The message I got from this wasn't that people who abstain are retarded. The message I got from this was that people who abstain because the media tells them that they'll get cancer are victims of fear. It's not like everyone who smokes will end up getting cancer, but it's made to seem like that's the case. Everything you do will probably have a risk involved, so why avoid everything just because there's a chance it could happen?
Just like Cody said; "I just want to know when did the risk apply the things trump the ability to have fun in doing them?".
Then out of curiosity I ended up looking at statistics from here;
"Consider the case of a 51-year-old woman who smoked a pack a day from age 14 until she stopped at age 42. The model puts her chances of getting lung cancer in the next decade at less than 1 in 100. Compare that with a 68-year-old man who has smoked two packs a day for 50 years and hasn't quit. He has a 1-in-7 chance of getting lung cancer by his 78th birthday. If he quits, his 10-year risk drops to 1 in 9.
So what's a smoker to think? A 1-in-7 chance of getting lung cancer will scare some folks into quitting, but you might be tempted to shrug off a 1-in-100 chance and think to yourself, As long as I quit by 42, I'm O.K. Think again. More smokers die of heart disease than lung cancer--not to mention that smokers have greater susceptibility to emphysema and other chronic illnesses."
They're telling us that there's a 1/100 chance of getting cancer if you smoke a pack a day for 28 years, yet right near the end remind us to think again. What the fuck? Does every pack of cigarettes have to keep reminding us that we can get cancer? It's like the whole image is saying that we WILL get cancer.
I smoke occasionally and with pipe tobacco. Looking at these statistics the chances of me getting anything seem way to slim to even be worrying about getting cancer.
So for you smokers and non-smokers, what do you think about the media trying to implement fear into everything and anything that's enjoyable?
George Carlisle on the ridiculousness of public smoking spaces...
A smoking section in a restaurant is like having a peeing section in a pool.
"Are we really to believe that cigarettes alone are the cause of our cancer?!"
Of course not, but at the time much of the anti-smoking campaigning really gained force, smoking was one of the most ubiquitous carcinogens consumed strictly for recreational purposes.
"Cancer increases have gone up DRASTICALLY since the 1950's. What changed in the 50's??"
The introduction and ENORMOUS consumer use of microwaves and microwaved food. Radiation people. IT KILLS.
Do you have a reliable source for the supporting data? Have incidences really gone up dramatically, or are there other factors affecting the numbers. Is there actually a documented correlation between the increase in microwave usage and cancer rate?
Microwave energy is used to excite/vibrate the water molecules of foodstuffs and generate heat. I am not aware of any residual radiation that results from this process. If the seals on the microwave are in good order the small amount emitted is contained.
More worry should be directed at your cell phone: that thing pressed against your skull... :^ )
Jesting about what? No amusement intended.....
The operation of microwave cookers or cell phones?
I haven't conducted any lab tests on mine but a properly sealed microwave oven SUPPOSEDLY contains 99.9% of the microwave energy to inside the unit, according to manufacturers:
Several countries, as well as the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), the International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety (ICES) of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) and the European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization (CENELEC), have set a product emission limit of 50 watts per square metre (W/m2) at any point 5 cm away from the external surfaces of the oven. In practice, emissions from modern domestic microwave ovens are substantially below this international limit, and have interlocks that prevent people being exposed to microwaves while the oven is on. Moreover, exposure decreases rapidly with distance; e.g. a person 50 cm from the oven receives about one one-hundredth of the microwave exposure of a person 5 cm away.
Radon is a bigger concern for me..... :^ )
Smokers will always defend smoking because they are addicted. I was a staunch defender for 20 plus years until I felt that I was aging faster than I should be and I finally bit the bullet and quit. Now I see that all my excuses for enjoying it and thinking it calmed me were nothing more than my body demanding my addiction be fed.
Smoking will kill you eventually, but if it waits til your 80, it will make your last couple decades a living hell. People can defend it, but until they've actually quit and can experience both sides of the argument, arguing "for" smoking is just the addiction talking.
Since I'm a nurse, I can remember years ago, how many people walked around with oxygen tanks, only to turn them off, have a smoke, and turn them back on to resume breathing. COPD was rampant. Now that there are less smokers, you don't see it as much. Heart disease, diabetes and obesity are all made worse by smoking, but the COPD is right there in your face and unless you're a severe asthmatic, smoking is pretty much the ONLY cause of it and its crippling. I just got off the phone this evening with a long time friend and smoker. He could barely finish a sentence. Its really no way to live.
If anyone is needing some help quitting, try Whyquit.com. It's the best resource I have ever seen to quit smoking and I used it extensively when I quit.
Not only are there less smokers, but those who do smoke a lot less... both my parents used to smoke 3 packs a day, that was back in the day when it was 25 per pack, and they were "King Size". My parents smoked from age 13, as did my brother and sister.
From what I've seen with my families multiple attempts at quitting... my mother was always so moralistic and so judgemental of everyone, yet could not see her own addiction. I think she did not admit to herself that she was an addict before age 55. My brother, tho he was the first to quit (but he hops back on now and then) also does not confess to addiction. My sister suffered other drug addictions on top of nicotine, she also refused to call smoking an addiction, she said she smoked because "she likes it". I'm always a little surprised at how society treats alcohol addiction differently from nicotine addiction. In North America, nicotine companies are no longer allowed to market to youth, and in Canada, they're longer allowed to sponsor large events such as music festivals or sporting events. Taking out advertising is a huge factor... unfortunately, marketing to youth is still full blown in on other continents. I've read about raves in Europe that are sponsored by nicotine companies, where smokes are given out for free to youth, even though this practice is banned.
I am curious to see how the nicotine inhaler, such as grandiosely advertised in The Tourist. It will reduce combustion based toxins and particulates, but the nicotine and farming chemicals will still be highly present. If I'm not mistaking, health problems such as COPD are due to the combustion, not the nicotine molecule per se?
My mom had stopped for 10 years, she is 67 and vegetarian, and has just started again, while on vacation down South. As with alcohol... once an addict... always an alcoholic... always a cigarette smoker. Quitting for good is a work in progress.