Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Cancer / April 2005
Peter Jennings has lung cancer -- another stupid smoker bites the dust !
|
|
Thread rating:  |
~ Typh?id Mary ~ - 06 Apr 2005 08:03 GMT Peter Jennings has lung cancer Says he stopped smoking 20 years ago, but relapsed during 9/11
NEW YORK (CNN) -- Longtime ABC anchor Peter Jennings has been diagnosed with lung cancer, the broadcaster announced on his evening newscast Tuesday.
"Yes, I was a smoker until about 20 years ago, and I was weak and I smoked over 9/11," the 66-year-old anchor told viewers at the close of Tuesday's "World News Tonight," his usually mellifluous voice hoarse.
He lauded his colleagues, to whom he had divulged his diagnosis earlier in the day in an e-mail, as "incredibly supportive."
Nearly 10 million Americans "are living with cancer," he said, citing National Cancer Institute statistics. "I have a lot to learn from them, and 'living' is the key word."
Jennings, a native Canadian who became a U.S. citizen in 2003, said he would continue to anchor the program.
"On good days, my voice will not always be like this," he said with a chuckle.
Jennings, known for always being immaculately dressed and coiffed, is to begin chemotherapy Monday. "I wonder if other men and women ask their doctors right away, 'OK, doc, when does the hair go?'" he said.
Hair loss is a common side effect of some forms of chemotherapy.
In his e-mail to ABC News staff, Jennings said the diagnosis "was quite a surprise."
"There will be good days and bad, which means that some days I may be cranky and some days really cranky!"
"Hundreds of you have been like family. It feels good to have such a family right now."
An ABC spokesman said Jennings received the diagnosis Monday night.
The spokesman said Jennings had been feeling ill for the past couple of months and underwent a number of tests before the diagnosis was made. He did not travel to cover the tsunami in South Asia or the death of Pope John Paul II.
In a companion e-mail, ABC News President David Westin said, "I know that all of us will give him every bit of support that he needs and asks for. Peter will once again lead the way, but we will stand with him at every turn."
Westin said when Jennings does not feel well enough to anchor, "Charlie Gibson, Elizabeth Vargas and others will be substituting for Peter as necessary and when their other responsibilities permit."
Vargas anchored Tuesday night's program.
The news sent ripples through the broadcast journalism world, which has been shaken up in recent months, with CBS's Dan Rather and NBC's Tom Brokaw leaving their anchor posts.
Last week, Ted Koppel announced he would soon be leaving the job as anchor of ABC's "Nightline." In addition, former ABC "20/20" anchor Barbara Walters also recently stepped down.
"Peter is an old friend," Brokaw said in a press release. "I'm heartbroken, but he's also a tough guy. I'm counting on him getting through this very difficult passage."
Jennings has been the sole anchor of "World News Tonight" since 1983. He was part of a group of anchors, with Frank Reynolds and Max Robinson, for several years before that.
He has won numerous awards, among them a National Headliner Award and the George Foster Peabody award.
Before taking the anchor chair at "World News Tonight," Jennings was an ABC correspondent.
Among the stories he covered were the Summer Olympic Games in Munich, Germany, in 1972, when members of the Arab terrorist group Black September seized the Israeli compound and took athletes hostage.
In 1965, when he was 26, Jennings was chosen to anchor "The ABC Evening News." Two years later, he told his bosses he needed more seasoning and returned to field reporting, said CNN correspondent Jeff Greenfield, a former ABC News employee.
Lung cancer is the No. 1 cancer killer of men and women in the world. It is difficult to detect early and difficult to treat.
The average patient is diagnosed at age 70.
The five-year survival rate for men diagnosed with the disease is 14 percent, according to the National Cancer Institute.
This year, there will be 172,570 new cases of lung cancer in the United States: 93,010 among men and 79,560 among women, according to the American Cancer Society.
Oncologists say the stage of Jennings' cancer, which ABC did not divulge, is critical to his prognosis. Cancer stages range from 1 to 4, with 4 being the most advanced, indicating the disease has spread.
Typically, patients with Stage 1 lung cancer, the most curable form, are initially treated with surgery, said Dr. Jimmy Wang, an oncologist at Georgetown University in Washington, who has not reviewed Jennings' case.
The fact that Jennings is starting his treatment with chemotherapy "is actually a little bit worrisome," Wang said.
Asked whether that suggests Jennings' cancer is advanced, Wang said, "That would suggest that, yes."
