Thursday 21 October 2010

Shhh ... Cancer Diagnoses Increase By 4% Following Smoking Bans

Despite this factoid being reported briefly on a music radio station's news this morning, it has been almost entirely ignored elsewhere. It hasn't yet been even briefly mentioned by the BBC, NHS, or CRUK for example. It was unexpectedly difficult to find on Google, requiring not just refining to UK only results, but also only from the past 24 hours.

For a MSM which is usually obsessed with cancer this appears quite strange, especially since the source is impeccable (the Office of National Statistics), as is the news agency who relayed it.

4% increase in new cancer cases

The annual number of new cancer cases has increased by 4% for men and 3.7% for women, according to figures released.

In England in 2008, almost 5,000 more men and more than 4,500 more women were diagnosed with cancer than the previous year. The total number of new cases topped a quarter of a million.
Only the Express and Independent (plus a few regionals) have given it an airing, and even then they just regurgitated the brief PA piece verbatim.

I'm not saying there is a conspiracy going on here - I presume there must be embargoed press releases, or some such, being prepared for publication as I write - but it just isn't how we usually see such statistics being jumped upon treated.

If cancer diagnoses in 2008 had been travelling in the opposite direction, and considering there isn't a cancer which hasn't been blamed on smoking at some point, I'm sure the airwaves and column inches would have been teeming with charity spokespersons, vested interest lobbyists, and politicians claiming that the success of 2008 was solely attributable to the smoking ban.

Perhaps, like heart attack 'miracles', they're just waiting for favourable statistics to present themselves.

Just saying.


16 comments:

Luc Dussart said...

Hello Dick,
Have you read "Disease, diagnostics and Dollars" from Robert Kaplan ?
Nice book that explains that more medicine spending increases sickness.

Regarding cancers, there could be more people diagnosed as having a cancer without more people really sick. False positive diagnostics are common with breast and prostate cancers...

Anonymous said...

It's because people are living longer, QED, cancer is mostly a disease of old age, QED, more cancer patients.
Simples.
Or is it stress related ?
For example stressed out people work more ,eat less,eat more ,sleep less .hmmmm ?

Dick Puddlecote said...

Hi Luc. Yes, I'd considered that, but I don't set the rules in such reporting. I don't remember reading of medical advances contributing to heart attack miracles (statins etc), so if they can ignore them, the point is moot, surely.

Anon: Funny you should say that. Forest Eirann carried something today about just such a subject.

Just a thought, but allowing smokers somewhere warm to sit and relax rather than being shoved outside in the cold, might reduce stress ... and therefore the second biggest cause of cancer.

:)

The witch from Essex said...

These figures are proving that smoking is the the culprit in causing cancer.
We know that tobacco smoke contains traces of aromatic amines that are the carcinogenic chemicals associated with many cancers. Aromatic amines are a class of chemicals found in the plastic and chemical industries, as byproducts of the manufacturing of compounds such as polyurethane foams, dyes, pesticides and pharmaceuticals They are also found in environmental pollution such as diesel exhaust, combustion of wood chips and rubber and grilled meats and fish.
So unless you have managed to avoid all the above please don't believe that smoking is the main cause of cancer.
There are also genetic factors involved with these cancer causing compounds and the difference in the way that people 'detoxify' these compounds.
Certain individuals who had lower detoxifying activity had a higher incidence of cancer.

The witch from Essex said...

Correction:
These figures are proving that smoking is NOT the culprit in causing cancer

timbone said...

haha yes I have just seen this myself on my Virgin Media homepage.

I noticed this bit particularly -
"Meanwhile, lung cancer rose from the third to second most common form, overtaking colorectal.
But as the rate of lung cancer cases increased by 8.3% for women since 1998, it fell by 20% for men."

Now I have heard about the 40 year incubation theory, however, considering that the amount of smokers has fallen by about 35% since 1970, something does not add up.

Of course, the bansterbaters will no doubt ignore the increase, and focus on the 20% decrease in those horrible men who poluted pubs and clubs and diesel workshops.....did somebody mention diesel?

JuliaM said...

That must be why the anti-smoking councils are not too worried about getting caught investing in the tobacco companies then...

SadButMadLad said...

I don't believe that smoking causes the huge amount of lung cancer, especially considering all the other potential sources as witchy says. However the incidence of cancer won't immediately change from the moement the smoking ban starts as it takes some time for cancer to take effect and kill people.

Demetrius said...

Given the choice between sitting in a room with my Uncle smoking his pipe of thick twist or one with an "air freshener" Uncle would win every time on grounds of health and safety. Check out the properties of benzalkonium chloride" to see what I mean, but not in Wikepedia, it was "amended" to remove the relevant effect.

