Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Friday February 13 2015, @11:47PM   Printer-friendly
from the it's-never-good-news dept.

"Who still smokes?" as Denise Grady reports at the NYT that however bad you thought smoking was, it’s even worse. A new study has found that in addition to the well-known hazards of lung cancer, artery disease, heart attacks, chronic lung disease and stroke, researchers found that smoking was linked to significantly increased risks of infection, kidney disease, intestinal disease caused by inadequate blood flow, and heart and lung ailments not previously attributed to tobacco. “The smoking epidemic is still ongoing, and there is a need to evaluate how smoking is hurting us as a society, to support clinicians and policy making in public health,” says Brian D. Carter, an author of the study. “It’s not a done story.” Carter says he was inspired to dig deeper into the causes of death in smokers after taking an initial look at data from five large health surveys being conducted by other researchers. As expected, death rates were higher among the smokers but diseases known to be caused by tobacco accounted for only 83 percent of the excess deaths in people who smoked. “I thought, ‘Wow, that’s really low,’ ” Mr. Carter said. “We have this huge cohort. Let’s get into the weeds, cast a wide net and see what is killing smokers that we don’t already know.” The researchers found that, compared with people who had never smoked, smokers were about twice as likely to die from infections, kidney disease, respiratory ailments not previously linked to tobacco, and hypertensive heart disease, in which high blood pressure leads to heart failure. "The Surgeon General's report claims 480,000 deaths directly caused by smoking, but we think that is really quite a bit off," concludes Carter adding that the figure may be closer to 540,000.

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by c0lo on Saturday February 14 2015, @06:22AM

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Saturday February 14 2015, @06:22AM (#144878) Journal

    As long as they're not expecting other people to pay their health care costs for this risky behavior, it's their choice.

    The problem comes when the doctor tells them they've got a spot on their lung and their care over the last year of their life costs a half-million dollars to the other people in their insurance group or the taxpayers...

    Oh, don't get me started.

    Because I'm a smoker, I'm paying 20% more on my premiums for private health insurance and income insurance (in case I'm can't work due to illness). Which means each 5 years I'm not dying of cancer or hearth diseases because of smoking, I contribute with 1 year to the healthcare of others (including those which with cancer without being smokers). Keeping into account that if one acquires a smoking-induced cancer, one's life expectancy is around 5 years (for a stage 1 lung cancer [about.com], bad luck if detected in more advanced stages), then in 25 years I already paid for my costs and, for the rest of them, and I'm sponsoring the non-smoking population (hint: I'm a smoker for 30 years)

    In addition, I'm paying excises on the cigarettes I smoke: from a pack of 40-ies costing me $31, $18 [smh.com.au] are excises. Guess what? Those taxes amount for $6.42B [tobaccoinaustralia.org.au] in 2012... wonder how much of them were injected back into the health system?

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Informative=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 2) by ilPapa on Saturday February 14 2015, @03:12PM

    by ilPapa (2366) on Saturday February 14 2015, @03:12PM (#144958) Journal

    Because I'm a smoker, I'm paying 20% more on my premiums for private health insurance and income insurance (in case I'm can't work due to illness). Which means each 5 years I'm not dying of cancer or hearth diseases because of smoking, I contribute with 1 year to the healthcare of others (including those which with cancer without being smokers). Keeping into account that if one acquires a smoking-induced cancer, one's life expectancy is around 5 years (for a stage 1 lung cancer [about.com], bad luck if detected in more advanced stages), then in 25 years I already paid for my costs and, for the rest of them, and I'm sponsoring the non-smoking population (hint: I'm a smoker for 30 years)

    That's because you live in one of those sensible countries with the universal health care. Where I live, the distribution of health care costs to those who live unhealthy lifestyles are not nearly as rational.

    --
    You are still welcome on my lawn.