 Signature The cautious seldom err. --Confucius
dgsam2@telusplanet.net - 06 Apr 2005 10:37 GMT Typhoid Mary (an apt description from your callous comment re smoking) - A lot of us smoked for years before we knew it was bad for us - I even smoked in my hospital bed when I was 18 and had an allergic reaction to hair dye. Now that we are in our 50's and 60's we are paying the price but Peter Jennings did quit for years but you have to have compassion and not be judgemental. It is a strong addiction and your "stupid" comment was totally innappropriate. I am new to the board and I am sorry if I shouldn't be responding this way but feel this is no place for pompous, holier-than-thou comments.
Donna
J - 06 Apr 2005 11:05 GMT > Typhoid Mary (an apt description from your callous comment re smoking) > - A lot of us smoked for years before we knew it was bad for us - I [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > board and I am sorry if I shouldn't be responding this way but feel > this is no place for pompous, holier-than-thou comments. Thanks for not crossposting. That certainly was a trolish post ( geared to invoke angry responses on various newsgroups).
At this point, I don't have his details (type of lung cancer and stage). I will look later and see what I can find. J
DHannes - 06 Apr 2005 15:51 GMT > Peter Jennings has lung cancer > Says he stopped smoking 20 years ago, but relapsed during 9/11 (snip)
Alright, I don't think anyone can say 100% one way or the other that his cigarette smoking caused the lung cancer or not, but it probably was a factor in all likelihood.
That said, if he quit 20 years ago, doesn't much of the lung tissue replace itself with healthy tissue? Or is cancer an overreplacement reaction by the body (I recall one brochure on cancer indicating it was excessive tissue regeneration).
Noticeably omitted, however, is the fact that Jennings spent several years reporting from other countries in Eastern Europe, presumably having been exposed to lead paint, asbestos, and other chemicals in hotels, restaurants, offices, etc....
D
\ - 06 Apr 2005 17:49 GMT > > Peter Jennings has lung cancer > > Says he stopped smoking 20 years ago, but relapsed during 9/11 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Alright, I don't think anyone can say 100% one way or the other that > his cigarette smoking caused the lung cancer What can you say 100% one way of the other in medcine, eh moron?
> or not, but it probably > was a factor in all likelihood. But since it isn't 100% certain , just ignore it.
> That said, if he quit 20 years ago, doesn't much of the lung tissue > replace itself with healthy tissue? Sure it does, keep telling yourself that.
> Or is cancer an overreplacement > reaction by the body (I recall one brochure on cancer indicating it [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > years reporting from other countries in Eastern Europe, presumably > having been exposed to lead paint, What? Did he eat paint chips for snacks, eh jackass?
Lead paint is a toxigen when *ingested* by young children.
>asbestos, and other chemicals in > hotels, restaurants, offices, etc.... So those who actuall live 24/7 in Europe ought to be dropping like flies from cancer, eh?
> D J - 06 Apr 2005 19:07 GMT I heard that the lungs get better when you stop smoking.
J - 06 Apr 2005 19:24 GMT Smart enough to uncrosss some newsgroups but not smart enough to change his screen name, righteo..now we know he's doing it on purpose... plonk <burglar_of_turds@yahoo.com> If you are using Outlook Express, as with other troublemakers here, either use the Message Rules (which is similar to Netscape or Mozilla) Follow this guideline, for "news" https://support.nuvox.net/index.php/999 to copy/paste the posting name and email address into the rules
or plonk, Highlight/select the post. Click on 'message' between 'tools and help' at the top of OE... then click on block sender.. They may not disappear immediately, only when you exit the newsgroup and come back in.
If you are using newsreader Forte Agent, here's how to plonk him on every newsgroup (under that email address). Global filters in Forte Agent: (I assume, like other newsreaders one selects that poster's post), then: It's just 'Ctrl & K' followed by 'I'
If you don't have a newsreader get one so you can "plonk" such posters.
J
rkzenrage - 06 Apr 2005 21:05 GMT Allen wrote:
> PLONK!!! May I ask what a "Plonk" is? Namaste' Robert
Charles R. Kaiser - 06 Apr 2005 21:12 GMT > May I ask what a "Plonk" is? "Plonk" is the sound made when a troll (or someone that you just don't happen to agree with) is dropped into a killfile. In other words, a poster is making a show of having killfiled or filtered another poster by publicly "plonking" them.
