|
|
|
Smoking women at double cancer risk
From correspondents in Chicago
December 2, 2003
WOMEN smokers face twice the risk of developing lung cancer as men, but it is
not yet clear why the cancer risk for women is higher, according to the findings
of a study released yesterday.
The study, presented here to the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of
North America, found women smokers faced a much higher risk than men of
developing lung cancer no matter how often they smoked or how old they were.
"We found that women had twice the risk of developing lung cancer as men,
independent of how much they smoked, their age, or the size and textures of
nodules found in their lungs," explained Claudia Henschke, a professor of
radiology and division chief of chest imaging at the Cornell Medical Center in
New York.
"There is as of yet no clear consensus why women are at increased risk,"
Henschke said.
"We also found that the more you smoke and as you age the greater the chances of
developing lung cancer," the professor added.
Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related deaths among women and men
across the United States, according to the American Cancer Society. The society
estimates there were 171,900 new cases of lung cancer this year, and 157,200
lung-cancer related deaths.
The study's findings are the result of 10 years research using X-ray images
taken by computer tomography. The study involved 2968 women and men aged 40 and
older, and it identified 77 cases of lung cancer.
Agence France-Presse
|
| |
| |
"=> Vox Populi " <vox@popu.li> wrote in message news:<5nWyb.1639$eD2.89103@news.uswest.net>...
Smoking women at double cancer risk
From correspondents in Chicago
December 2, 2003
WOMEN smokers face twice the risk of developing lung cancer as men, but it is
not yet clear why the cancer risk for women is higher, according to the findings
of a study released yesterday.
The study, presented here to the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of
North America, found women smokers faced a much higher risk than men of
developing lung cancer no matter how often they smoked or how old they were.
"We found that women had twice the risk of developing lung cancer as men,
independent of how much they smoked, their age, or the size and textures of
nodules found in their lungs," explained Claudia Henschke, a professor of
radiology and division chief of chest imaging at the Cornell Medical Center in
New York.
"There is as of yet no clear consensus why women are at increased risk,"
Henschke said.
"We also found that the more you smoke and as you age the greater the chances of
developing lung cancer," the professor added.
Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related deaths among women and men
across the United States, according to the American Cancer Society. The society
estimates there were 171,900 new cases of lung cancer this year, and 157,200
lung-cancer related deaths.
The study's findings are the result of 10 years research using X-ray images
taken by computer tomography. The study involved 2968 women and men aged 40 and
older, and it identified 77 cases of lung cancer.
Agence France-Presse
And you believe this? Why don't you change your name to Dumbass
Populi? The dumbass of the people - that has a certain ring to it.
LMAO.
"The greatest benefit of the internet is that it enables us to
identify so many mental deficients who would otherwise have lived in
total obscurity."
FoggyTown
|
| |
| |
foggytown wrote
Why don't you change your name to Dumbass Populi? The dumbass of the people -
that has a certain ring to it. LMAO.
"The greatest benefit of the internet is that it enables us to identify so
many mental deficients who would otherwise have lived in total obscurity."
Heh. I like it.
Solar
|
| |
| |
Smoking women at double cancer risk
The study's findings are the result of 10 years research using X-ray
images
taken by computer tomography. The study involved 2968 women and men aged
40 and
older, and it identified 77 cases of lung cancer.
Agence France-Presse
WOW! That is REALLY scary! From the numbers that you provided above (and a
little math), only 2.6% of the "Study Group" got lung cancer. How many were
smokers? How many were men? What was the average age? Were their background
similar? Family histories? Let's say that they were all women, equal number
of smokers to nonsmokers, similar backgrounds and histories. If a total of
2.6% got cancer, then one third of those were non-smokers (since smokers had
twice the number of lung cancer). So by smoking, women increase the risk
from 0.86% to 1.72%. OH MY GOD!!!!! WHAT ARE WE TO DO??????????? More people
probably got cancer from all the x-rays they took to "find" cancer.
What an ass.
Oh, yeah, and I just LOVE where you got your information.....
"From correspondents in Chicago"
Gee, I guess the information just HAS to be valid. I mean, it came from
CHICAGO, for Christ's sake!
Chip
|
| |
| |
Chip wrote:
Suck harder and faster now, Chip, your pathetic addiction demands it.
That's what I like about you, Vox. A nice, well thought out, logical
response. Keep up the good work for the Antis.
Chip
|
| |
| |
Chip wrote:
That's what I like about you, Vox. A nice, well thought out, logical
response. Keep up the good work for the Antis.
Chip
Sure Chimp ... want a banana ...?
|
| |
| |
On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 21:16:24 -0400, "Chip"
<trippydon'tspamme@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
Suck harder and faster now, Chip, your pathetic addiction demands it.
That's what I like about you, Vox. A nice, well thought out, logical
response. Keep up the good work for the Antis.
I think Vox is either a very smart smoker, or a very dumb anti.
He sure makes the antis look stupid.
|
| |
| |
stanlee_98@yahoo.com wrote:
On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 21:16:24 -0400, "Chip"
<trippydon'tspamme@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
Suck harder and faster now, Chip, your pathetic addiction demands
it.
I think Vox is either a very smart smoker, or a very dumb anti.
He sure makes the antis look stupid.
Suck suck suck ... Stan Lee ... your putrid addiction calls ...
|
| |
| |
Suck harder and faster now, Chip, your pathetic addiction demands it.
That's what I like about you, Vox. A nice, well thought out, logical
response. Keep up the good work for the Antis.
I think Vox is either a very smart smoker, or a very dumb anti.
He sure makes the antis look stupid.
Like all of us, Vox speaks for himself.
|
| |
| |
Chip wrote:
Sure Chimp ... want a banana ...?
Sure, I like bananas. But unlike you, I don't need to eat it sideways. I'm
secure in my masculinity :-)
Vox wrote: "Suck harder and faster now, Chip"
Chip
|
| |
| |
stanlee_98@yahoo.com wrote:
Suck suck suck ... Stan Lee ... your putrid addiction calls ...
See, Stanlee, again with the "Suck Suck Suck". I'm beginning to wonder about
our old friend Vox. He seems to have issues.
Chip
|
| |
| |
Suck harder and faster now, Chip, your pathetic addiction demands it.
That's what I like about you, Vox. A nice, well thought out, logical
response. Keep up the good work for the Antis.
I think Vox is either a very smart smoker, or a very dumb anti.
He sure makes the antis look stupid.
Like all of us, Vox speaks for himself.
Trying to put a little distance between you two, are ya? From what I've been
reading from Vox, I can't say that I blame ya.
Chip
|
| |
| |
Suck harder and faster now, Chip, your pathetic addiction demands
it.
That's what I like about you, Vox. A nice, well thought out, logical
response. Keep up the good work for the Antis.
I think Vox is either a very smart smoker, or a very dumb anti.
He sure makes the antis look stupid.
Like all of us, Vox speaks for himself.
Trying to put a little distance between you two, are ya? From what I've
been
reading from Vox, I can't say that I blame ya.
I don't agree with his methods but then we're trying to do different things.
Vox just likes pulling your chains to see you jump and jiggle. I want to
help people quit smoking and implement ETS bans to protect workers and
children.
|
| |
| |
On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 12:34:16 GMT, "PRSmith" <prsmith@houston.rr.com>
wrote:
I want to help people quit smoking and implement ETS bans to protect workers and
children.
Here we go again.
Workers are not children, they don't need your help
(whatever it might be).
Children have parents to take care of them, so mind your own.
ETS bans serve no practical purpose, everyone has a choice,
they can work or hang out in smoke free places, no ban is
necessary.
Find another hobby.
|
| |
| |
On Tue, 9 Dec 2003 01:14:15 -0400, "Chip"
<trippydon'tspamme@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
See, Stanlee, again with the "Suck Suck Suck". I'm beginning to wonder about
our old friend Vox. He seems to have issues.
Chip
Vox and Suckit would make a nice couple. They speak the
same language, and both of them obsessed with sucking.
|
| |
| |
stan-LEE 98 wrote:
On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 12:34:16 GMT, "PRSmith" <prsmith@houston.rr.com>
wrote:
Workers are not children, they don't need your help
That must be the reason why unions that represent hospitality workers have
lobbied for smoke-free workplaces.
Children have parents to take care of them, so mind your own.
Your parents don't seem to be doing a very good job.
ETS bans serve no practical purpose,
Wrong yet again, asswipe #98. ETS bans serve a very important practical
purpose. They remove cigarette smoke from places where there are human
beings breathing.
--
Bob Broughton
http://broughton.ca/
Vancouver, BC, Canada
"Watch your mouth, if you ever want to cross the border. Bad things
can happen to Canadians who use foul language in the US."
mailto:stanlee_98@yahoo.com , Nov. 30, 2003
|
| |
| |
stan-LEE 98 wrote:
Vox and Suckit would make a nice couple.
That's hypothetical, of course. OTOH, stan-LEE 98, David Brewster, and Mark
Pellow already make an interesting menage-a-trois.
--
Bob Broughton
http://broughton.ca/
Vancouver, BC, Canada
"Watch your mouth, if you ever want to cross the border. Bad things
can happen to Canadians who use foul language in the US."
mailto:stanlee_98@yahoo.com , Nov. 30, 2003
|
| |
| |
stan-LEE 98 wrote:
That's hypothetical, of course. OTOH, stan-LEE 98, David Brewster, and
Mark
Pellow already make an interesting menage-a-trois.
--
Bob Broughton
Oh Bob. Stop sharing your fantasies, will ya :-)
Chip
|
| |
| |
Wrong yet again, asswipe #98. ETS bans serve a very important practical
purpose. They remove cigarette smoke from places where there are human
beings breathing.
And so how would this apply to creatures like you and Dumbass Populi?
FoggyTown
|
| |
| |
Mark
Oh Bob. Stop sharing your fantasies, will ya :-)
Yah, throw in a pussy and we'd have a menage-a-cat...
bawb is such a pussy...
|
| |
| |
stan-LEE 98 wrote:
That's hypothetical, of course. OTOH, stan-LEE 98, David Brewster, and
Mark
Pellow already make an interesting menage-a-trois.
But with you it would be menage-a-troll...
Or would that be mange-de-merde...
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 16:36:33 -0800, Robert Broughton
<rbronews@brou8ghton.ca> wrote:
Bob Broughton
http://broughton.ca/
Vancouver, BC, Canada
"Watch your mouth, if you ever want to cross the border. Bad things
can happen to Canadians who use foul language in the US."
mailto:stanlee_98@yahoo.com , Nov. 30, 2003
Bobo, you're late with the royalty payments.
In case you're not familiar with copyright laws,
you can be fined $100,000, and sent to prison
for unauthorized reproduction of intellectual property.
Pay up, or shut up.
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 16:32:37 -0800, Robert Broughton
<rbronews@brou8ghton.ca> wrote:
stan-LEE 98 wrote:
That must be the reason why unions that represent hospitality workers have
lobbied for smoke-free workplaces.
Unions are nothing but legalized racketeering, run by the mafia.
They are pretty successful at extortion, and driving businesses
and jobs out of the country. The do very little to actually help the
workers.
I was driving my Mercedes today, and passed an old car, Toyota
from the seventies, every door a different color, from different
junkyards, the car was apparently held together by
a large number of stickers : "I'm Union and Proud of it".
Pretty funny....
|
| |
| |
Mike Girouard wrote:
ETS bans serve no practical purpose,
Wrong yet again, asswipe #98. ETS bans serve a very important practical
purpose. They remove cigarette smoke from places where there are human
beings breathing.
And so how would this apply to creatures like you and Dumbass Populi?
ETS bans remove cigarette smoke from places where there are human
beings breathing, asswipe.
--
Bob Broughton
http://broughton.ca/
Vancouver, BC, Canada
"Watch your mouth, if you ever want to cross the border. Bad things
can happen to Canadians who use foul language in the US."
mailto:stanlee_98@yahoo.com , Nov. 30, 2003
|
| |
| |
Bob Broughton
http://broughton.ca/
Vancouver, BC, Canada
"Watch your mouth, if you ever want to cross the border. Bad things
can happen to Canadians who use foul language in the US."
mailto:stanlee_98@yahoo.com , Nov. 30, 2003
Bobo, you're late with the royalty payments.
In case you're not familiar with copyright laws,
you can be fined $100,000, and sent to prison
for unauthorized reproduction of intellectual property.
Pay up, or shut up.
Stanlee --
In case you're totally ignorant of copyright law, if you suffer no financial
loss as a result of the infringement, there is no foul.
|
| |
| |
stan-LEE 98 wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 16:32:37 -0800, Robert Broughton
<rbronews@brou8ghton.ca> wrote:
Unions are nothing but legalized racketeering, run by the mafia.
Let me guess... you were turned down for membership because they don't have
any use for asswipes.
--
Bob Broughton
http://broughton.ca/
Vancouver, BC, Canada
"Watch your mouth, if you ever want to cross the border. Bad things
can happen to Canadians who use foul language in the US."
mailto:stanlee_98@yahoo.com , Nov. 30, 2003
|
| |
| |
stanlee_98@yahoo.com wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 16:36:33 -0800, Robert Broughton
<rbronews@brou8ghton.ca> wrote:
Bobo, you're late with the royalty payments.
Post your real name and mailing address here, and the cheque will be in the
mail tomorrow.
--
Bob Broughton
http://broughton.ca/
Vancouver, BC, Canada
"Watch your mouth, if you ever want to cross the border. Bad things
can happen to Canadians who use foul language in the US."
mailto:stanlee_98@yahoo.com , Nov. 30, 2003
|
| |
| |
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 16:00:45 -0800, Robert Broughton
<rbronews@brou8ghton.ca> wrote:
stan-LEE 98 wrote:
Let me guess... you were turned down for membership because they don't have
any use for asswipes.
I own my own business dummy. I have no use for unions. I treat my
employees well, they make good money and they are allowed to smoke
without leaving the building. The poor bastards working for other
companies have to freeze outside in the snow. Unlike you and
Paulie and the other anties here, I actually do something good for
people, I give them jobs and a comfortable working environment.
What do you do? Nothing?
|
| |
| |
stanlee_98@yahoo.com wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 16:00:45 -0800, Robert Broughton
<rbronews@brou8ghton.ca> wrote:
I own my own business dummy.
What sort of business?
I have no use for unions. I treat my
employees well,
How many employees?
--
Bob Broughton
http://broughton.ca/
Vancouver, BC, Canada
"Watch your mouth, if you ever want to cross the border. Bad things
can happen to Canadians who use foul language in the US."
mailto:stanlee_98@yahoo.com , Nov. 30, 2003
|
| |
| |
Robert Broughton wrote:
stan-LEE 98 wrote:
Post your real name and mailing address here, and the cheque will be in
the mail tomorrow.
How come you didn't respond to this, stan-LEE? I can't send you the $100,000
if you don't tell me where to send it, and who the payee on the cheque
should be.
--
Bob Broughton
http://broughton.ca/
Vancouver, BC, Canada
"Watch your mouth, if you ever want to cross the border. Bad things
can happen to Canadians who use foul language in the US."
mailto:stanlee_98@yahoo.com , Nov. 30, 2003
|
| |
| |
Mike Girouard wrote:
ETS bans serve no practical purpose,
Wrong yet again, asswipe #98. ETS bans serve a very important practical
purpose. They remove cigarette smoke from places where there are human
beings breathing.
ETS bans remove cigarette smoke from places where there are human
beings breathing, asswipe.
They also tend to remove humans from places where cigareettes were
smoking...aka business closures...a swipe -- but, then again, you don't care
about the actual impact these ridiculous infringements on private businesses
have...you just do what comes easiest...
|
| |
| |
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 16:04:16 -0800, Robert Broughton
<rbronews@brou8ghton.ca> wrote:
Robert Broughton wrote:
How come you didn't respond to this, stan-LEE? I can't send you the $100,000
if you don't tell me where to send it, and who the payee on the cheque
should be.
Probably because he knows the check would bounce. Now tell me, why
would you question him about this? Are you that eager to give out
$100,000 that you dont have?
If you have cash, I'll give you my addy.
|
| |
| |
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 16:04:16 -0800, Robert Broughton
<rbronews@brou8ghton.ca> wrote:
Probably because he knows the check would bounce. Now tell me, why
would you question him about this? Are you that eager to give out
$100,000 that you dont have?
If you have cash, I'll give you my addy.
If bawb had that much cash he'd have bought himself the election...he lost,
eh!
|
| |
| |
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 01:48:07 GMT, "PRSmith" <prsmith@houston.rr.com>
wrote:
Bob Broughton
http://broughton.ca/
Vancouver, BC, Canada
"Watch your mouth, if you ever want to cross the border. Bad things
can happen to Canadians who use foul language in the US."
mailto:stanlee_98@yahoo.com , Nov. 30, 2003
Bobo, you're late with the royalty payments.
In case you're not familiar with copyright laws,
you can be fined $100,000, and sent to prison
for unauthorized reproduction of intellectual property.
Pay up, or shut up.
Stanlee --
In case you're totally ignorant of copyright law, if you suffer no financial
loss as a result of the infringement, there is no foul.
Get your facts straight. Financial loss is not a requirement.
I know you communist hippies have no respect for property,
but fortunately you don't count. You can not publish other people's
intellectual property without their permission, and definitely
not when they tell you not to. Of course the internet has become
a playgroud for thieves and freeloaders, but that doesn't make it
legal or ethical. Now you know.
|
| |
| |
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 16:04:16 -0800, Robert Broughton
<rbronews@brou8ghton.ca> wrote:
Bobo, you're late with the royalty payments.
Post your real name and mailing address here, and the cheque will be in
the mail tomorrow.
How come you didn't respond to this, stan-LEE? I can't send you the $100,000
if you don't tell me where to send it, and who the payee on the cheque
should be.
I don't think you can afford to pay me. In case you saved up your
welfare money, send the $100,000 to my favorite charity,
Phillip Morris, USA. Look up the address in the phone book.
|
| |
| |
Bobo, you're late with the royalty payments.
In case you're not familiar with copyright laws,
you can be fined $100,000, and sent to prison
for unauthorized reproduction of intellectual property.
Pay up, or shut up.
Stanlee --
In case you're totally ignorant of copyright law, if you suffer
no financial loss as a result of the infringement, there is no
foul.
Get your facts straight. Financial loss is not a requirement.
I know you communist hippies have no respect for property,
but fortunately you don't count. You can not publish other
people's intellectual property without their permission, and
definitely
not when they tell you not to. Of course the internet has become
a playgroud for thieves and freeloaders, but that doesn't make it
legal or ethical. Now you know.
I know you're an idiot. If you don't think financial loss is a requirement,
file suit and see how far it gets if you can't prove loss.
|
| |
| |
PRSmith wrote:
Suck harder and faster now, Chip, your pathetic addiction demands it.
That's what I like about you, Vox. A nice, well thought out, logical
response. Keep up the good work for the Antis.
I think Vox is either a very smart smoker, or a very dumb anti.
He sure makes the antis look stupid.
Like all of us, Vox speaks for himself.
Try that line on Watson, Schmitschweinkopf. After you review his numerous
postings quoting Kluger as gospel, of course...
|
| |
| |
stanlee_98@yahoo.com wrote:
On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 21:16:24 -0400, "Chip"
<trippydon'tspamme@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
Suck harder and faster no | | |