Dick Puddlecote said...

SBML: Agree with your last sentence. It's the same with heart attacks which build up over time, but it doesn't stop anti-smoking lunatics declaring that reductions are solely down to the smoking ban. They're nuts, yet government sockpuppets like Kevin Barron happily quote this stuff in the HoC.

What a country! ;)

Dick Puddlecote said...

Demetrius: I don't doubt you for a minute. I always find it funny that anti-smokers quote all these chemicals found minutely in cigarette smoke and highlight their dangers by saying they are also found in anti-freeze, bleach, weed killer, hairspray etc ... but never blame anti-freeze, bleach, weed killer or hairspray fumes for anything. Nope, just fags.

Ed Butt said...

It's quite ovbious really, without the tar from ciggies to protect them, lungs are more vulnerable to the nasty stuff in car exhaust fumes, leaking from MDF office furniture or being emitted by deep fat fryers.

That ought to wind a few people up.

Just Woke Up said...

SadButMadLad

"However the incidence of cancer won't immediately change from the moement the smoking ban starts as it takes some time for cancer to take effect and kill people."

Evidence to support this bold statement or is it just your own personal opinion???

Erm....and there isn't actually a smoking ban. Just a ban on smoking in certain places. Slip of the tongue, wishful thinking, or do you know something the rest of us don't?

As an environmental engineer with many years experience dare I point out that, unlike the smoking pogrom, The Righteous have nothing to say about the contribution to lung cancer from such sources as glassfibre loft insulation. There's a can of worms right there. Asbestos gets a lot of blame for that one and after years of challenging councils and the EA on the issue of asbestos risk compared to fibres from insulation I am aware that there is the same follow-the-leader principle in play there too. Its all about covering backsides.

How about the cancer blackspot that is the former industrial belt of West Central Scotland where toxic steel, nickel and chrome slag was actually used as a building material in and under tens of thousands of domestic homes. Reports on this were commissioned and produced but as far as I am aware none have ever been publicly published. Too hot to handle, literally. The worry was that if people became aware that they were living on a toxic timebomb it would be a Scottish Chernobyl with towns emptying and the economy crashing due to the impact on the housing market. The politicos wouldn't like that, after all these have always predominantly Labour Councils. Grounds for criminal accusations maybe?? No chance! Easier just to say that smoking caused these hundreds of thousands of deaths and do everything possible to prevent a FACTUALLY based argument using environmental test data to be brought into the debate. Therein lies at least part of truth and to ignore these very real contributory factors in favour of excuses is in itself inexcusable. Check out numbers of young cancer deaths in these toxic hotspots compared to clean areas elsewhere. Do I see a provable trend?

I'm off for a fag.

Just Woke Up said...

SadButMadLad

"However the incidence of cancer won't immediately change from the moement the smoking ban starts as it takes some time for cancer to take effect and kill people."

Evidence to support this bold statement or is it just your own personal opinion???

Erm....and there isn't actually a smoking ban. Just a ban on smoking in certain places. Slip of the tongue, wishful thinking, or do you know something the rest of us don't?

As an environmental engineer with many years experience dare I point out that, unlike the smoking pogrom, The Righteous have nothing to say about the contribution to lung cancer from such sources as glassfibre loft insulation. There's a can of worms right there. Asbestos gets a lot of blame for that one and after years of challenging councils and the EA on the issue of asbestos risk compared to fibres from insulation I am aware that there is the same follow-the-leader principle in play there too. Its all about covering backsides.

Just Woke Up said...

How about the cancer blackspot that is the former industrial belt of West Central Scotland where toxic steel, nickel and chrome slag was actually used as a building material in and under tens of thousands of domestic homes. Reports on this were commissioned and produced but as far as I am aware none have ever been publicly published. Too hot to handle, literally. The worry was that if people became aware that they were living on a toxic timebomb it would be a Scottish Chernobyl with towns emptying and the economy crashing due to the impact on the housing market. The politicos wouldn't like that, after all these have always predominantly Labour Councils. Grounds for criminal accusations maybe?? No chance! Easier just to say that smoking caused these hundreds of thousands of deaths and do everything possible to prevent a FACTUALLY based argument using environmental test data to be brought into the debate. Therein lies at least part of truth and to ignore these very real contributory factors in favour of excuses is in itself inexcusable. Check out numbers of young cancer deaths in these toxic hotspots compared to clean areas elsewhere. Do I see a provable trend?

I'm off for a fag.

Just Woke Up said...

You might have missed this....


http://www.motherwelltimes.co.uk/nhscancer/Meat-potatoes-and-lung-cancer.6373925.jp