 Signature ___ ____________ \ \/ ___ ___/ Charles R. Kaiser MFA 1991 \ / / / -- GO HOKIES! -- \ / / / \/ /__/ Technical Theatre & Design - fewer actors, more beer
Direct all incoming fire to: 44° 00' 43" N 79° 27' 06" W
rkzenrage - 06 Apr 2005 21:33 GMT > "Plonk" is the sound made when a troll (or someone that you just don't > happen to agree with) is dropped into a killfile. In other words, a [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > \ / / / > \/ /__/ Technical Theatre & Design - fewer actors, more beer Thank you. Namaste' Robert Tucker Retired professional actor. (Also grew up on a ranch and helped a great deal backstage with carpentry, artistic, painting, and reg. welding skills)
\ - 07 Apr 2005 00:42 GMT > Allen wrote: > > PLONK!!! > > > May I ask what a "Plonk" is? Idiots who can't debate the facts will claim to ignore the poster's future postings by blocking/flitering the person who delivers information that they don't agree with and cannot refute.
It is a sign of ignorance on their part.
> Namaste' > Robert Mickey - 07 Apr 2005 01:06 GMT >> Allen wrote: >> > PLONK!!! [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >the person who delivers information that they don't agree >with and cannot refute. Like you, you pathetic excuse for a human being? Oh, wait, that's not quite fair. You don't plonk, you just run away like a little girl.
>It is a sign of ignorance on their part. > >> Namaste' >> Robert \ - 07 Apr 2005 01:10 GMT > > > Allen wrote: > > > > PLONK!!! [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Like you, you pathetic excuse for a human being? Oh, wait, that's not > quite fair. You don't plonk, you just run away like a little girl. Do little girls run away from you when they see you, eh pedo?
> > It is a sign of ignorance on their part. > > > > > Namaste' > > > Robert Mickey - 07 Apr 2005 01:25 GMT >> > > Allen wrote: >> > > > PLONK!!! [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >Do little girls run away from you when they see you, eh pedo? Nope. And you have once again intentionally misinterpreted what was said. Have the person reading to you go more slowly next time.
I said that you behave like a little girl, disgusting self-important little weed.
>> > It is a sign of ignorance on their part. >> > >> > > Namaste' >> > > Robert \ - 07 Apr 2005 01:29 GMT > > > > > Allen wrote: > > > > > > PLONK!!! [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > I said that you behave like a little girl, disgusting self-important > little weed. So you think that little girls are "disgusting self-important little weeds" now, eh pedo ?
> > > > It is a sign of ignorance on their part. > > > > > > > > > Namaste' > > > > > Robert Mickey - 07 Apr 2005 01:40 GMT >> > > > > Allen wrote: >> > > > > > PLONK!!! [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >So you think that little girls are "disgusting self-important little weeds" >now, eh pedo ? Nope. And you have once again intentionally misinterpreted what was said. Have the person reading to you go more slowly next time. Why do you keep talking about little girls, anyway? Do you have some kind of personal problem?
Are you so ashamed, humiliated and embarrassed by what you said before, that all you can do in response is try to be cute by taking phrases out of context?
You should be.
Ken Dixon - 07 Apr 2005 04:31 GMT It's sad that Jennings has cancer and he has my prayers but what's sadder is the absolute JOY these anti-tobacco zealots are getting from it. These people really need to take a close look at themselves.
\ - 07 Apr 2005 05:26 GMT > It's sad that Jennings has cancer and he has my prayers Your "prayers" are as utterly worthless.
Millions of superstitious braying jackasses didn't do sweet f.ck all for Terry Shaivo or the Pope.
> but what's > sadder is the absolute JOY these anti-tobacco zealots are getting from > it. These people really need to take a close look at themselves. Yeah, god forbid the idiot SMOKERs take a look at the CANCER their putrid repugnant drug addiction brings upon them.
You really are a stammering imbecile, aren't you?
Rich Blount - 07 Apr 2005 15:25 GMT On 4/7/05 0:26, in article aC25e.51$cA5.940@news.uswest.net, ""- Prof. Jonez©"" <jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
>> It's sad that Jennings has cancer and he has my prayers > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > You really are a stammering imbecile, aren't you? Good morning to you too Mr. Sunshine... <plonk>
Charles R. Kaiser - 07 Apr 2005 18:24 GMT I really like how this poster goes from this thought:
"- Prof. Jonez©" wrote:
> Your "prayers" are as utterly worthless. > > Millions of superstitious braying jackasses didn't do > sweet f.ck all for Terry Shaivo or the Pope. To this thought:
> Yeah, god forbid Welcome to the "Millions of superstitious braying jackasses" Prof. Jonez©!
