuring these things out for others. It's a career that usually pays well. Thanks for asking a challenging question.
2006-12-09 07:19:50
·
answer #1
·
answered by chuck 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
cancer isnt hereditary. the types of things that make you susceptible to cancer in general are hereditary. lung cancer is just the poster child for anti big tobacco campaigns which is a shame for people who dont smoke and develop lung cancer. the government probably doesnt appreciate the link between smoking and lung cancer because the economy would be hurting big time if cigs were illegal. besides, the government has many more effective ways to scare us. its those lobby groups. dont worry, in a few months we'll be hearing about how crispy cremes cause intestinal cancer and the like since the obesity epidemic is all the rage.
2006-12-09 14:54:28
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
What a bundle of misinformation! My grandmother died of lung cancer after never ... not even once ... smoking! While there are a bunch of known cancer contributing activities that can increase ones likely hood of being diagnosed with cancer, there's no guarantee. It is widely believed that genes for cancer are in all of us, but they only mutate is some of us. I had an uncle, the brother of my dead grandmother, who smoked 3 packs of Camels a day for most of his life. He died of old age in otherwise perfect health. You should do a little research and relax! FYI - The government doesn't scare anyone into paying higher taxes. They write laws and pass bills to do that!
2006-12-09 14:59:29
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
It's not. Many people who have never smoked get lung cancer. Heavy drinkers can get liver cancer. People who get too much sun can get skin cancer. RGBH (bovine growth hormone- found in 80% of the US milk supply) has been determined to be a possible cause of breast cancer. There is no such thing as a "cancer-free" lifestyle, but there are a lot of things one can do to reduce their risk. No one talks about them, though, because it would hurt the bottom line.
2006-12-09 14:50:50
·
answer #4
·
answered by john_stolworthy 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Hello!
I don't know where your getting your facts but they are wrong. Just about any thing can cause cancer. The doctors do not say that these cancers are all hereditary. A person may be more acceptable to cancer because of some hereditary gene. It's not the cause of cancer. There are many causes of cancer. Like too much sun can cause skin cancer. Eating a certain kind of food or some of the ingredients they puts in food.. Like food coloring, food preservative. and many more. So you better go back and re read where you got your information.
2006-12-09 14:46:12
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
3⤋
There are other cancers that are caused by peoples actions such as liver disease which can be pinpointed to alcholism. There is also skin cancer from overexposure from the sun. Heart disease can be pinpointed to not taking care of oneself . even though heart disease is hereditary but it can also effect ppl that don't exercise and eat badly all their life.
2006-12-09 14:55:05
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
There are many many cases of people who get lung cancer that is not associated in any way with smoke. Cancer is like rolling the dice; the longer we live the more we'll roll. Odds are we'll hit it eventually.
2006-12-09 14:47:39
·
answer #7
·
answered by c.arsenault 5
·
2⤊
0⤋
gotta agree with pretty much everyone else. I'm against high taxes same as you, but your attempt to link high taxes to lung cancer is almost ludicrous. Your question is full of factually incorrect statements. I don't think you have a very good understanding of cancer.
2006-12-09 22:40:23
·
answer #8
·
answered by FrederickS 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Your statement is false.
Skin cancer directly linked to over exposure to the sun
Cervical cancer linked to HPV
Throat cancer linked to chewing tobacco
Many others
2006-12-09 14:50:40
·
answer #9
·
answered by bildymooner 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Not sure. But here is some encouraging latest news:
US scientists crack entire genetic code of breast and colon cancers
Research on cancer and the genetic code looks like it may at long last produce real breakthroughs
For more info, visit:
http://www.librarynews.info/
http://www.medical-research-study-directory.info/medical-research-study-directory/
http://www.medical-research-study-directory.info/
http://www.lasik-surgery-san-diego.info/
http://www.san-diego-dentist.us
http://www.san-diego-plastic-surgery-cosmetic-surgery-doctors.us/
http://www.acne-treatment-medicine-1.info/
2006-12-13 11:20:15
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