The worst disease ever in human history


by Jin S Zhang
Tags: disease, history, human
gravenewworld
gravenewworld is offline
#19
Jan9-08, 06:07 PM
P: 1,389
Smoking is still the #1 leading cause of preventable death world wide. Not obesity, not alcholism, not AIDS, not malaria, not TB, not obesity. SMOKING STILL #1.



Stupid.



The top 3 killers worldwide are

1.) heart disease
2.) stroke
3.) lung cancer.

Smoking contributes to ALL 3 of the top 3 killers worldwide.
mgb_phys
mgb_phys is offline
#20
Jan9-08, 06:33 PM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
P: 8,961
According to the WHO - top 10 causes of death:

Developed countries:
Ischaemic heart disease 3,512,000
Stroke 3,346,000
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease 1,829,000
Lower respiratory infections 1,180,000
Lung cancer 938,000
Car accident 669,000
Stomach cancer 657,000
High blood pressure 635,000
Tuberculosis 571,000
Suicide 499,000


3rd world:
HIV-AIDS 2,678,000
Lower respiratory infections 2,643,000
Ischaemic heart disease 2,484,000
Diarrhea 1,793,000
Cerebrovascular disease 1,381,000
Childhood diseases 1,217,000
Malaria 1,103,000
Tuberculosis 1,021,000
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease 748,000
Measles 674,000


A bit arguable, since diarrhea is a symptom not a disease and it's a bit arbitrary how you split heart disease.
In the developed world it would seem that if you stay away from cigs, fast-food and SUVs you will be OK.
Many of these disease are newcomers or are a result of a more modern lifestyle. Evidence from the number of mutations in the genome to counter it suggests that throughout human evolution malaria has been the big one, upto a couple of hundred years ago it was still one of the biggest killers in Europe. Some estimates suggest that half of all humans who ever lived contracted it!
gravenewworld
gravenewworld is offline
#21
Jan9-08, 06:45 PM
P: 1,389
Quote Quote by mgb_phys View Post
According to the WHO - top 10 causes of death:

Developed countries:
Ischaemic heart disease 3,512,000
Stroke 3,346,000
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease 1,829,000
Lower respiratory infections 1,180,000
Lung cancer 938,000

Car accident 669,000
Stomach cancer 657,000
High blood pressure 635,000
Tuberculosis 571,000
Suicide 499,000


3rd world:
HIV-AIDS 2,678,000
Lower respiratory infections 2,643,000
Ischaemic heart disease 2,484,000

Diarrhea 1,793,000
Cerebrovascular disease 1,381,000
Childhood diseases 1,217,000
Malaria 1,103,000
Tuberculosis 1,021,000
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease 748,000
Measles 674,000


And all of those have an extremely good chance of having smoking as their hidden cause.
henxan
henxan is offline
#22
Jan9-08, 06:54 PM
P: 49
Quote Quote by gravenewworld View Post
Smoking is still the #1 leading cause of preventable death world wide. Not obesity, not alcholism, not AIDS, not malaria, not TB, not obesity. SMOKING STILL #1.



Stupid.



The top 3 killers worldwide are

1.) heart disease
2.) stroke
3.) lung cancer.

Smoking contributes to ALL 3 of the top 3 killers worldwide.
What is the problem with this.. We are running into some critical overpopulation problems now, whats the problem?
gravenewworld
gravenewworld is offline
#23
Jan9-08, 07:03 PM
P: 1,389
Quote Quote by henxan View Post
What is the problem with this.. We are running into some critical overpopulation problems now, whats the problem?
PREVENTABLE death. It costs everyone money when it shouldn't.
NoTime
NoTime is offline
#24
Jan9-08, 07:11 PM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
P: 1,572
Quote Quote by gravenewworld View Post
Smoking is still the #1 leading cause of preventable death world wide. Not obesity, not alcholism, not AIDS, not malaria, not TB, not obesity. SMOKING STILL #1.
I don't know about that obesity thing.
I read a comment in a research article that being 10lbs overweight was equivalent to smoking a pack of cigarettes a day in terms of health risk.

Last I checked the insurance companies docked you 5 years off your life expectancy.
So in terms of years of life lost it doesn't seem to be a big deal compared to something like malaria where children tend to be the victim.
gravenewworld
gravenewworld is offline
#25
Jan9-08, 07:22 PM
P: 1,389
Quote Quote by NoTime View Post
I don't know about that obesity thing.
I read a comment in a research article that being 10lbs overweight was equivalent to smoking a pack of cigarettes a day in terms of health risk.