 Signature ___ ____________ \ \/ ___ ___/ Charles R. Kaiser MFA 1991 \ / / / -- GO HOKIES! -- \ / / / \/ /__/ Technical Theatre & Design - fewer actors, more beer
Direct all incoming fire to: 44° 00' 43" N 79° 27' 06" W
\ - 07 Apr 2005 18:42 GMT > I really like how this poster goes from this thought: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Welcome to the "Millions of superstitious braying jackasses" Prof. > Jonez?! Your sarcasm meter busted again, Chuck, or did you pawn it to buy you last pack of smokes?
Charles R. Kaiser - 07 Apr 2005 18:50 GMT "- Prof. Jonez©" wrote:
> Your sarcasm meter busted again, Chuck, or did you pawn it to buy > you last pack of smokes? No. I wouldn't have to pawn anything if I needed a pack of smokes. I could easily sell some of my Cuban cigars to my fellow Canadians and buy all the smokes I need. Fact is, I haven't smoked cigarettes since I quit one day in 1991.
And please, you can call me a hopeless addict if you must, but don't ever call me Chuck.
 Signature ___ ____________ \ \/ ___ ___/ Charles R. Kaiser MFA 1991 \ / / / -- GO HOKIES! -- \ / / / \/ /__/ Technical Theatre & Design - fewer actors, more beer
Direct all incoming fire to: 44° 00' 43" N 79° 27' 06" W
Bruce Watson - 08 Apr 2005 00:18 GMT >I haven't smoked cigarettes since I quit one day in 1991. "Virtually, all cigarette smokers inhale, even those who say they do not, and they continue to do so when they switch to pipes or cigars." --William Bennett, MD, is associate editor of the Harvard Medical School Health Letter, Science 80, September/October 1980.
"Recall that carbon monoxide is only absorbed through the lungs. Also, serum carboxyhemoglobin levels accurately reflect exposure to carbon monoxide. Given the elevated serum carboxyhemoglobin levels demonstrated in ex-cigarette smokers who smoke cigars, it is clear that ex-cigarette smokers, even though they report no inhalation, do inhale." --Marc J. Schneiderman, M.D., 1998
jlruble - 08 Apr 2005 22:48 GMT > >I haven't smoked cigarettes since I quit one day in 1991. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > no inhalation, do inhale." > --Marc J. Schneiderman, M.D., 1998 Maybe you should go to a young person NG. Your posting here is equivalent to shooting yourself in the foot.
You are saying (if I read you correctly) {and that is difficult since you are usually incurhent} that quitting smoking still consigns you to lung cancer. Then why should we quit?
Of course, no one here pays any attention to your rants, anyway.
Have a good day. Maybe you will be lucky enough to smell some second hand smoke from Middleton's Cherry blend.
SCOTTY
Bruce Watson - 10 Apr 2005 19:00 GMT >and that is difficult since you are usually incurhent Say what?
Robert Broughton - 11 Apr 2005 04:40 GMT >>and that is difficult since you are usually incurhent > > Say what? Get with it, Bruce. Surely you know what "incurhent" means. :-)
 Signature Bob Broughton http://broughton.ca/ Vancouver, BC, Canada "Not all carcinogens are known to cause cancer in humans." - Todd Benson, mailto:tbenson37@cox.net , Oct. 24, 2004
\ - 11 Apr 2005 15:44 GMT > > > and that is difficult since you are usually incurhent > > > > Say what? > > Get with it, Bruce. Surely you know what "incurhent" means. :-) That tobacco addicts are stammering illiterates?
Chuck Lasseter - 08 Apr 2005 03:04 GMT I am curious Jonez,
Given the sympathy kindness and understanding you have shown to everone are you just a complete a.shole. Is this just you personality, where you may have had human decency removed at an early age. Or last you can't kick your dog right now, and, feeling impotent, take it all out on us?
I am just curious.
A different ChuckOn Thu, 7 Apr 2005 11:42:51 -0600, " \"- Prof.
