They want to put dead bodies on cigarette packs...

[chanel]

According to a new study by the American Journal of Epidemiology, being a single man can be very hazardous to your health. Maybe even more so than smoking....

The researchers found the risk of death was 32 percent higher across a lifetime for single men compared to married men. Single women face a 23 percent higher mortality risk, compared to married women.

In real numbers, “under the worse-case scenario,” single men could die about eight to 17 years earlier than their married male friends, says Roelfs, citing that nearly all of the data was gleaned from studies conducted in the last 60 years. Women don't fare much better. They could die seven to 15 years earlier than their married female counterparts.

Single people may die younger, new study finds - Health - Behavior - msnbc.com

They are going to have to put pictures of dead people on video games, porn sites, and Match.com now.

 

[Dabs]

If they put pictures of dead people on cigarettes, any clue as to what pictures??
Will they be artist portrayed?? (drawn)
Will they be just photos of any ole joe...or photos of a deceased person whose family members might get a little pissed off seeing a dead photo of their loved one on a cigarette pack??

 

[chanel]

 

[Dabs]

The cartoon ones don't bother me as bad.
But the ones of REAL people, wouldn't they have to have permission to be using such & such person's photo??
Especially that little baby??
I wouldn't see how any company could just take a pic at random and decide to use it, without some sort of permission...but then, I could very well be wrong...I usually am.
But like the photo of the man after he had an autopsy, it doesn't bother me in the least to see something like that, it's doesn't 'gore' me, but if it were a photo of MY Mother or one of my family members, and they were using that particular photo of them stapled up after an autopsy, I would be a little pissed.
The photo that bothers me the most tho, is the photograph of the lungs.
That is how my Mother's lungs looked....she had smoked for 50 years. And then, she only had half of her right lung, because she had the other half removed years before because of tuberculosis.
I don't smoke, so I don't have to look at any of these if I don't wish to.
But they have been putting written warnings on the sides of cigarette packs for years, people just say "Gimme a pack of Marlboro" and go on about their way...they don't care. If they want a cigarette, they're gonna smoke. Pictures or no pictures.

 

[chanel]

Exactly. And that was my point earlier. Nicotine is an addiction. Addicts are very clever with cognitive dissonance. The only people who will be frightened are children who don't want their parents to die.

Frightening children never makes for good public policy. No matter what your politics.

 

[geauxtohell]

What point?

Let's not go there. thanks. ~elvis.

You wrote "The female sex drive goes through the roof when they're menstruating." and quoted wiki. You're wrong; women's sex drive goes through the roof right before ovulation. Go read the link you posted. Know why their sex drive increases before ovulation? Because women are ripe for reproduction during ovulation; it's species survival time.

Then you wrote "That's because they believe getting some goo on your dingy would be embarrassing.

They don't want you to see their junk when they're menstruating.

Truth is having sex with a menstruating woman is the best sex ever."

It's obvious you're not female because most females will tell you that having sex during their period is not the best sex ever and most don't even want sex then. It has much less to do with goo on your dingy as it has to do with cramps, bloating, nausea, diarrhea and utter fatigue. To you sex during a woman's period may be the 'best sex ever' but for her? No so much. Hence, my comment "it's obvious you are not a girl".

Cripes, I can't believe I actually had to explain that.

What a minute, that just makes no sense. Biologically, it only makes sense for a woman to have an increased sex dive when they are shedding their endometrium and have a slim to none chance of getting pregnant for the next 14 days!

 

[geauxtohell]

I don't see a dead body there.

 

[geauxtohell]

The cartoon ones don't bother me as bad.
But the ones of REAL people, wouldn't they have to have permission to be using such & such person's photo??
Especially that little baby??
I wouldn't see how any company could just take a pic at random and decide to use it, without some sort of permission...but then, I could very well be wrong...I usually am.
But like the photo of the man after he had an autopsy, it doesn't bother me in the least to see something like that, it's doesn't 'gore' me, but if it were a photo of MY Mother or one of my family members, and they were using that particular photo of them stapled up after an autopsy, I would be a little pissed.
The photo that bothers me the most tho, is the photograph of the lungs.
That is how my Mother's lungs looked....she had smoked for 50 years. And then, she only had half of her right lung, because she had the other half removed years before because of tuberculosis.
I don't smoke, so I don't have to look at any of these if I don't wish to.
But they have been putting written warnings on the sides of cigarette packs for years, people just say "Gimme a pack of Marlboro" and go on about their way...they don't care. If they want a cigarette, they're gonna smoke. Pictures or no pictures.

That doesn't look like a post-mortum photo. The man has good color and his lips are pink. Furthermore, that's not the typical Y shaped incision on the sternum that is made during autopsy.

