>>810841>>810843If you die from lung cancer, heart attack or any such thing and don't smoke.
you died of natural causes.
If you die from any of the above, or any number of similar things and you do smoke.
they record it as you dying from smoking.
they completely ignore, for the point of statistics, that people can die of non-smoke related issues if you are a smoker.
> "If you smoke, it will kill you!!!"Yeah, because if i die as a smoker, they WILL say its the smoking that killed me.
when you take the above into account with anti-smoking stats, their argument doesn't seem nearly as compelling.
Rate of lung cancer in non-smokers = 90/100,000
Rate of lunch cancer in smokers = 130/100,000
Their argument of smoking = lung cancer doesn't make any sense given the data:
> Womens lung cancer is rising> Fewer women smoke every year:/ inverse correlation?
My guess would be:
Smoking has very little todo with lung cancer.
Lung cancer is caused by your work environment
Women move into work force, get more lung cancer.
But also a general decline in lung cancer from offshoring of hard labour jobs, foundryman for example.
I wouldn't be surprised if it was something in car fumes, would fit the above.
