...would there no longer be lung cancer?
2007-02-09 07:28:01 · 11 answers · asked by ? 4 in Health ➔ General Health Care ➔ Other - General Health Care
Nope, because there'd still be air pollution.
2007-02-09 07:31:19 · answer #1 · answered by jirstan2 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Lung cancer has many causes beside smoking. Also keep in mind that cancer can travel inside someone's body. People with stomach or pancreatic cancer can develop lung cancer without exposure to foreign carcinogens.
2007-02-09 07:32:40 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
NO some lung cancers are in lifetime non smokers
2007-02-09 07:39:28 · answer #3 · answered by hobo 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
some cancers can be genetic, so regardless as to whether or not someone or the world were to quit smoking, the cancer could still persist and reoccur due to the genes we all have within us
2007-02-09 07:36:34 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No (we would still have lung cancer) but there would be a lot of cranky people.
2007-02-09 07:36:40 · answer #5 · answered by Tonia B 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
its not only smoking that causes lung cancer so does pollution and if u work underground
2007-02-09 07:35:31 · answer #6 · answered by Anna, 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think it would reduce it, but I dont think it would end it. Other things cause lung cancer, such as toxic materials and gases, and family backgrounds
2007-02-09 07:38:03 · answer #7 · answered by Fox 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
you dont have to smoke to get lung cancer.Polution is a big problem.Even indoor polution-cleaning agents,chlorine bleach is in its self cancer causing.
2007-02-09 08:52:58 · answer #8 · answered by reikigirl8 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
there would still be lung cancer because it's cancer i could come even if your healhy
2007-02-09 07:35:40 · answer #9 · answered by kathy z 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, still got that pesky air pollution. Our federal government would go under from lack of tax $$$'s from the smoker's cigs!
2007-02-09 07:35:02 · answer #10 · answered by Angie 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