>> I really like how this poster goes from this thought: >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >Your sarcasm meter busted again, Chuck, or did you pawn it to buy >you last pack of smokes? \ - 07 Apr 2005 00:40 GMT > I heard that the lungs get better when you stop smoking. Did you hear the check is in the mail, I love you, and I promise not to come in your mouth ...?
rkzenrage - 08 Apr 2005 14:26 GMT > I heard that the lungs get better when you stop smoking. I have been very bothered by this over the last few days. I grew up working hard, too hard, welding, getting rolled by bulls & horses... eating dust and dried crap, sawing wood and concrete, painting, stripping paint, mixing god-knows-what.. then... eventually ... during a very tough time I got very lucky and became an assistant still-master (Sarcasm, tough, nasty, job. Worked 7 days a week 9 months out of the year on rotating shifts. Family, family who?). You don't want to begin to know the serious horrible fumes I inhaled before reading (on my own) the OSHA manual on what we were working with. Once they got me off the floor from fainting in terror, as I had been working with these chemicals for over a year, unprotected, some cause things that I just don't think about anymore, I asked for "my gear" for working for the chemicals... the fight that ensued is not the point of this post. The point is, though because of that job I know a hell of a lot more about what goes into cigarettes and why pipe and cigar smokers live longer than cigarettes smokers and why I quit immediately after my 3rd month there, that it made me think, looking back.
Ok, so the guy used to smoke a loooong time age, yes the lungs heal, efficiently as long as you don't have emphysema. Big deal, sure it COULD have caused it, but BIG DEAL. Something keeps niggling me, it has been constant, WHY is no one looking at this guy's LIFE? How many asbestos ridden hotels has he stayed in, in how many 3rd world countries? How many battles in how many wars, insurrections, coups, revolutions and just bad situations has this guy been in? I study military life and history, being unable to serve was hard on me, and I know what is in the air, or at least what is publicly known, and it ain't good. I wonder how great that low-grade uranium is when it aspirates off of those armor-piercing warheads in your lungs when you breath it in as it settles back onto the field while you do your spot or write your piece? Yeah, it was the cig he was smoking. How many dusty roads has he been down in the back of an open jeep before we all wore dust masks? How many factories has he covered? How many places do you think he has been where dung fires and heavy coal industry was the local custom? How many, how many, how many....it just keeps going, this guy has lived a wonderful, full life in the service of bringing the world to us and in the doing has exposed himself to that world in a way that many of us, most of us, cannot imagine.... Sure, it COULD have been the little "cancer sticks", but I just think that there are bigger trails on this mountain. I am not a professional of any kind, just my intuitive .02, just too many questions that are really bugging me. By the way, :much healing energy to you Mr. Jennings: what you did you did for your own reasons but you showed us the world and, for me, that is something we cannot repay you for, gentle days. Namaste' Robert
\ - 08 Apr 2005 18:12 GMT > > I heard that the lungs get better when you stop smoking. > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > How many asbestos ridden hotels has he stayed in, in how many 3rd > world countries? He doesn't have asbestosis, asshat, he has lung cancer.
> How many battles in how many wars, insurrections, coups, revolutions > and just bad situations has this guy been in? Been in? Or covered for a few days from the safety of the best downtown hotel?
If your premise were true, then all those who actually fought in those conflicts, 24/7 frontline, ought to be giant walking carcinomas right now.
> I study military life and history, being unable to serve was hard on > me, Why?
> and I know what is in the air, or at least what is publicly known, > and it ain't good. I wonder how great that low-grade uranium is when > it aspirates off of those armor-piercing warheads in your lungs when > you breath it in as it settles back onto the field while you do your > spot or write your piece? You're ignoring the 1000s of front line soldiers who would have had exposures 1000x more than some reporter doing a few days Live Reporting from the Hotel lawn.
> Yeah, it was the cig he was smoking. > How many dusty roads has he been down in the back of an open jeep > before we all wore dust masks? So where are all the cancerous Off-roaders?
> How many factories has he covered? How many factory WORKERS have lung cancer? How many SMOKING factory workers have HIGHER incidences of Lung cancer?
> How many places do you think he has been where dung fires and heavy > coal industry was the local custom? > How many, how many, how many....it just keeps going, this guy has > lived a wonderful, full life in the service of bringing the world to > us and in the doing has exposed himself to that world in a way that > many of us, most of us, cannot imagine.... Ibid.
> Sure, it COULD have been the little "cancer sticks", but I just > think that there are bigger trails on this mountain. You fabricated those trails in your deluded imagination. If/when you have some evidence, any at all, that his exposure to other environmental hazards exceeded his risk from smoking, then please post it for review.
> I am not a professional of any kind, Clearly.
>just my intuitive .02, just too > many questions that are really bugging me. Try and stick with the facts then.
