View previous topic | View next topic

DEATH RATES

Page 1 of 4
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

MatC
49932.  Thu Feb 09, 2006 7:56 am Reply with quote

New York City taxi drivers are “60 times more likely to be killed on the job than any other group of workers in the city, including the police.”

Source: Morning Star, 8 August 2005, book review of ‘Taxi-cabs and capitalism in New York City,’ by Biju Mathew (New Press).

 
Flash
60248.  Thu Mar 16, 2006 10:29 am Reply with quote

Smoking will soon be a bigger killer than AIDS + malaria + other stuff combined, says Bunter. MatC begs to differ. Seconds out, gents - get stuck in.

 
eggshaped
61164.  Tue Mar 21, 2006 7:24 am Reply with quote

In addition to the above smoking stuff, cigarettes contain embalming fluid (formaldehyde), toilet cleaner (ammonia), nail polish remover (acetone) and rat poison (arsenic).

However they also contain drugs used to treat leukemia (urethene), cardiovascular disease (Solanesol) and diabetes (Pyrrolidine)

http://www.quit-smoking-stop.com/harmful-chemicals-in-cigarettes.html
http://www.envtox.ucdavis.edu/cehs/TOXINS/urethane.htm
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5863903.html
long url

could be something on drugs here?

 
Flash
64241.  Fri Apr 07, 2006 7:45 am Reply with quote

Well, that fight never really got going. Bunter tells me that this would have been his opening gambit:

Quote:
The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that by 2020 tobacco-related illness including heart disease, cancer and respiratory disorders will be the world's leading killer, responsible for more deaths than AIDS, tuberculosis, road accidents, murder and suicide put together.

A staggering 52.8 million people smoke cigarettes in the US, and of these 4.1 million are teenagers aged 12 to 17. The side effects are loss of breath, a racing heart rate, and impotency or infertility (inability to have children) – and that's just for starters! And it's not only those lighting up cigarettes that are at risk – passive smokers (people who breathe in cigarette smoke) lose out too. Statistics show non-smokers living with smokers have more than a 20% higher risk of getting lung cancer.

WANT TO KNOW MORE?
In recent years, smokers battling with life-threatening diseases have won record amounts of money in the courts from the tobacco giants. Judges have ruled the smoker is 60% responsible and the tobacco giants are 40% responsible. This was the result of evidence that showed the tobacco industry targeted young people and knew all along its products were addictive and caused death.
http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/content_pages/record.asp?recordid=52507

 
Bunter
64257.  Fri Apr 07, 2006 8:51 am Reply with quote

The most disturbing fact (from the Guiness book) is that 12,000 people die a day from smoking IN AMERICA ALONE.

12,000 people! It's crazy. Saddam Hussein didn't kill 12,000 people a day, yet George Dubya's administration (any administration for that matter) PROFITS FROM THIS DEATH, which qualifies them for 'aiding and abetting' if you ask me.

One day smoking will be looked back on as the greatest scandal of the 20 and 21st centuries. How could it not?

I'm so shocked that I've just booked in to a hypnotherapist to give up the dreaded weed myself.

I'm shaking with anger. Time for a fag...

 
Gray
64264.  Fri Apr 07, 2006 9:38 am Reply with quote

Hypnotherapist? Good luck with that!

In my experience, the best way to give up smoking is to stop buying them, putting them in your mouth, and setting fire to them.

 
DELETED
64797.  Tue Apr 11, 2006 5:50 am Reply with quote

DELETED

 
Flash
64802.  Tue Apr 11, 2006 6:03 am Reply with quote

I don't know anything about this subject, but I challenge your method of argument, sirrah! Cherry-picking statistics is no basis for attacking a body of scientific research. I don't say that there is no basis for questioning the mainstream view on this, but I do quibble with this one.

 
DELETED
64812.  Tue Apr 11, 2006 6:41 am Reply with quote

DELETED

 
MatC
64816.  Tue Apr 11, 2006 6:51 am Reply with quote

Flash wrote:
Cherry-picking statistics is no basis for attacking a body of scientific research.


But Flash, that is the ONLY basis on which the anti-smoking crusade uses, or has ever used, science!

No, no, I won't get drawn in ... I won't, I won't. Anti-smoking is a religious matter, therefore there's no point in arguing against it ... I hereby retire. With my pipe.

 
Flash
64825.  Tue Apr 11, 2006 7:14 am Reply with quote

I'm not going to get drawn in either, Garrick - but as to method: you make two headline assertions (one about Portugal and one about Japan) and offer them as a refutation of 60 years of accumulated worldwide research findings both as to statistical links and as to findings of cause-and-effect. I'll have some of them cherries, if I may.

 
DELETED
64833.  Tue Apr 11, 2006 7:49 am Reply with quote

DELETED

 
Flash
64839.  Tue Apr 11, 2006 8:14 am Reply with quote

OK

 
DELETED
64840.  Tue Apr 11, 2006 8:22 am Reply with quote

DELETED

 
DELETED
64841.  Tue Apr 11, 2006 8:28 am Reply with quote

DELETED

 

Page 1 of 4
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group