Cancer News Network: Smoking ban could eradicate lung cancer in 20 years

Monday, November 06, 2006

Smoking ban could eradicate lung cancer in 20 years

BBC news - Lung cancer could be virtually wiped out in Scotland as a result of the smoking ban in public places, according to the chief medical officer. Dr Harry Burns said lung cancer rates would be reduced to just a few hundred cases a year in the future. In 2005, there were 4,000 recorded deaths from lung cancer in Scotland. His annual report also said there were other signs of improving health, including increased life expectancy, breast feeding and immunisation rates.

Dr Burns said: "Imagining Scotland with no lung cancer is not trivial speculation.
"In the 1960s, one in 100 men died of lung cancer.

"Today, rates are falling all the time and thanks to the smoking ban, I expect the reduction in deaths to accelerate until dying from the disease becomes a rare occurrence.

15 Comments:

Anonymous said...: breast cancer xrays

Here's some useful info on breast cancer xrays which you might be looking for. The url is:
http://breast-cancer1.com/; 11:58 PM
Anonymous said...: So what happens when they figure out that some of the cancer is caused by pollution?
STAMP OUT TEH CARZZZ!!!; 3:03 PM
Anonymous said...: This is the most errant statement I've ever read. What is a good idea, has now been turned into propaganda due to your extreme view. Smoking is NOT the only thing that causes lung cancer, and to try to gain support through lies is irresponsible and stupid. This is the information age, and people are smarter than that. After all, if we believed in wide ranging statements like this, we would have 75,000,000 rapists in this country from using cannabis.; 3:04 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous -- I believe the article says reduced from 4000 to a few hundred....not wipe out completely. Try reading the whole thing.; 4:40 PM
Anonymous said...: try reading the headline; 7:00 PM
Anonymous said...: we should all kill ourselves; 7:57 PM
Anonymous said...: WIth the Depleted Uranium in the atmosphere, from the 2 irresponsible Gulf War uses, the least of our lung and other cancer worries is Tobacco. By the way is there any data at all on Tobacco smoking causing lung cancer? Since the 60's over 100 different chemical additives have been put in the standard RJ and Phillip cigarettes, to the point where they hardly contain any tobacco at all; 9:09 PM
Anonymous said...: Wait a minute. I thought smoking was good for you. Doesn't it cure cancer?; 9:13 PM
Anonymous said...: Everyone here who posted something related to another cause of cancer is a tobacco smoker.

You really annoy me because you don't really care about the people you affect when you smoke in public places. Some of us cannot breath smoke and are extremely alergic to it. You might say "then don't go there" but these are public places and I have a right to enjoy public places without breathing your smoke.

So as far as insensitivity goes, I wish they would ban your smoking all over the world. Then you could not smoke anymore. Who cares if you're dissapointed?; 11:11 PM
Anonymous said...: Let's say good bye to person responsibility. Why make any decisions for myself when the government can make them for me? Clearly I'm too stupid to make these decisions on my own.

Comments like the last Anonymous one make me sick. "I don't care if you're disappointed." How about this, I don't care if your wussy lungs are allergic to it. Suck it up sissy.

There is no definite proof that second hand smoke causes lung cancer, so STFU. Let people decide how they want to destroy themselves and mind your own fence you busy body douche bags.; 11:25 PM
Anonymous said...: I suppose all the people who are calling this report bogus are cancer experts like the person who wrote it.... NO, oh somehow I am not dissapointed.; 12:32 AM
Anonymous said...: I suppose all the people who are calling this report bogus are cancer experts like the person who wrote it.... NO, oh somehow I am not dissapointed.; 12:33 AM
Anonymous said...: Hope they ban chocolate and fatty foods too, to cut down on heart disease. Oh, and alcohol to cut down on cirrhosis.

Ooh, and force people to excercise for 30 minutes a day, that should improve life expectancy significantly. And stop driving cars, which destroy the environment and a bad for your health.

In fact, lets close down the cities and force people to work in the countryside. Lots of healthy activity, no bad foods. It worked very well in Cambodia.

Long live Comrade Pol Pot!; 5:15 AM
Anonymous said...: Dana Reeve never smoked a day in her life, and is just a high-profile exmaple of someone to get lung cancer and die of it without touching cigarettes. If it's so deadly, why is it enough to "almost" stamp it out. Ban the cigarettes completely! Oh, wait, tax revenue would be lost.; 8:34 AM
Anonymous said...: Reality is that carcinogens cause cancer, and they are contained in several things, including cigarettes AND water AND tofu. These carcinogens cause an uncontrolled reproduction of cells (Cancer). This is strongly influenced by genetics.
If you want to see your chances of being "susceptible" to cancer, look at your family history on your mother’s side, if they had it, more than likely you will too. If it was lung, more than likely you will too.
I have worked with statistics my entire life, and reports can be tweaked to say anything you want by adjusting what is relevant and what is an anomaly. Cancer opportunities have always been here, just not in the same levels as pre-industrial society. Welcome to the revolution, the industrial revolution.; 1:32 PM