> By the way, :much healing energy to you Mr. Jennings: what you did you > did for your own reasons but you showed us the world and, for me, that > is something we cannot repay you for, gentle days. > Namaste' > Robert J - 08 Apr 2005 18:37 GMT > >burglar of turd wrote: > > > I heard that the lungs get better when you stop smoking. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > He doesn't have asbestosis, asshat, he has lung cancer. Asbestiosis/mesothelioma is one type of lung cancer. http://www.cancerbacup.org.uk/Cancertype/Lung/General/Typesoflungcancer There's the smoking type (NSCLC), there's SCLC - other cancers can occur in the lungs too. Now that you've done the name-calling, the ignorance about lung cancers, how's about leaving alt.support.cancer out of it? Look up to the address/to in your reply and delete alt.support.cancer You've (all) milked this one long enough and you don't even know which type of lung cancer Jennings has... J - alt.support.cancer
\ - 08 Apr 2005 18:53 GMT > > > burglar of turd wrote: > > > > I heard that the lungs get better when you stop smoking. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Asbestiosis/mesothelioma is one type of lung cancer. > http://www.cancerbacup.org.uk/Cancertype/Lung/General/Typesoflungcancer It AIN'T the type of Cancer the Peter Jennings has, now is it moron?
Mart van de Wege - 10 Apr 2005 11:23 GMT >> > > burglar of turd wrote: >> > > > I heard that the lungs get better when you stop smoking. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > It AIN'T the type of Cancer the Peter Jennings has, now is it moron? So,
It is not enough that you troll the smokers groups. You now have to bring your self-righteous crusades into a support group for cancer patients? And when asked politely to take it out of that group, not only do ignore the request, you verbally abuse the one doing the request.
HAVE YOU NO SHAME?!
Follow-ups set to alt.smokers.pipes, in case you want to answer. Apologies to the folks in alt.support.cancer.
Mart
 Signature "We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes." --- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.
\ - 10 Apr 2005 22:26 GMT > > > > > burglar of turd wrote: > > > > > > I heard that the lungs get better when you stop smoking. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > bring your self-righteous crusades into a support group for cancer > patients? Too bad you don't get to determine what other people do or don't post, eh loser?
> And when asked politely to take it out of that group, not > only do ignore the request, you verbally abuse the one doing the > request. You can "ask" all you want, don't mean anyone's got to listen to you. Your request has been rejected. Deal with it.
If you don't like the postings, then don't read them moron.
> HAVE YOU NO SHAME?! Are you stewpid? Who's forcing you to read the posts, much less reply to them, eh? Who, exactly?
> Follow-ups set to alt.smokers.pipes, in case you want to > answer. Apologies to the folks in alt.support.cancer. > > Mart bj - 08 Apr 2005 20:42 GMT > Ok, so the guy used to smoke a loooong time age, yes the lungs heal, > efficiently as long as you don't have emphysema. He also said he smoked after 9/11, though I didn't hear how much or for how long. bj
PRSmith - 07 Apr 2005 01:15 GMT >> Peter Jennings has lung cancer >> Says he stopped smoking 20 years ago, but relapsed during 9/11 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > other that his cigarette smoking caused the lung cancer or > not, but it probably was a factor in all likelihood. No, but what we can say for certain is that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer.
DHannes - 07 Apr 2005 15:06 GMT >>> Peter Jennings has lung cancer >>> Says he stopped smoking 20 years ago, but relapsed during 9/11 [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > No, but what we can say for certain is that cigarette smoking causes lung > cancer. Yeah, maybe if someone smoked 3 packs of unfiltered smokes a day for 30 years.
My grandfather smoked a pack a day for over 30 years...never got lung cancer.
D
\ - 07 Apr 2005 17:42 GMT > > > > Peter Jennings has lung cancer > > > > Says he stopped smoking 20 years ago, but relapsed during 9/11 [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > My grandfather smoked a pack a day for over 30 years...never got lung > cancer. A woman skydiver once fell over 3000ft to the ground without a functioning parachute ... she didn't die.
Care to try it, moron?
> D Bruce Watson - 08 Apr 2005 00:35 GMT >My grandfather smoked a pack a day for over 30 years...never got lung >cancer. Get a group of people together. Put blindfolds on them. Have them cross a busy highway. Some will make it across.
