Lung Cancer the leading cause of cancer deaths

[JeanGrey]

Many times on this forum I have read discussions on smoking, cancer, and am always struck by some who wish to believe that smoking is the be all and end all of cancer. I have argued this point, and and wanted all of you to see this article. Food for thought. Please don't be complacent and believe that if you don't smoke or weren't exposed to it, you can't get it, because you'd be wrong. It is really a shame that the "smoking" thing has caused Lung Cancer to not get funding as it deserves, since it is much deadlier than breast cancer. It is not just a disease of smoking.

http://www.charlotte.com/162/story/641828.html

Lung cancer is leading cause of cancer deaths
KAREN GARLOCH
From all the pink ribbons, you might think breast cancer is the cancer that most affects women.

But it's really lung cancer.

In fact, lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death for both men and women.

And lung cancer kills as many women each year as breast cancer and all gynecological cancers combined.

These are facts that Pat Kitts and Kimberly McQuay would like you to know.

And here's something else: Anyone can get lung cancer. You don't have to have been a smoker.

Kitts, a 43-year-old mother of two, never smoked cigarettes.

But in 2006 she was diagnosed with lung cancer.

[Mountainman]

1. This should make for one of our good old smoking threads.

[devilgrrl]

2. Thank you for posting this. Lung cancer deaths of non-smokers is truly unsettling

eom

[JeanGrey]

3. You are welcome. I lost my best friend to this and she was also

a non-smoker, I am fighting cancer as well that came from another organ, but as soon as they hear "lung cancer" they get that "well how long did you smoke, you obviously deserved it" look on their faces.

Lung cancer NEEDS FUNDING!!!!

[driver8]

4. I lost my father to lung cancer in February. He smoked when he

was younger, but had quit over 30 years ago.

My favorite uncle has just been diagnosed with lung cancer, also.

Lung cancer sucks the big one.

[Warpy]

6. Still, it beats the hell out of COPD

which is what finally killed my mother. Sure, she lived to be 94, but she spent every year from her late 60s on gasping for every single breath she took.

Lung cancer is horrible, but it's not as horrible as that.

Yes, lung cancer can come from asbestos, radon gas, plain old everyday industrial pollution, and sometimes we don't even know the cause. However, smoking or living with a smoker are some of the strongest predictors of getting it in people with a family history of it.

[JeanGrey]

18. See, that is just the thing, not necessarily. My grandmother

lived to be 104, had she lived three more days she would've been 105. She had nine brothers and sisters and she was the oldest, and when she was 98 they were ALL living and in good health. These people were farmers. And yes, they ALL smoked. Every one of them. In fact most of the people in my family except my parents did. And there is not one single case of lung cancer OR COPD among them. They just die of old age. My great grandmother up until the last six months, still lived in an apartment with my grandmother, cooked, cleaned, etc. She actually gave up cigs at the age of around 70 and took up a corn cob pipe which she smoked until she died.

I just wish that researchers would take the people who do all the WRONG things and see why they don't get it, versus those who do the right things and still do. My oncologists tell me if not for my family history I'd be long dead because my kind of cancer that started out in the liver is incredibly deadly. Unfortunately my immune system is compromised due to anti-rejection medicine and that is contributing to it, unfortunately. And yet my genetics are helping me too.

I am so sorry that you grandmother suffered for 30 years, I've never known anyone to live that long with COPD and that severe of shortness of breath.

So far, I don't have any SOB unless I exert myself and that is mostly due to the loss of lung tissue from surgery.

Most of my family were tobacco farmers and they rolled their own. At least from what I remember as a child.

I just wish we could remove the unnecessary idea that if you have lung cancer you deserve it.

[JeanGrey]

9. I am so very, very sorry. At some point we have got to insist

upon funding - all that money they got from the tobacco companies needs to go to RESEARCH and not just anti smoking ads. Because the world is full of people who get it who quit forever ago, or never smoked at all - and I don't believe anyone deserves cancer.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

5. Also, please check for radon in your home.

It's a leading cause of lung cancer, and has nothing to do with tobacco.

[onethatcares]

7. and you have to realize

that smoking outside your home is the dumbest damn thing you could do. Your house gets to smell peachy fine, but your lungs and your breath, well let's just say, they reek.

I know, I know, I'm a quitter with just one and a half years under my belt but the sheer stupidity of paying for something that you know will kill you leaves me astonished.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

8. Meh.

That's why most smokers were chemically hooked when they were kids and too dumb to know any better.

[JeanGrey]

19. Smokers aren't dumb. They are just addicts.

I've had friends who have quit smoking and watching them go through it was awful.

[JeanGrey]

12. But that is just the thing - it might not kill you and odds are, it

won't. The last statistics I saw are that approx. 20% of smokers will get cancer. That is pretty low odds - and one of the fastest growing groups getting cancer are non smoking females.

Of course I am not advocating smoking, it is bad for you and can cause cancer. But unless we start to get a clue about lung cancer and FUND RESEARCH people will die needlessly.

