How many deaths from smoking related lung cancer

Health related question in topics Demographics .We found some answers as below for this question “How many deaths from smoking related lung cancer”,you can compare them.

Smoking, the main cause of small cell & non-small cell lung cancer, contributes to 80% & 90% of lung cancer deaths in women & men. [ Source: http://www.chacha.com/question/how-many-deaths-from-smoking-related-lung-cancer ]
More Answers to “How many deaths from smoking related lung cancer
What percent of lung cancer deaths is attributed to smoking??
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_percent_of_lung_cancer_deaths_is_attributed_to_smoking
To make numbers work out for the world, they use almost every Lung Cancer death as a smoking related death. Even people that never smoked. They claim 87% of all lung cancer deaths. If you smoked once in your teens and died 60 years later, t…
Is lung cancer now the leading cause of death among smokers in th…?
http://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/ebm/record/1886147/abstract/Smoking_attributable_cancer_mortality_in_1991:_is_lung_cancer_now_the_leading_cause_of_death_among_smokers_in_the_United_States
Findings from the new American Cancer Society prospective study of 1.2 million men and women indicate that mortality risks among smokers have increased substantially for most of the eight major cancer sites causally associated with cigarett…
Why Smoke when Lung Cancer is a leading cause of death??
http://hypography.com/forums/medical-science/14043-why-smoke-when-lung-cancer-leading-3.html
That happens to me to. Well I started smoking when I was 10 (behind the barn, 40 years ago) and at that time there was no warning label, as a mater of fact all of the advertisement for cigs said how relaxing and soothing it was. the warni…

Related Questions Answered on Y!Answers

Will weed ever be legalized?
Q: Background: Marijuana has been illegal since what, the 70’s? It was legal for a short time since but it “didn’t work” so they illegalized it again. Countless man hours and police money is spent on it and even people with M cards and diseases are treated like criminals sometimes. Plenty more.Plan: US Federal Gov’t should begin the long, gradual process toward marijuana legalization.Advantage 1: Police/crime-Less money wasted.-Less man hours wasted on it, more for things like robberies and murders that actually affect people.-Suffering people with M cards get to use their prescribed medicine in peace.—Look at Denver, CO. Not totally legal but mostly reduced to something like a fine. Only 21 and over can have it legally (just like alcohol) and only up to a ounce (more and they’re charged with dealing).Ad 2: Tax money/warnings about health risks-Start legalizing it, marijuana products companies will form, say there’s a weed pack like cigs, tax the heck out of it if you want (money for desperate gov’t), put giant health risk labels on if you want. (If people don’t mind damaging their brains, it should be their right as Americans to do so). Nobody has to use it if they don’t want to. Make people smoke only 25 feet or more from buildings if you want.Ad 3: Stuff is more fun, food tastes better, fingers look like little people-Not for me but there would be a lot of grateful SnusAd 4: Drug rights-Let poor, treated like an African-American by police weed rejoin his unhealthy but loved by millions BFFs, alcohol and tobacco.-Alcohol is really a type of liquid poison, cigarettes are loaded with additives and contain things like ammonia and tar (delicious, delicious tar if you ask me). Are those really that much healthier than marijuana. Rhetorical question, hellz no!Now the disadvantagesDisad 1: Afraid of change-Just like Cuba Embargo, which will be lifted pretty soon.Disad 2: Health risks-Yeah, but are cigarettes illegal? No, you can get them everywhereDisad 3: Spike in use after legalization-True but only temporary. Like when you take a toy away from a baby and it suddenly really wants it. People want what they can’t have, natural human trait. Would be like this: up, plateau, then down + moreDisad 4: Gateway drug-True, it can be, but here’s what you do to