PRSmith - 08 Apr 2005 02:14 GMT >>>> Peter Jennings has lung cancer >>>> Says he stopped smoking 20 years ago, but relapsed during [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Yeah, maybe if someone smoked 3 packs of unfiltered smokes a > day for 30 years. Unfortunately, you have no way of knowing. It could be as you say and not happen until the smoker is 50 (20 + 30 - still a very young person) or it could be (and often is) a six fags a day smoker. Do you feel lucky, punk? Obviously you do. I wish you luck.
> My grandfather smoked a pack a day for over 30 years...never > got lung cancer. Man got lucky. You may have inherited his genes and be lucky also. Then again, you might not.
shrikeback - 08 Apr 2005 05:27 GMT >>>> Peter Jennings has lung cancer >>>> Says he stopped smoking 20 years ago, but relapsed during 9/11 [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > My grandfather smoked a pack a day for over 30 years...never got lung > cancer. Yes. Actually, all we can say is that smoking (even a pack a day) increases the risk of getting lung cancer, which is a slightly weaker assertion than "smoking causes lung cancer".
PRSmith - 08 Apr 2005 14:27 GMT >>>>> Peter Jennings has lung cancer >>>>> Says he stopped smoking 20 years ago, but relapsed during [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > day) increases the risk of getting lung cancer, which is a > slightly weaker assertion than "smoking causes lung cancer". Both, however, are 100% accurate statements. Which YOU choose to focus on is, of course, your decision but the fact remains. Also keep in mind that the result might not be lung cancer. It might be heart disease, COPD, amputation of the extremities, stroke, cancer of a number of other organs in the body, etc.
shrikeback - 09 Apr 2005 03:19 GMT >>>>>> Peter Jennings has lung cancer >>>>>> Says he stopped smoking 20 years ago, but relapsed during [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Both, however, are 100% accurate statements. Which YOU choose to focus on > is, of course, your decision but the fact remains. My formulation is verifiable. Yours isn't.
> Also keep in mind that the result might not be lung cancer. It might be > heart disease, COPD, amputation of the extremities, stroke, cancer of a > number of other organs in the body, etc. Or, the result could be something like this...
http://www.goodbyemag.com/may97/oldest.html
" Jeanne Calment had something better: a birth certificate issued in France in 1875. At age 122, Calment was the oldest documented person in the world. She claimed to remember meeting Van Gogh when he had both ears, and described him as "very ugly, ungracious, impolite, sick." She lived the life of a haute bourgeois housewife and never worked for a living. She only gave up smoking in the last few years, was said to eat two pounds of chocolate a week, and outlived all her descendants. "
It's just not very likely. See, this is what you're leaving out: everything is a matter of probabilities in this universe. Even the position of an electron.
L Sternn - 09 Apr 2005 08:08 GMT >> Both, however, are 100% accurate statements. Which YOU choose to focus on >> is, of course, your decision but the fact remains. > >My formulation is verifiable. Yours isn't. Of course his isn't - you have no idea who you're dealing with. PR has been a troll of alt.smokers for over a decade.
He's a former nicotine addict who replaced his addiction with usenet.
He claims he is a conservative, yet he favors bigger gov't, MORE taxes, and doesn't believe in freedom of speech.
\ - 09 Apr 2005 19:30 GMT > > > Both, however, are 100% accurate statements. Which YOU choose to > > > focus on is, of course, your decision but the fact remains. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > He claims he is a conservative, yet he favors bigger gov't, MORE > taxes, and doesn't believe in freedom of speech. He's a RepugniKKKan scumbag.
PRSmith - 09 Apr 2005 21:06 GMT >>>>>>> Peter Jennings has lung cancer >>>>>>> Says he stopped smoking 20 years ago, but relapsed during [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > My formulation is verifiable. Yours isn't. Your "formulation"?? What are you babbling about? The fact is that tobacco smoke is a known carcinogen for which there is no known safe level of exposure. The fact is that tens of thousands of Americans die from exposure every year. Those are the facts.
>> Also keep in mind that the result might not be lung cancer. It might be >> heart disease, COPD, amputation of the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > http://www.goodbyemag.com/may97/oldest.html Could be. Certainly many people get though without developing tobacco related diseases. Will you be lucky? Maybe.
> It's just not very likely. See, this is what you're leaving > out: everything is a matter of probabilities in this universe. > Even the position of an electron. Nobody is leaving out probability or possibility or luck or any other factor you might like to consider. All we're saying is that smoking is a risk nobody needs to take. It does nothing positive, it isn't fun, it doesn't taste good, it takes your money, it puts holes in virtually everything in which it comes in contact. It's a useless waste of money that has a high probability of making you ill and a smaller probability that it will kill you. It's an incredibly stupid thing to do yet, just like drugs, people do it anyway. If you want to count yourself in that group, so be it. That's your loss, not mine.