It looks like a patient post CABG/open heart surgery. Hence the single line incision and the staple job with betadine around it. Needless to say, sterility isn't a big concern when working on a dead body.

 

[geauxtohell]

You are right Colin. Smokers die younger. But what I'd like to see is a cost analysis of "smoking related healthcare costs" vs. "Social Security/Medicare costs" for keeping people alive until they are 100. I think if people choose to die younger, they could be saving the system mega bucks. Anyone have info?

There is actually some truth to that. Not that that is a desirable outcome.

The problem is that of all the pathologies that smoking contributes too, cancer is but one and not even the main one. The other ones, like COPD, Congestive Heart Disease, Cerebral Vascular disorder, peripheral vascular disorder, etc. are much bigger players and those people are the very people that are in chronic treatment for years. Rightfully so. You've never seen misery until you've seen a COPD exacerbation or a severe CHF exacerbation. I saw a guy who swelled up so badly from CHF that his legs had ulcers on them. The water pressure under his skin was so great that it broke down his skin.

 

[geauxtohell]

I believe individuals have the FREEDOM to make choices.

Not to mention there is no evidence to suggest smoking causes cancer.

Really! The medical profession disagrees with you.

And as I already stated the medical profession is basing it on correlative evidence. The problem with that is the vast number of untested variables involved means finding empirical evidence is almost impossible to come by. Hell we could find out fifty to a hundred years from now that it's all from plastics emissions. Who really knows.

That's absurd. The carcinogens in Lung Cancer are identified and their effects as initiators and promoters of cancerous activity in the lung are well identified. We can even break down the various types of lung cancers into those that are caused by cigarette smoking and those that are not.

This isn't "guess work" by the medical community. Your post sounds like a talking point out of the second season of Mad Men.

 

[geauxtohell]

The evidence speaks for itself:

Experts once agreed that the world was flat. Look what happened there. I'm not saying it's not possibly true, I am however saying it's quite possibly just as wrong. Personally I think the evidence shows it's more DNA related to one's susceptibility which explains why some people who smoke all their lives can live to 100 while some who have barely been exposed to any tobacco products can die from "tobacco" related cancers at age 20.

Well, I wish that I had heeded the evidence. I finally quit smoking in February this year...when it was too late!

It's never too late. If you quit smoking by your mid 40's you can regain most of your lung function and your cancer risk drops exponentially every year. I think at 5 years it is roughly the same as the non-smoking society.

If you ever find yourself with unexplained weight loss, a persistent cough, a bloody cough, or any of the other symptoms of lung cancer, you should go to your Dr. and get a Chest X-ray immediately.

 

[geauxtohell]

Experts once agreed that the world was flat. Look what happened there. I'm not saying it's not possibly true, I am however saying it's quite possibly just as wrong. Personally I think the evidence shows it's more DNA related to one's susceptibility which explains why some people who smoke all their lives can live to 100 while some who have barely been exposed to any tobacco products can die from "tobacco" related cancers at age 20.

Well, I wish that I had heeded the evidence. I finally quit smoking in February this year...when it was too late!

I know for a fact "smoking" is a convenience causative factor that MDs love to use. It's the easy excuse. You lived your life exposed to all kinds of potential causative factors, some known, many undiscovered as yet. As complex as each human body is and how each one reacts to their environments........ We've just scratched the surface of the scratch of knowledge we have, that's all I'm saying.
My best friend died from renal cancer last year, the first doctor tried to blame it on smoking. Brian never smoked a day in his life.

Again, acting like this is just a "cause and effect" argument is really absurd.

Here you go. Some light reading.

http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/91/14/1194.full

This isn't guess work.

 

[Ringel05]

Well, I wish that I had heeded the evidence. I finally quit smoking in February this year...when it was too late!

I know for a fact "smoking" is a convenience causative factor that MDs love to use. It's the easy excuse. You lived your life exposed to all kinds of potential causative factors, some known, many undiscovered as yet. As complex as each human body is and how each one reacts to their environments........ We've just scratched the surface of the scratch of knowledge we have, that's all I'm saying.
My best friend died from renal cancer last year, the first doctor tried to blame it on smoking. Brian never smoked a day in his life.

Again, acting like this is just a "cause and effect" argument is really absurd.

Here you go. Some light reading.

Tobacco Smoke Carcinogens and Lung Cancer

This isn't guess work.

I'm familiar with the work yet if you delve deeply into the actual human studies you will find all the evidence is correlative. Like I said in other posts it doesn't mean it's not a, or the primary potential causative factor it simply means that they may also be extremely off base with this, wouldn't be the first time in medical history, won't be the last. Consider all the extra-environmental variables that have not even been ruled out as possible causative components.
I also don't have a problem with the medical community disseminating over arching warnings concerning the potential risks to smoking but this picture pogrom (Yeah, I used the correct word) dictated by our own government, and an unelected bureau at that, is unconscionable.