solve that: when you’re greatly lowering restrictions on marijuana, greatly tighten restrictions on harder drugs. When people see how much easier it is to get marijuana and how much harder it is to get hard drugs, hard drug use will go down. Seriously, those drugs are horrible for you. Good whatchamacallit for damage from ecstacy is that it takes ice cream scoops out of your brain. Heroin is worst, meth is prob 2nd worst, but it’s all bad with hardcore drugs. Watch any documentary about an addict to see why.Conclusion: Told both sides. Check facts, look at other countries, use common sense and you’ll see that it’s the obvious move.Oh wait, almost forgot . . . Ad 5: The Deaths-Alcohol: many drunk driving deaths. It’s the leading cause of death for teens in all states (DC, not a state, has a different leading cause. Gun violence, I think). Not just drunk driving deaths, alcohol poisoning deaths and deaths from drunk people killing someone too.-Tobacco and cigarettes: many deaths (isn’t it 60,000 deaths a year just in the US?) from smoking-related diseases like lung cancer. Chewing tobacco causes cancer too, but mostly mouth cancer. If you’re a smoker, you might have to get your voice box removed and replaced with a robotic one. Great for a robot costume to scare trick-or-treaters with! Doesn’t just kill smokers, also kills non-smokers who inhale the secondhand smoke on a regular basis (secondhand smoke is more harmful cuz it’s not filtered). Perfect gift for your spouse who sits nearby when you smoke in the living room, an early death!-All these health dangers and you can buy all of the above at pretty much any store that sells food and drinks.-Marijuana: Pretty much no high driving deaths because high drivers are calm and cautious while drunk drivers are more reckless and aggressive. Can’t overdose from smoking weed. You can have to go to the hospital from eating too much weed in food, but I don’t think you can die from it (or it’s just very unlikely).Secondhand weed smoke can damage non-smokers who inhale it, but that’s why you would just make a “no weed smoking in buildings or within 25 feet of them” rule too.High people don’t kill people cuz they are too busy looking at their hands and eating Doritos.Ok, now I’m done . . . smoke weed every day.Edit: is popping tons of pills and alcohol the drug of choice for the winners then? Hypocrite.Nope. I can’t smoke weed anymore but I have fond memories of it. I think alc, weed, and tobacky are all ok in moderation. The problem is that so many people these days don’t have enough self control to do em in moderation. Only bad drugs IMO are ones like meth, heroin, and cocaine that kill people and ruin lives.
A: well it is being decriminalized in many states, and I think more states will continue to decriminalize it. Legalization is a long ways away, but I think eventually it will be legal nationwide.
WHY WHY WHY lets ALL STOP SMOKING !!!!!!!!!!!! :D:D?
Q: it REALLY CAUSES :Men:affects teeth to 30% in colorheart attacksblood diseasesimpotenceFemale: hurts pregnancy FOR GOD SAKE AND YOUR CHILDREN SAKE TOO!WHAT THE hell Most people know that smoking can cause lung cancer, but it can also cause many other cancers and illnesses.Smoking kills around 114,000 people in the UK each year. Of these deaths, about 42,800 are from smoking-related cancers, 30,600 from cardiovascular disease and 29,100 die slowly from emphysema and other chronic lung diseasesCigarettes contain more than 4000 chemical compounds and at least 400 toxic substances. When you inhale, a cigarette burns at 700°C at the tip and around 60°C in the core. This heat breaks down the tobacco to produce various toxins. As a cigarette burns, the residues are concentrated towards the butt. The products that are most damaging are:tar, a carcinogen (substance that causes cancer) nicotine is addictive and increases cholesterol levels in your body carbon monoxide reduces oxygen in the body components of the gas and particulate phases cause chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder (COPD). The damage caused by smoking is influenced by:the number of cigarettes smoked whether the cigarette has a filter how the tobacco has