Reece Talley - 10 Apr 2005 03:48 GMT Jennings was a two to three pack a day cigarette smoker from age 13 to age 46, that by his own admission. That's 33 years of fairly heavy smoking. The fact that it began in early adolescence adds to the probability that cancer may develop from it. While cigarette smoking will not always lead to cancer, it seems to the majority of the time. That should be cause for concern. To have been smoke-free for 20 years lessons the probability of smoking related disease, but in his case, to have started so early and to have continued so long may already have set things in motion that could not be reversed. A similar situation befell Robert W. Morgan, a well-known LA DJ who died from throat cancer three years ago after having quit a 2 pack a day habit 24 months earlier. I'm not sure that any of this is relevant to a one or two cigar a day smoker who does not inhale.
 Signature R. J. Talley Teacher/James Madison Fellow NAR #69594 NRA #133073736
Bruce Watson - 10 Apr 2005 19:19 GMT >While cigarette smoking will not always lead to cancer, >it seems to the majority of the time. Cigarette smoking is estimated to be responsible for approximately 87% of lung cancer cases, and evidence for this link is indisputable. Estimates of the relative risk of disease in the long-term smoker compared with the lifetime nonsmoker vary from 10- to 30-fold. The cumulative lung cancer risk among heavy smokers may be as high as 30% compared with a lifetime risk of 1% or less in nonsmokers.
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/458885_2
PRSmith - 14 Apr 2005 12:51 GMT > I'm not sure that any of this is relevant to a one or two cigar a day > smoker who does not inhale. ALL cigar smokers inhale just as all non-smokers in the vicinity inhale -- only cigar smokers inhale more smoke than does someone across the room.
shrikeback - 13 Apr 2005 06:53 GMT >>>>>>>> Peter Jennings has lung cancer >>>>>>>> Says he stopped smoking 20 years ago, but relapsed during [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Your "formulation"?? What are you babbling about? I'm sorry, I didn't realize that what I wrote would be confusing to you. Sorry to hear about that.
> The fact is that tobacco smoke is a known carcinogen for which there is no > known safe level of exposure. The fact is that tens of thousands of > Americans die from exposure every year. Those are the facts. Well, yeah, that's the way it works. The larger the sample, the closer to the average it is.
>>> Also keep in mind that the result might not be lung cancer. It might be >>> heart disease, COPD, amputation of the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Could be. Certainly many people get though without developing tobacco > related diseases. Will you be lucky? Maybe. What makes you think I am hoping to "be lucky" about anything.
>> It's just not very likely. See, this is what you're leaving >> out: everything is a matter of probabilities in this universe. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > factor you might like to consider. All we're saying is that smoking is a > risk nobody needs to take. Well, duh. But that is not what I am arguing against.
> It does nothing positive, it isn't fun, it doesn't taste good, it takes > your money, it puts holes in virtually everything in which it comes in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > If you want to count yourself in that group, so be it. That's your loss, > not mine. Gee, I just brought up a point about indeterminism and this is what I get?
Allen - 06 Apr 2005 18:36 GMT PLONK!!!
~ Typhøid Mary ~ wrote:
> Peter Jennings has lung cancer > Says he stopped smoking 20 years ago, but relapsed during 9/11 [quoted text clipped - 108 lines] > Asked whether that suggests Jennings' cancer is advanced, Wang said, "That > would suggest that, yes." \ - 06 Apr 2005 18:54 GMT > PLONK!!! You can't "plonk" cancer you ignorant jackass.
> > Peter Jennings has lung cancer > > Says he stopped smoking 20 years ago, but relapsed during 9/11 [quoted text clipped - 103 lines] > > Asked whether that suggests Jennings' cancer is advanced, Wang > > said, "That would suggest that, yes." Simm Webb - 07 Apr 2005 16:18 GMT "- Prof Jonez©" wrote:
>>PLONK!!! > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>>Peter Jennings has lung cancer >>>Says he stopped smoking 20 years ago, but relapsed during 9/11 You can't plonk cancer, but you can plonk the scavengers who try to make sensational ego trips, or money by trolling on the computer. It's strange, why none of my friends ask me about the can of spam sitting on my computer.
|
|
|