Published
And how is radiation, asbestos, and any other cause the least bit pertinent to this thread? It doesn't make smoking any safer.
Don't state something about my thread or my responses if u choose for me not to answer back with truths. It is pertinent to the thread considering smoking is not JUST the cause of lung cancer...and I think we all knew that smoking is not safe...either is driving in a car...I can have many sources the pertain to a topic which can be completely off the subject..i know what I am talking about.
Don't state something about my thread or my responses if u choose for me not to answer back with truths. It is pertinent to the thread considering smoking is not JUST the cause of lung cancer...and I think we all knew that smoking is not safe...either is driving in a car...I can have many sources the pertain to a topic which can be completely off the subject..i know what I am talking about.
I have no doubt that you can find many sources of information pertaining to off topic subjects.....Let me post one that is on topic:
Peto, R; Lopez AD, Boreham J et al. (2006). Mortality from smoking in developed countries 1950-2000: Indirect estimates from National Vital Statistics. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-262535-7.
This states that 90% of lung cancer dx's are due to cigarette smoke.
Can other things cause lung cancer.....of course. Does that have a thing to do with this conversation? Nope.
I have no doubt that you can find many sources of information pertaining to off topic subjects.....Let me post one that is on topic:Peto, R; Lopez AD, Boreham J et al. (2006). Mortality from smoking in developed countries 1950-2000: Indirect estimates from National Vital Statistics. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-262535-7.
This states that 90% of lung cancer dx's are due to cigarette smoke.
Can other things cause lung cancer.....of course. Does that have a thing to do with this conversation? Nope.
Actually 87% of smoking causes lung cancer..and only about 10 to 15 percent of ppl who smoke develop lung cancer
Actually 87% of smoking causes lung cancer..and only about 10 to 15 percent of ppl who smoke develop lung cancer
Not that what you said is terribly different from what I said (a difference of 3% from one study to the next....whatever, the overwhelming majority of lung cancer dx's are attributed to cigarette smoke, you're numbers agree with that.....don't know what you're trying to accomplish here)....but, please cite your source.
Not that what you said is terribly different from what I said (a difference of 3% from one study to the next....whatever, the overwhelming majority of lung cancer dx's are attributed to cigarette smoke, you're numbers agree with that.....don't know what you're trying to accomplish here)....but, please cite your source.
scientificdaily.com
cancer.org
stop-smoking-tips.com/smoking-lung-cancer
tobacco-facts.info/dangers_of_tobacco.htm
govinfo.library.unt.edu/tobacco/prfiles/ll-harms%20Caused%2014-16.pdf
quitsmoking.about.com/od/cancer/Tobacco_Related_Cancers.htm
scientificdaily.comcancer.org
stop-smoking-tips.com/smoking-lung-cancer
tobacco-facts.info/dangers_of_tobacco.htm
govinfo.library.unt.edu/tobacco/prfiles/ll-harms%20Caused%2014-16.pdf
quitsmoking.about.com/od/cancer/Tobacco_Related_Cancers.htm
You got two statistics from 6 places? Never mind......this conversation is pointless, really don't want to have to define a citation......
sorry but those are all credible sites...
No one said the links weren't to credible sites.
After seeing some other of your posts, I see you're not even in a nursing program yet. With that in mind, I will continue this one more post to let you know that it's customary for you to provide the place you collected your data.
So, you wrote that, "87% of smoking causes lung cancer." Which I assume you mean 87% of lung cancer is attributed to cigarettes?
Including the one place you found that statistic allows someone else to go and find it. Posting 6 references for 2 statistics, just causes someone go on a wild goose chase (or completely disregard your post because it's not worth figuring out what you were citing).
Additionally, posting the research study in which the statistic was found would be far better than quoting someone who is quoting someone else.
No one said the links weren't to credible sites.After seeing some other of your posts, I see you're not even in a nursing program yet. With that in mind, I will continue this one more post to let you know that it's customary for you to provide the place you collected your data.
So, you wrote that, "87% of smoking causes lung cancer." Which I assume you mean 87% of lung cancer is attributed to cigarettes?
Including the one place you found that statistic allows someone else to go and find it. Posting 6 references for 2 statistics, just causes someone go on a wild goose chase (or completely disregard your post because it's not worth figuring out what you were citing).
Additionally, posting the research study in which the statistic was found would be far better than quoting someone who is quoting someone else.
I really don't know anything about lung cancer if u read my call light thread you will understand what i'm doing...we are learning about human behavior in my psych class and I'm an opposing person in debates..i do it with my family and they hate it...trust me...oh and i scrambled to find those sites but they do say 87% of something i'm just not sure what....lol...human behavior is interesting i got so many responses to my call light post...please read and comment!!!
I really don't know anything about lung cancer if u read my call light thread you will understand what i'm doing...we are learning about human behavior in my psych class and I'm an opposing person in debates..i do it with my family and they hate it...trust me...oh and i scrambled to find those sites but they do say 87% of something i'm just not sure what....lol...human behavior is interesting i got so many responses to my call light post...please read and comment!!!
I read it; you were acting dishonestly in order to incite disagreements. In internet forums, that's called "trolling." Doing it for a paper seems to be a very dishonest way to gather data.
I'll keep your user name in mind for future conversations, so I don't take waste my time trying to explain....well anything.
I read it; you were acting dishonestly in order to incite disagreements. In internet forums, that's called "trolling." Doing it for a paper seems to be a very dishonest way to gather data.I'll keep your user name in mind for future conversations, so I don't take waste my time trying to explain....well anything.
I am very sorry I wasn't going to tell anyone because I didn't want people to react in the way they did...I even think I provoked myself in a weird kind of way....I wasn't trying to be dishonest but I know this has happened before just not to me...and I wanted to see what people thought and their reactions...i guess i shouldve taken a different path and I'm sorry...
kbm318
262 Posts
I don't smoke but I have went to school with plenty of people who do. And the girls would go outside and smoke then would come back in and spray perfume on themselves. They thought it covered up the smell where it really just made it 10x worse.