been prepared. Of the 300 people who die every day in the UK as a result of smoking, many are comparatively young smokers. The number of people under the age of 70 who die from smoking-related diseases exceeds the total figure for deaths caused by breast cancer, AIDS, traffic accidents and drug addiction. Non-smokers and ex-smokers can also look forward to a healthier old age than smokers. Cardiovascular diseaseCardiovascular disease is the main cause of death due to smoking. Hardening of the arteries is a process that develops over years, when cholesterol and other fats deposit in the arteries, leaving them narrow, blocked or rigid. When the arteries narrow (atherosclerosis), blood clots are likely to form. Smoking accelerates the hardening and narrowing process in your arteries: it starts earlier and blood clots are two to four times more likely. Cardiovasular disease can take many forms depending on which blood vessels are involved, and all of them are more common in people who smokeCoronary thrombosis: a blood clot in the arteries supplying the heart, which can lead to a heart attack. Around 30 per cent are caused by smoking. Cerebral thrombosis: the vessels to the brain can become blocked, which can lead to collapse, stroke and paralysis. If the kidney arteries are affected, then high blood pressure or kidney failure results. Blockage to the vascular supply to the legs may lead to gangrene and amputation. Smokers tend to develop coronary thrombosis 10 years earlier than non-smokers, and make up 9 out of 10 heart bypass patients. Cancer Smokers are more likely to get cancer than non-smokers. This is particularly true of lung cancer, throat cancer and mouth cancer, which hardly ever affect non-smokers.The link between smoking and lung cancer is clear.Ninety percent of lung cancer cases are due to smoking. If no-one smoked, lung cancer would be a rare diagnosis – only 0.5 per cent of people who’ve never touched a cigarette develop lung cancer. One in ten moderate smokers and almost one in five heavy smokers (more than 15 cigarettes a day) will die of lung cancer. The more cigarettes you smoke in a day, and the longer you’ve smoked, the higher your risk of lung cancer. Similarly, the risk rises the deeper you inhale and the earlier in life you started smoking.For ex-smokers, it takes approximately 15 years before the risk of lung cancer drops to the same as that of a non-smoker.If you smoke, the risk of contracting mouth cancer is four times higher than for a non-smoker. Cancer can start in many areas of the mouth, with the most common being on or underneath the tongue, or on the lips.Other types of cancer that are more common in smokers are: bladder cancer cancer of the oesophagus cancer of the kidneys cancer of the pancreas cervical cancer Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a collective term for a group of conditions that block airflow and make breathing more difficult, such as: emphysema – breathlessness caused by damage to the air sacs (alveoli) chronic bronchitis – coughing with a lot of mucus that continues for at least three months. Smoking is the most common cause of COPD and is responsible for 80 per cent of cases.It’s estimated that 94 per cent of 20-a-day smokers have some emphysema when the lungs are examined after death, while more than 90 per cent of non-smokers have little or none.COPD typically starts between the ages of 35 and 45 when lung function starts to decline anyway.In smokers, the rate of decline in lung function can be three times the usual rate. As lung function declines, breathlessntell me if the question is useful and tell mE IF U STOPED SMOKING AT THE MOMENT U READ THIS THANKS!:D
A: Most smokers are not capable of quitting or even interested in quitting.They are mainly interested in today and although they are well aware of the health dangers they choose to ignore them.All your useful information is likely to fall on mostly deaf ears but hopefully you have provided some people with the motivation to quit. Hopefully all your good work will help some smokers to quit.
Can someone help me with my essay?My tutor wants me to prevent my essay from being a collection of statement?