 

[geauxtohell]

I know for a fact "smoking" is a convenience causative factor that MDs love to use. It's the easy excuse. You lived your life exposed to all kinds of potential causative factors, some known, many undiscovered as yet. As complex as each human body is and how each one reacts to their environments........ We've just scratched the surface of the scratch of knowledge we have, that's all I'm saying.
My best friend died from renal cancer last year, the first doctor tried to blame it on smoking. Brian never smoked a day in his life.

Again, acting like this is just a "cause and effect" argument is really absurd.

Here you go. Some light reading.

Tobacco Smoke Carcinogens and Lung Cancer

This isn't guess work.

I'm familiar with the work yet if you delve deeply into the actual human studies you will find all the evidence is correlative. Like I said in other posts it doesn't mean it's not a, or the primary potential causative factor it simply means that they may also be extremely off base with this, wouldn't be the first time in medical history, won't be the last. Consider all the extra-environmental variables that have not even been ruled out as possible causative components.
I also don't have a problem with the medical community disseminating over arching warnings concerning the potential risks to smoking but this picture pogrom (Yeah, I used the correct word) dictated by our own government, and an unelected bureau at that, is unconscionable.

I would expect all the evidence to be correlative. It's highly correlative. We understand lung cancer at multiple levels. All the animal studies, human epidemiology, cell biology, pathology, and oncologic studies. Once again, when dealing with biostatistics, we are talking about statistics and means and standard deviations. Does everyone who smokes get lung cancer? No. Does everyone who get lung cancer or associated cancers (i.e. bladder) smoke? No. Do the overwhelming majority of lung cancer cases involve people who smoke? Yes.

The evidence is overwhelming to the point that the only people who dispute it are quacks. It might have worked in the early 60's when the tobacco companies paid off physicians. Today, it's not going to fool anyone.

You point that *there may be other factors involved* doesn't mean much. We don't fully understand gravity either, yet no one doubts what happens when a person walks off a building.

As far as the pictures, there is no doubt that all of those complications occur due to smoking. You can't honestly even mince words about it.

 

[Greenbeard]

Couldn't the FDA have at least included a hat tip to classic sitcom fans in that grisly photo lineup?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ka1PeNNi6dg]Look away--I'm hideous[/ame]

 

[Ringel05]

Again, acting like this is just a "cause and effect" argument is really absurd.

Here you go. Some light reading.

Tobacco Smoke Carcinogens and Lung Cancer

This isn't guess work.

I'm familiar with the work yet if you delve deeply into the actual human studies you will find all the evidence is correlative. Like I said in other posts it doesn't mean it's not a, or the primary potential causative factor it simply means that they may also be extremely off base with this, wouldn't be the first time in medical history, won't be the last. Consider all the extra-environmental variables that have not even been ruled out as possible causative components.
I also don't have a problem with the medical community disseminating over arching warnings concerning the potential risks to smoking but this picture pogrom (Yeah, I used the correct word) dictated by our own government, and an unelected bureau at that, is unconscionable.

I would expect all the evidence to be correlative. It's highly correlative. We understand lung cancer at multiple levels. All the animal studies, human epidemiology, cell biology, pathology, and oncologic studies. Once again, when dealing with biostatistics, we are talking about statistics and means and standard deviations. Does everyone who smokes get lung cancer? No. Does everyone who get lung cancer or associated cancers (i.e. bladder) smoke? No. Do the overwhelming majority of lung cancer cases involve people who smoke? Yes.

The evidence is overwhelming to the point that the only people who dispute it are quacks. It might have worked in the early 60's when the tobacco companies paid off physicians. Today, it's not going to fool anyone.

You point that *there may be other factors involved* doesn't mean much. We don't fully understand gravity either, yet no one doubts what happens when a person walks off a building.

As far as the pictures, there is no doubt that all of those complications occur due to smoking. You can't honestly even mince words about it.

I know what you're saying but without empirical evidence do we know it's the actual byproducts of tobacco that are the causative factors or are they simply a catalyst factor, i.e. weakening the bodies natural immunities resulting in cancers caused by other factors. It wasn't until relatively recently we discovered that plastics give off emissions as they slowly degrade, to the best of my knowledge there has not been one single study on the effects this might or might not have on humans and plastics are one denominator that is common to almost everyone. I don't know, just saying that somehow we need to expand our research horizons.

 

[AquaAthena]

May as well put pictures of genitals with STD's on condoms..

If a product is legal, the government should stop trying to socialize those who purchase it.