Last I checked the insurance companies docked you 5 years off your life expectancy.
So in terms of years of life lost it doesn't seem to be a big deal compared to something like malaria where children tend to be the victim.
There are numerous sources out there that claim smoking is the #1 leading cause of preventable death in the world. You can simply search google to find a ton. Here in the US, obesity is approaching #1 status as the leading killer because Americans in general smoke less than a lot of countries in the world per capita wise. However, consider places like Japan where obesity isn't that much of a problem. Almost 2/3 of Japanese men smoke . In China it is estimated that 350 million people smoke . Smoking rates have dramatically risen in Asian countries. By 2020 WHO predicts that smoking will kill 10 million people per year world wide. Obesity is a problem among industrialized nations, however, you will find smokers EVERYWHERE. Smoking is still king when it comes to killing and will remain in the top spot for years to come.
henxan
henxan is offline
#26
Jan9-08, 07:25 PM
P: 49
Quote Quote by gravenewworld View Post
PREVENTABLE death. It costs everyone money when it shouldn't.
It costs everyone a lot of money? What is this, youre a greedy bastard?

Well, firstly, I would like to point out that you have what could be misinterpreted arrogant attitude. Then what I am going to say probably will please you!

Actually Poland did a research on this subject, and wouldnt you know it, its actually good for the economy! People die earlier, ergo less expenses for treatment the elderly. This actually by a great deal outweighs the negative consequences you mentioned. Another extremely positive factor is the relative high taxes being put on tobacco sales. This depends on the individual countries, but for instance for Norway, which I come from, have put taxes in the range of several hundreds of percent on the tobacco.

Therefore, as a conclusion, there is no economic negative aspect to tobacco. If one is to state a reason for banning tobacco, it would be on a basis of telling people of how they should live their life. Like in a communistic system. Is that ok?
gravenewworld
gravenewworld is offline
#27
Jan9-08, 07:39 PM
P: 1,389
Quote Quote by henxan View Post
It costs everyone a lot of money? What is this, youre a greedy bastard?
LOL, so what is better spending tons of filthy lucre on treating PREVENTABLE DISEASES or spending all of that money on AIDS research?

Well, firstly, I would like to point out that you have what could be misinterpreted arrogant attitude.

So I have been told.

ctually Poland did a research on this subject, and wouldnt you know it, its actually good for the economy! People die earlier, ergo less expenses for treatment the elderly. This actually by a great deal outweighs the negative consequences you mentioned. Another extremely positive factor is the relative high taxes being put on tobacco sales. This depends on the individual countries, but for instance for Norway, which I come from, have put taxes in the range of several hundreds of percent on the tobacco.

You know what is also good for the economy? Consuming as much as possible. I guess we should continue to consume as much as possible irregardless of the disastrous effects it may have on the environment.

Also please link to the Polish study. From what you have described the Polish study seems to have only examined costs of treating smoking illnesses vs. cost of elderly care. If you are going to talk economics then start thinking like an economist. Smoking also has costs from lost productivity. You can not simply ignore that HUGE point and must factor it in to how much smoking really economically costs.

Therefore, as a conclusion, there is no economic negative aspect to tobacco. If one is to state a reason for banning tobacco, it would be on a basis of telling people of how they should live their life. Like in a communistic system. Is that ok?

Where did I ever mention the word 'ban' ? Get a friggin clue dude.
OmCheeto
OmCheeto is offline
#28
Jan9-08, 08:33 PM
PF Gold
OmCheeto's Avatar
P: 1,370
Cars is apparently the correct answer. (In the good old USofA at least)
Most of the modern diseases affect mostly older people who would not have been alive at their age a couple of hundred years ago. So healthcare, media, and general societal hysteria might come in as a good second, third and fourth as most deadly diseases.

http://www.disastercenter.com/cdc/

Odd. The music playing in the background where I'm at is "So alive"

I always knock on wood when I hear that song.
NoTime
NoTime is offline
#29
Jan9-08, 08:33 PM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
P: 1,572
Quote Quote by gravenewworld View Post
LOL, so what is better spending tons of filthy lucre on treating PREVENTABLE DISEASES or spending all of that money on AIDS research?
Lol. Preventable?
You could eliminate AIDS if everyone stopped having sex.
As an added benefit this would solve all enviromental problems in about 60 years.