Q: Smoking should be banned in public placesThis essay investigates the question of whether or not smoking should be banned in public places. The essay will cover the advantages and disadvantages of banning smoking in public places and how people react to this controversial issue. It should be pointed out that this question has been badly debated all over the country and there are many different views.Let us first of all consider the point of view that over 40,000 careful studies have proven that smoking causes disease and death (http://www.ash.org.uk/). Every medical and health agency agrees to the fact that smoking is a problem and an estimated 1,000 people in Britain die every year from smoking-related diseases such as lung cancer and heart diseases. (http://www.guardian.co.ukl)Smoking affects not only smokers themselves, but also non-smokers. Environmental tobacco smoke is known to be a major source of indoor air pollution and the inhalation of it is known as passive smoking.Majority of the ASH (http://www.ash.org.uk) scientific studies have concluded that passive smoking increase the risk of contracting fatal illnesses such as lung cancer and heart problems, and is associated with a variety of health problems in children including cot death and chronic middle ear infections. Based on the findings of the SCOTH (Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health) report and California EPA review (http://www.advisorybodies.doh.gov.uk);ASH estimates that about 600 lung cancer deaths and up to 12,000 cases of heart diseases in non-smokers can be attributed to passive smoking each year in the U.K. Non-smokers exposed to passive smoke have around a 25% increased chance of contracting heart disease even though on average they inhale the equivalent of 1% of the smoke that a smoker does. Also, the cancer risk for non-smokers exposed to tobacco smoke is approximately in proportion to exposure when compared to the risks faced by smokers.Likewise, in a 1992 report, the Royal College of Physicians estimated that 17,000 children under the age of five are admitted to hospital every year in the U.K. as a result of illnesses resulting from passive smoking (http://www.guardian.co.uk). Also, the impact of smoking on health inequalities is carried from generation to generation. Children whose parents smoke are three times, as likely to smoke themselves and are also more heavily exposed to the harmful effects of smoke pollution. In consequence, children exposed to smoking environments are more likely to go on to become smokers themselves and suffer the ill effect of it.Smoking does not only bring health problems, but also environmental problems. The 1999 office for National Statistics survey (http://www.ash.org.uk/) into attitude to smoking found that 62% of non-smokers would mind if people smoked near them because it causes unpleasant smell, and 38% said that it makes clothes stink. Furthermore, the careless disposal of smokers’ materials is one of the main causes of fire and smoking related litter at home and outside. This evidence supports the point of view that banning smoking would be a good idea as it would reduce all these problems.In addition, according to a 1995 survey (http://www.ash.org.uk/), smoking related litter was found in over 88% of all U.K. surveyed streets and further research showed that only 53% of smokers had ever used a bin to dispose of butts, whilst 75% admitted to dropping them on the ground. Also, the GLA (Greater London Authority) itself recognizes that cigarette butts accounted for 40% of all the street litter in London. This further supports the opinion of those who believe smoking in public places should be banned.Having considered the health and environmental problems posed by smoking, successive expert panels and government committees have emphasized the need for protection of non-smokers from second hand smoke, including the restriction of smoking in public places.The 2004 U.K. Government’s Public Health White Paper (http://www.ash.org.uk/) has already introduced a smoking ban in Scotland in March 2006 which will come into effect this year in the rest of the U.K. According to health campaigners, the Scottish smoking ban has improved trade and lured new customers to pubs three months after the stub-out. Furthermore, the ASH (http://www.ash.org.uk/) Scotland survey found that 24% of customers said they are more likely to visit pubs now they are smoke-free and just 10% would go less often. Moreover, levels of air pollution in Scotland’s public places have dropped by 86% since the smoking ban was introduced in March, according to new research. Professor Jon Ayres (http://www.forestonline.org.uk), who is carrying out the study, points out the fact that the smoking ban was always going to benefit workers more. This suggests that the introduction of a smoking ban in public places will be an advantage for workers especially those who are working in pubs and restaurants, yet another argument to support a ban in public places.Soon after the evaluation of the gradual improvements in Scotland, Patricia Hewitt, the Health Secretary, announced a total ban on smoking in enclosed public places which will come into force in England on July 1, 2007, Northern Ireland on April 30, 2007, and Wales on April 2, 2007 (http://news.bbc.co.uk). The smoking ban will cover all enclosed public places such as pubs, clubs, restaurants and