 

[geauxtohell]

I'm familiar with the work yet if you delve deeply into the actual human studies you will find all the evidence is correlative. Like I said in other posts it doesn't mean it's not a, or the primary potential causative factor it simply means that they may also be extremely off base with this, wouldn't be the first time in medical history, won't be the last. Consider all the extra-environmental variables that have not even been ruled out as possible causative components.
I also don't have a problem with the medical community disseminating over arching warnings concerning the potential risks to smoking but this picture pogrom (Yeah, I used the correct word) dictated by our own government, and an unelected bureau at that, is unconscionable.

I would expect all the evidence to be correlative. It's highly correlative. We understand lung cancer at multiple levels. All the animal studies, human epidemiology, cell biology, pathology, and oncologic studies. Once again, when dealing with biostatistics, we are talking about statistics and means and standard deviations. Does everyone who smokes get lung cancer? No. Does everyone who get lung cancer or associated cancers (i.e. bladder) smoke? No. Do the overwhelming majority of lung cancer cases involve people who smoke? Yes.

The evidence is overwhelming to the point that the only people who dispute it are quacks. It might have worked in the early 60's when the tobacco companies paid off physicians. Today, it's not going to fool anyone.

You point that *there may be other factors involved* doesn't mean much. We don't fully understand gravity either, yet no one doubts what happens when a person walks off a building.

As far as the pictures, there is no doubt that all of those complications occur due to smoking. You can't honestly even mince words about it.

I know what you're saying but without empirical evidence do we know it's the actual byproducts of tobacco that are the causative factors or are they simply a catalyst factor, i.e. weakening the bodies natural immunities resulting in cancers caused by other factors. It wasn't until relatively recently we discovered that plastics give off emissions as they slowly degrade, to the best of my knowledge there has not been one single study on the effects this might or might not have on humans and plastics are one denominator that is common to almost everyone. I don't know, just saying that somehow we need to expand our research horizons.

Look up the concpet of oncogenic initiators and promoters. I wish I could stick the page/graph from robbins in here, but I can't.

*edit*

Wait. I found it. Figure 23-19

In this very a good article.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK26897/

 

[Colin]

Experts once agreed that the world was flat. Look what happened there. I'm not saying it's not possibly true, I am however saying it's quite possibly just as wrong. Personally I think the evidence shows it's more DNA related to one's susceptibility which explains why some people who smoke all their lives can live to 100 while some who have barely been exposed to any tobacco products can die from "tobacco" related cancers at age 20.

Well, I wish that I had heeded the evidence. I finally quit smoking in February this year...when it was too late!

It's never too late. If you quit smoking by your mid 40's you can regain most of your lung function and your cancer risk drops exponentially every year. I think at 5 years it is roughly the same as the non-smoking society.

If you ever find yourself with unexplained weight loss, a persistent cough, a bloody cough, or any of the other symptoms of lung cancer, you should go to your Dr. and get a Chest X-ray immediately.

It was for me GtH. I was diagnosed with bladder cancer in February. Turned out to be deep seated and invasive. Until then I wasn't aware that most bladder cancers are due to smoking. Thanks to surgery, I'm now clear and recovering...and could I do with a nice cigar!

 

[Ringel05]

I would expect all the evidence to be correlative. It's highly correlative. We understand lung cancer at multiple levels. All the animal studies, human epidemiology, cell biology, pathology, and oncologic studies. Once again, when dealing with biostatistics, we are talking about statistics and means and standard deviations. Does everyone who smokes get lung cancer? No. Does everyone who get lung cancer or associated cancers (i.e. bladder) smoke? No. Do the overwhelming majority of lung cancer cases involve people who smoke? Yes.

The evidence is overwhelming to the point that the only people who dispute it are quacks. It might have worked in the early 60's when the tobacco companies paid off physicians. Today, it's not going to fool anyone.

You point that *there may be other factors involved* doesn't mean much. We don't fully understand gravity either, yet no one doubts what happens when a person walks off a building.

As far as the pictures, there is no doubt that all of those complications occur due to smoking. You can't honestly even mince words about it.

I know what you're saying but without empirical evidence do we know it's the actual byproducts of tobacco that are the causative factors or are they simply a catalyst factor, i.e. weakening the bodies natural immunities resulting in cancers caused by other factors. It wasn't until relatively recently we discovered that plastics give off emissions as they slowly degrade, to the best of my knowledge there has not been one single study on the effects this might or might not have on humans and plastics are one denominator that is common to almost everyone. I don't know, just saying that somehow we need to expand our research horizons.

Look up the concpet of oncogenic initiators and promoters. I wish I could stick the page/graph from robbins in here, but I can't.

*edit*

Wait. I found it. Figure 23-19

In this very a good article.

The Preventable Causes of Cancer - Molecular Biology of the Cell - NCBI Bookshelf

Thanks, I'll check it out.