....but some people can smoke 2 packs a day & live to be 95 while another person could get cancer at 40. That makes me question the direct cause & effect. If you & I and 100,000 people all drink a gallon of bleach, we will all die. 100% of us. If smoking causes cancer, why does it do so in such an inconsistent fashion?
2007-09-12 06:53:07 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Health ➔ Diseases & Conditions ➔ Cancer
The two examples you give are called "outliers." In any correlation there will be a handful of these "exceptions" to the rule. If you were to look at data from millions of smokers and compare their lung cancer rate to nonsmokers, the overall trend would point to smokers suffering from higher rates of lung cancer. And when you look at millions of points of data, you will see that the smoking/cancer link is actually rather consistent.
2007-09-12 07:03:32 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
I have to disagree with some of the numbers here. Approximately 15% of lung cancer patients are never smokers. People who have quit smoking prior to diagnosis make up another percentage. One does not have to smoke to get lung cancer.
I have read of research into a possible estrogen link in the upturn of young non-smoking women who are diagnosed. Another theory is that smoking tends to irritate the lining of the lungs, allowing cancer to get a toehold and grow.
Here's a quick snap shot: Father smokes - his father did, as well. Mother does not smoke - both parents did. Two children, one male, one female. Only cancer history in family is prostate and a removed case of breast cancer. Person diagnosed with cancer? Not the smokers. Not the mother, exposed for most of her life to second-hand smoke. Not the son, even though he smoked as a teen...nope, the daughter who quit second-hand smoking at 20. Does it make sense? No. Does it have to? No.
Life isn't fair. Smokers don't deserve lung cancer, either. It's a crap shoot - but non-smokers don't realize that their number is in the big bingo ball-hopper, too.
Smokers are a higher percentage of lung cancer patients, BUT, many blue collar workers are smokers. Many blue collar workers are exposed to hazards at work like asbestos, benzene, radon, petrochemicals, coal dust and live in the city, not the expensive suburbs. There are just so many variables to consider, research should focus more on the disease and not only one suspected cause. After all, if the world quit smoking tomorrow, lung cancer would still be a very real problem.
2007-09-12 15:23:42 · answer #2 · answered by Snowflake 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
This is a very good question and I'm going to try and keep my answer short.
My father smoked for 52 years and quit cold turkey. He got bladder cancer which they blame on smoking though I've known people who didn't smoke that got it.
My father's bladder was removed as the cancer was aggressive--it was found in his lymph nodes.
One of his umpteen million trips and stays in the hospital he was diagnosed with lung cancer and the cancer was different from the bladder cancer. His lung cancer was caused by asbestos.
He's now gone and it does make one wonder about statistics. My own thought is that we are all born with a cancer gene. For many of us it lays dormant our entire life and for others it wakes up and tries to take over our life.
2007-09-15 13:01:02 · answer #3 · answered by Mignon F 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is a question of risk factors.
Some people who smoke will develop lung cancer.
99% of people who develope lung cancer are smokers or ex-smokers.
We all need to judge the risk to ourselves.
In Australia we have a population of about 21 million, about 3.5 million are smokers and about 8200 are diagnosed with lung cancer each year.
So the risk of a smoker getting lung cancer is about 200/1000000 each year.
The risk of a non-smoker getting lung cancer is 5/1000000.
So by smoking, you are 400 times more likely to get lung cancer than by not smoking. And you are silly enough to pay for the privelidge of burning money!
2007-09-12 12:18:09 · answer #4 · answered by Tarkarri 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Different people have different degrees of vulnerability and predisposition to getting cancer, just like some people will die of the flu and others just need to rest for a week.
2007-09-12 07:11:18 · answer #5 · answered by Brian A 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
it just proves evolution, we are all different and no one factor has the same result in all people. A gallon of bleach will kill everyone and i would assume that 40 packs a day would also kill everyone. A teaspoon of bleach will kill some people but have no effect on others. So unless you know how much bleach you can tolerate it is safer not to drink any at all. See where i am going with this.
2007-09-12 06:59:23 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