You could solve the malaria problem just by moving all people out of the tropics.

PS: While I don't have any handy links I've seen other studies that indicate smokers die cheaper.
NoTime
NoTime is offline
#30
Jan9-08, 08:42 PM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
P: 1,572
Quote Quote by OmCheeto View Post
Most of the modern diseases affect mostly older people who would not have been alive at their age a couple of hundred years ago.
You don't have to go back that far. IIRC the life expectancy in the USA in 1900 was 45 and probably remains in that neighborhood for a lot of the world currently.

Personally I'd pick poverty.
gravenewworld
gravenewworld is offline
#31
Jan9-08, 09:40 PM
P: 1,389
Quote Quote by NoTime View Post
Lol. Preventable?
You could eliminate AIDS if everyone stopped having sex.
As an added benefit this would solve all enviromental problems in about 60 years.

You could solve the malaria problem just by moving all people out of the tropics.


No AIDS is still transferable from non sexual contact.


PS: While I don't have any handy links I've seen other studies that indicate smokers die cheaper.

You should read this book then that was published by MIT
http://books.google.com/books?id=J4i...with-thumbnail

There are 100s of studies out there that have tried to determine the net cost of smoking to society, however, most of them only concentrate on one thing such as medical costs vs. savings in shorter lifespan while ignoring many other costs attributed with smoking like lost productivity.

In that book Sloan (Duke Economist) conducted one of the most recent and comprehensive studies of the net cost of smoking and concludes that even if you factor in the shorter lifespans of smokers, smoking still places an economic burden on the rest of society.


Sure smokers pay cigarette taxes, but they earn less over their lifetime (because of the more time they need off etc.) thus leading to less taxes paid into things like income taxes.

Read the book.

You could solve the malaria problem just by moving all people out of the tropics.

Even though Malaria in the US is rare (and considered to be eradicated in the US) there are still reported cases of Malaria infections from people who didn't even travel outside of the US.

http://www.cdc.gov/malaria/features/surveillance.htm

Also moving 4 billion people from tropical climates or sub saharan Africa in order to avoid malaria IS NOT REALISTIC.
ZapperZ
ZapperZ is offline
#32
Jan11-08, 08:00 AM
Mentor
ZapperZ's Avatar
P: 28,841
In case people have forgotten, please click on the link to PF Guidelines. You are also welcome to use the REPORT button if you believe a post is out of line. If you choose to IGNORE all that, then a bunch of you will be forced to go find a life elsewhere away from PF.

Zz.
jim mcnamara
jim mcnamara is offline
#33
Jan11-08, 08:41 AM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 1,355
Zz has it exactly. You guys are arguing ad hominem - not critiquing data or data gathering procedures. That is a fast path to getting a horizontal line thru your username.
henxan
henxan is offline
#34
Jan11-08, 11:31 AM
P: 49
Yeah, I see that I went a bit over the border there.. Well, now I know where the limit is set, and Ill try to refrain from passing it in the future :)..
henxan
henxan is offline
#35
Jan11-08, 11:48 AM
P: 49
Gravenworld:

I must apologize, because the study was not made in Poland, but in the Czech Republic ;).. you know, there's always problems sorting out between those countries.
Another error I made was stating that the study was financed by the State. This is not factual, and came as a result of hearing the news on radio several years ago, and everything did not stick ;)..

Well, here is your link:http://www.mindfully.org/Industry/Ph...zech-Study.htm

Though provisioned by Philip Morris, the data should be easily verified!.. Let me hear back when you get to read through it ;)
denverdoc
denverdoc is offline
#36
Jan11-08, 06:49 PM
P: 1,351
IMO this discussion underscores Ivan's original point about addiction. Nicotine while not producing euphoria has the curious property of being among the most addictive substances known to man. The leader tho by quite a stretch in terms of addiction worldwide remains caffeine.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Can we see human history through a telescope? General Astronomy 5
The greatest tragedy in human history General Discussion 179
Websites on Human Pre-history and history Social Sciences 0
I made the worst chem disaster in history General Discussion 16
Worst Famous Philosopher in History General Discussion 43