cafes. However, exemptions include private homes, residential care homes, theatre stages etc. In Ireland like Scotland, the ban has so far proved successful which suggests that in England it may have a similar effectMost people, especially non-smokers agree to a smoking ban in public places. An editorial in the Lancet argued that 80% of people in the U.K. are non-smokers, saying they have the right to freedom from exposure to proven carcinogens. It also highlighted a study by the Royal College of physicians, which said that a smoking ban would help 300,000 people quit smoking (http://www.guardian.co.uk). The results of this study along with the editorial, add even more weight to the argument for banning smoking in public places.Dr. Astrid James, deputy editor of the Lancet believed that banning smoking in public places would prevent cancer deaths as well as heart and chronic lung cancer deaths in the U.K. Not only would this have obvious positive effects on individuals affected by cancer, there would be long term benefits for the NHS i.e. less cancer would mean less money would need to be spent on treatments.John Britton, a professor at Nottingham University (http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk), said that smoking ban in public places will be an effective means of reducing the numbers of people who take up smoking especially young children. In addition, a report from the BMA says that children, pregnant women, people with lung and heart disorders are vulnerable to passive smoking, and that smoking restrictions would protect the population. While there are those who agree with this, there are also those who argue that if people are not allowed to smoke in public, they will be forced into their homes where passive smoking will still affect their families.Although many workplaces already have a non-smoking policy, many people want a total ban on smoking in workplaces. Based on ASH and Cancer Research UK survey, people said that the new law should apply without exemption. The poll showed 85% of people would visit bars and pubs as often or even more often if they were smoke-free by law. Ruth Basworth of Boots Health Club told the BBC, “Everyone has the right to be protected from harm and enjoy smoke-free air”. She added that, “For any smoker trying to quit, smoke-free environments will increase their chances of success as social pressures to smoke will be reduced (http://www.vitabeat.com). So it seems that there is a lot of evidence to support the ban on smoking in public places. However, not everyone agrees that the ban would be effective. In a report by ASH, 20% smokers were revealed as planning to give up the habit, but it also pointed out that more than 80% of smokers who are willing to give up smoking are not influenced by Britain’s proposed public smoking ban (http://www.vitabeat.com). Does this suggest that a ban would be a waste of time?According to a report by the office for National Statistics, the majority of people are still opposed to a ban on smoking in all public places. The report found that 65% of people favored restrictions in pubs but only 33% wanted a total ban; 48% wanted pubs to be mainly non-smoking with smoking areas. It is argued that smokers who freely choose to smoke and are harming themselves, have the right to, in the same way that they are free to choose to take their own lives. Simon Clark, director of FOREST, said that by banning smoking in every public places, the government is ignoring public opinion. (http://www.forestonline.org)A more serious concern is that bans on smoking in public places may lead to more smoking at home, as claimed by former British Secretary of State for Health John Reid. However, the Royal College of Physicians opposed to Reid saying that after investigating Scotland, it has found out that smoke-free households have increased from 22% to 37% within last year (http://en.wikipedia.org). Here we have the point of view that a ban could actually increase smoking at home and may not be beneficial at all. Likewise, an article on smoking on the internet argues that a smoking ban will affect the business of those hospitality companies especially those that allow smoking (http://www.savethegoldfish.co.uk). Furthermore, a report from the Restaurant Association reveals that £346 million could be lost in income and 45,000 jobs if restaurants were forced to ban smokers (http://www.ash.org.uk). The result of this could be a negative impact on the catering industry as it would lessen the number of customers using restaurants which in turn would result in decrease in jobs.Having considered both the arguments for and against a smoking ban in public places, opinion seems to be divided. On one hand, by banning smoking in public places, smokers’ civil liberties are taken away, and on the other hand, non-smokers are being protected from the health effects of passive smoking.At the end of the day, whether smokers like it or not, the smoking ban will be enacted in July of this year, and time will tell it was a good decision by the government or not.
A: It depends on what your tutor wants. If she wants it to be an expository essay, then it will be a collection of statements. Expository essays are to convey information. If it’s supposed to be a persuasive essay, then you need to put your own opinion, and why you feel that way.
People also view

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *