fay69
Achiever
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2014
- Messages
- 2,911
Lung cancer decreases
- Thread starter fay69
- Start date
knome
Veteran
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2014
- Messages
- 5,595
Your thread title is much better than the article's stupid headline.
ukvaperdude
Postman
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2014
- Messages
- 379
LOL - "vape pen"??? 
"Disposable e-cigarettes start at $10 while vape pens can run $250, but can be found for much less."
"Disposable e-cigarettes start at $10 while vape pens can run $250, but can be found for much less."
I think you are right about firm conclusions. However, the cancer must have a point at which it starts and if fewer people are reaching that point because they are vaping rather than smoking then the fewer people will be affected by the disease.
Pity it will take years to persuade the sceptics though.
Pity it will take years to persuade the sceptics though.
Chegs
Veteran
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2013
- Messages
- 5,815
Sigh, "eliquid analysed was found to contain antifreeze" That was fucking ages ago and was in samples bought from China, this is why the Chinese were banned from exporting various ecigs that were claimed to contain erectile disfunction cures, slimming aids etc. The linked page claims to be from Sept, but they forgot to add the year. ...1900?
steffijade
Achiever
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2012
- Messages
- 3,405
Tbh I wonder about the premise of basing figures for lung cancer mainly on smoking in the first place. Some people smoke most of their adult life without developing lung cancer... some people who've never smoked do develop lung cancer.
There are perhaps several other changes that could have had an impact on lung cancer rates over time. When I was a bairn in Sheffield, a lot of old buildings were covered in grime and gunk due to all the pollution kicked out in to the atmosphere in the city's industrial heyday. As heavy industry declined and new regulations relating to emissions came in, the air quality (at least in terms of visible deposits) got better. This may well have had an effect.
Likewise, there was a time when a lot more people heated their homes with solid fuel, open fires and the transition away from that towards either enclosed solid fuel systems and gas may have had an effect.
The same could be said of the move from leaded to unleaded petrol.
The cause for movements in rates of cancer could well be quite varied but whatever the causes, the knock on effects of eliminating/minimising them would take a good few years to filter through.
There are perhaps several other changes that could have had an impact on lung cancer rates over time. When I was a bairn in Sheffield, a lot of old buildings were covered in grime and gunk due to all the pollution kicked out in to the atmosphere in the city's industrial heyday. As heavy industry declined and new regulations relating to emissions came in, the air quality (at least in terms of visible deposits) got better. This may well have had an effect.
Likewise, there was a time when a lot more people heated their homes with solid fuel, open fires and the transition away from that towards either enclosed solid fuel systems and gas may have had an effect.
The same could be said of the move from leaded to unleaded petrol.
The cause for movements in rates of cancer could well be quite varied but whatever the causes, the knock on effects of eliminating/minimising them would take a good few years to filter through.
Similar threads
