Cancer rate sinks as less people smoke

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
Cancer claiming fewer Canadian lives, report says

Canadians are making progress in the battle against cancer. A new report from Canadian Cancer Society says close to 100,000 lives have been saved over the past 20 years because of the declining rates in cancer deaths.

The biggest factor in the falling death rate is not better treatment and increased cancer survival -- though the last two decades have seen plenty of that, the report says. It's cancer prevention.

That's due in large measure to the fact that falling smoking rates are causing fewer lung cancer cases today, says Gillian Bromfield, the director of Cancer Control Policy at the Canadian Cancer Society.

"One of the biggest reasons we're seeing the decrease in the death rate over the last couple of decades is largely due to the decline in smoking rates in men, which started in the 1960s," Bromfield told CTV's Canada AM Wednesday.

Still, lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer death in Canada, for both men and women. It takes the lives of more Canadians than breast, prostate and colorectal cancers combined.

Smoking can be blamed for 85 per cent of lung cancer cases, but the habit is also tied to at least 18 other types of cancer, including larynx, oral, stomach, pancreas and kidney.

The report says that lung cancer death rates should continue to fall, since current smoking rates among all Canadians is now 17 per cent, compared to 50 per cent in 1965.

The lung cancer death rate among men has already dropped by 30 per cent between 1988 and 2007. But among women, the death rate has not budged much, though it has now stabilized. That's because smoking rates among women only began to see substantial declines in the 1980s.

The delay means it will be a while before Canadian women see the same type of decline in lung cancer deaths seen among men

Between 1988 and 2007, overall cancer death rates dropped by 21 per cent in men and nine per cent in women. Declines were seen in all the four major cancers that make up more than half of the new cancer cases diagnosed every year in Canada:


  • lung
  • colorectal
  • breast
  • prostate


While the prognosis for many cases of lung cancer is still grim, the good news is that more people are surviving prostate, breast and colorectal cancer.

Breast cancer continues to be the most commonly diagnosed cancer among Canadian women, but the number of new cases each year has been declining. Even better news is that the rate of deaths from breast cancers has dropped even more sharply. It hit a peak in 1986 and has fallen almost 40 per cent since then.

In fact, the report says the breast cancer death rate in Canada is the lowest it has been since 1950, thanks to earlier diagnosis through mammography screening and improved treatments.

Despite all the gains, the Cancer Society says it still has concerns that rising obesity rates may undo some of the progress from falling smoking rates.

"We've seen increases in the incidence of thyroid, liver and kidney cancer, and we're not necessarily sure of all the reasons behind those increases," Bromfield said.

"We think increasing obesity rates may be contributing to kidney cancer, and alcohol use may be driving some of the increase in liver cancer incidence."

An unhealthy diet, a lack of physical inactivity and excess body weight account for a substantial number of cancer diagnoses and deaths each year, the society notes. So too do alcohol consumption, overexposure to the sun and exposure to environmental and workplace carcinogens.

In fact, studies over the last 30 years suggests that about half of cancers can be prevented through changes in lifestyle.

"Even greater gains can be made in reducing cancer rates if more is done to help Canadians embrace healthy lifestyles and if governments do more to create policies that encourage people to make these changes," Bromfield said in a statement.

Cancer claiming fewer Canadian lives, report says | CTV Calgary
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
Smoking or was it asbestos bans?

No it's smoking. The research tying lung cancer to smoking is as firm as the research tying global warming to C02 emissions. In other words, they're both absolutely correlated.
 

Liberalman

Senate Member
Mar 18, 2007
5,623
35
48
Toronto
Still, lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer death in Canada, for both men and women. It takes the lives of more Canadians than breast, prostate and colorectal cancers combined.

So smoking is not the major cause how about car exaust and factory smoke can't cut those back can you?
 
Last edited:

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
109,396
11,449
113
Low Earth Orbit
No it's smoking. The research tying lung cancer to smoking is as firm as the research tying global warming to C02 emissions. In other words, they're both absolutely correlated.
What are the asbestos stats?
You'd best look deeper into the CO2 scam.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
You'd best look deeper into the CO2 scam.

Smoking, cancer and global warming


Some 50 years ago Humphrey Bogart died of throat cancer after decades of chain smoking. Did tobacco kill him? Probably, but not certainly, because some non-smokers also get cancer.

Nat “King” Cole died in 1965 of lung cancer at age 46. He was a heavy smoker, did tobacco kill him? Probably, but not certainly, because some non-smokers also get cancer.

Monty Python’s Graham Chapman died at age 48 from throat cancer. Did his pipe kill him? The guy down the street who’s now dying of lung cancer before he had a chance to quit, did he get killed by tobacco?

In each case, the answer is probably, but not certainly.

In fact, none of the 15,000 people who die from smoking in Australia every year were definitely killed by tobacco!

Not one.

Not Humphrey Bogart, not “King” Cole, not the guy down the street. No one definitely ever died from smoking.

And yet they all probably died prematurely because of tobacco.

Tobacco kills. It is therefore meaningless to ask for absolute certainty in each instance. Fortunately, people understand that: In California, for example, the rate of smoking has declined from 44% to less than 10% over the last few decades, showing that people can act on risks without requiring certainty.

The same logic applies to climate change. Were the devastating floods in Queensland aggravated by climate change? Quite possibly but not certainly. Was the devastating cyclone in Queensland stronger than it would have been without a changing climate? Quite probably but not certainly. Were the devastating bush fires on Melbourne’s Black Saturday exacerbated by climate change? Very likely but not certainly. Was 2010 the hottest year ever recorded because of climate change? Almost certainly, but not definitely.

What is certain, however, is that the increasing frequency of those extreme events was predicted by climate scientists long ago. And what is almost equally certain is that those events would not have happened at all, or would have been more benign, if we hadn’t been emitting all that CO2 for the last 100 years.

So to reduce the risk from floods or fires, we must cut CO2 emissions for the same logical reason that people quit smoking to preserve their health.

Smoking, cancer and global warming
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
Keep in mind we have a govt that is now promoting asbestos again and would like to see the asbestos end of the lung cancer rate reductions kept on the QT to quash fears. I'm surprised you weren't all over that.

Holy valid counterpoint Batman.

I'm sure asbestos plays a factor, but when it comes to lung cancer, I think smoking is the top dog.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
109,396
11,449
113
Low Earth Orbit
In the past it was a combination of the two. Back in the day asbestosis could be aquired by brake shoe dust and simply being in traffic, add cigs and you were really screwed.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
Smoking or was it asbestos bans?

Asbestos mainly affect people who worked with it, especially those who drilled it or sawed it, really a very tiny percentage of the population. A piece of asbestos installed behind the stove won't hurt you. So I'd say 99% smoking. People who do smoke, smoke much less today as there are so few places or situations where you can smoke.
 

Cliffy

Standing Member
Nov 19, 2008
44,850
192
63
Nakusp, BC
100,000 out how many millions of cases over the past 20 years. More people die from Chemo therapy and related side effects than from cancer. The Cancer Society makes billions every year poisoning people with their barbaric methods when there are actual cures available that have no side effects. Too much money in cancer to allow people to be cured. The Cancer Society are as criminal as the Big Pharma.