[JeanGrey]

10. My cancer came from another organ - it's a mets to the lung.

I know about Radon - and it is VERY dangerous. When I had my home tested the guy who did it said there were subdivisions and areas that were hot spots for radon gas.

[RB TexLa]

11. But you can't raise money if you use the words lung cancer that's why it's called the American Lung

Association, no mention of cancer. You know people just assume it's all about helping smokers and won't give money.

[JeanGrey]

13. People with this attitude need a swift slap to wake them up.

THEY MIGHT BE NEXT.

[Wizard777]

14. The Antismoking Nazis' will say, Right! You don't have to smoke to get lung cancer.

Second hand smoke is far more dangerous than smoking. These people are being killed by second hand smoke. We don't need to fund lung cancer research. We need to fund stopping all smoking. Then once no one in the world smokes. All lung cancer will be forever gone. There's nothing in the article that says they aren't dying from second hand smoke.

[The Straight Story]

15. Not exactly

"Then once no one in the world smokes. All lung cancer will be forever gone. "

Lung cancer can occur with or without second hand or direct smoking. Not that I am going to defend smoking. Its a lethal and often times dangerous addiction. But lung cancer didn't start nor does it keep inflicting people simply because of cigarettes. Cancer can and it always will spread to any tissue, in any part of the body. Thats why we need to get the funding and the research behind this cause. :)

[JeanGrey]

17. Thank you! But I do understand the OP's point, and it is something

that we need to smash down, it is not helpful and needs to be stopped. Read my post on statistics

[Wizard777]

21. You know that and I know that. But they will never admit it.

The Antismoking lobby doesn't like to stick to the truth either. One of the reason's they frequently cite as an excuse for their deprival of a taxed liberty. Is that they don't want to have to pay our medical bills. But this is what they don't tell you. Here in Maryland 100% of the money from our cigarette tax goes to medicaid. Last year Maryland smokers paid 120 million in medical bills for medicaid patients. Including the medical bills of nonsmokers if they couldn't afford to pay them on their own. Maybe the reason we can't pay our medical bills is because our money is being used to pay their medical bills. 120 million is a lot of money to pay to be called a deadbeat. The State makes how much money off their nonsmoking? Not one red cent. In fact it costs the state money to oil their whinny squeaky wheel with no smoking legislation.

[JeanGrey]

16. Well, here are some statistics for you:

Over 160,000 died of lung cancer in the USA in 2007......Breast almost 41K, Colon 52K, Prostate 27K....
Why such a great difference?

Twice as many women die of lung cancer than Breast Cancer......FACT

Research spending $$$ per death

2007.........................Breast receieved $23754.................Prostate .receievd $11,959, .........Colon $5,500 per death.............LUNG CANCER (#1 killer) receieved $1,414

Over 60% of new cases of L C are NEVER smokers or former smokers, many of whom quit decades ago..

1 in 5 women and 1 in 12 men diagnosed with LC never smoked.

ONLY 16% of LC is being diagnosed at its earliest and most curable stage the balance 84%at late stage.

The majority of LC patients are being diagnosed so LATE that they will die within 1 yr....

NOTE:........The above stats were released for 2007. There are more if you want to learn more. Go to Lung Cancer Alliance web site.

The scientists, and researchers, could be light yrs ahead with drugs that work for us but only if funding was approved at both state and federal levels or if the states would give to state researchers at state institutions nothing more than the cigarette settlement monies that each state receives each year that runs in the Billions of $$$ each year, With the exception of a few pennies in a few states none of our blood money ever comes back to help fight lung cancer. It stays in the state at the governors discretion...Yes, We need the scientists who spend as much time trying to raise $$$ for research as they do researching as we need the pharma companies, without them there would be even less meds to help us. I know many have complaints about the Pharma comps but I for one Thank them as I do the Scientists, researchers and organizations such as Lung Cancer Alliance.

I have friends dying of this disease who never lived with a smoker or were exposed to second hand smoke. The above facts are a disgrace.

[seabeyond]

20. if 60% lc is nonsmokers, how many smokers got lc not from smoking but genetically

inclined and would have gotten it regardless, even if they werent smoking.

most people already know this, but being stupid about it is so much more better for antismoking campaign and the cause. regardless of the unfairness to all lc victims not getting the funding and research because it may help the "evil" smoker, they would suggest that the anti smoking campaign precedes the health and welfare of the victims of lc

[Wizard777]

22. Exactly! I've been smoking cigarettes and Marijuana for well over half a century. My lungs are fine.

No sign of cancer. My heart and veins are also fine. To a certain degree smoking is good for me. I'm 6' 11" and one of the things people my size have to worry about is enlarged heart and veins. Nicotine is a vasoconstricter. It can cause the heart and veins to shrink. My Doctor has told me that if I didn't smoke. He would be prescribing me Nicotine patches to counteract the natural tendency for my heart and veins to enlarge.