Laurianne's Hope

Thursday, May 31, 2007

Female Lung Cancer Deaths Up Five-Fold

Female lung cancer deaths up five-fold
Wednesday 30 May 2007

The number of women dying of lung cancer has gone up five-fold since 1970 and they are likely to die at a younger age than men, the national statistics office CBS said on Wednesday. Last year, some 9,400 people died of lung cancer in the Netherlands, accounting for some 7% of total deaths.

Because women started smoking heavily at a later date than men, the women’s death rate is still rising, the CBS said. Among the men who die aged 60 to 70 and women who die aged 50 to 60, one in seven will be killed by lung cancer, the CBS said.

Nevertheless, men are still twice as likely to die of lung cancer than women, even though male death rates are falling.

Some 30% of the Dutch aged 12 and over smoke and a similar percentage will have stopped smoking, usually before they reach their early 40s, statistics show.

But fears that stopping smoking could lead to weight gain may be true, the statistics indicate. Ex-smokers are 1.4 times more likely to be overweight than smokers, with female ex-smokers weighing four kilos more than smokers and women who never smoked, the CBS said.

The Netherlands is still struggling to develop a policy for smoking in bars and restaurants, with health minister Ab Klink saying he wants a total ban next year. And although smoking is banned in public buildings and all workers have the right to a smoke-free environment, bar and café workers are exempt from the rules.
Vote for Laurianne's Hope for Best Health Blog for the Blogger's Choice Awards 2006.

Labels: , ,

Lung Cancer AwarenessPosted by Lynda :: 7:41 PM :: 1 people are more aware

Friday, May 11, 2007

The Glamour of Smoking

I saw a report on that said smoking is going to be factored into a movie rating. It it is glamorized, then a movie could earn an "R" rating.

Since is a gossip rag, of course, I had to search out some articles from some other sources.

I actually was a little concerned a few weeks ago, when TMZ had on their sidebar, "Check out the smokin' celebs in our photo album, Whatcha Smokin'" or something like that. I clicked on it out of curiosity. Here is a sampling:

click to enlarge

click to enlarge

click to enlarge

click to enlarge

I don't think it looks all that glamorous. But that's just my opinion. Now sometimes seems rather glamorous in movies, so keep reading to find out about how smoking is going to affect movie ratings.

MPAA adds smoking as film-rating factor
Associated Press
As reported by:
Akron Beacon Journal

LOS ANGELES - Smoking will be a bigger factor in determining film ratings, the Motion Picture Association of America said Thursday, but critics said the move does not go far enough to discourage teens from taking up the habit.

MPAA Chairman Dan Glickman said his group's ratings board, which previously had considered underage smoking in assigning film ratings, now will take into account smoking by adults, as well.

That adds smoking to a list of such factors as sex, violence and language in determining the MPAA's G, PG, PG-13, R and NC-17 ratings.

Film raters will consider the pervasiveness of tobacco use, whether it glamorizes smoking and the context in which smoking appears, as in movies set in the past when smoking was more common.

Some critics of Hollywood's depictions of tobacco in films have urged that movies that show smoking be assigned an R rating, which would restrict those younger than 17 from seeing them.

"I'm glad it's finally an issue they're taking up, but what they're proposing does not go far enough and is not going to make a difference," said Kori Titus, spokeswoman for Breathe California, which opposes film images of tobacco use that might encourage young people to start smoking.

Glickman said a mandatory R rating for smoking would not "further the specific goal of providing information to parents on this issue."

Smoking in movies with a G, PG or PG-13 rating has been on the decline, and the "percentage of films that included even a fleeting glimpse of smoking" declined from 60 percent to 52 percent between July 2004 and July 2006," Glickman said.

Of those films, three-fourths received an R rating for other reasons, he said.

"That means there's not a great amount of films in the unrestricted category as it stands," said Joan Graves, who heads the ratings board. "We're not saying we're ignoring the issue. We're trying the best way possible according to what we've learned from parents to give them information about what's in a film."

Titus said smoking in films had declined in recent years but remains more prevalent than MPAA figures indicate.

Descriptions on sex, violence and language that accompany movie ratings now will include such phrases as "glamorized smoking" or "pervasive smoking," Glickman said.

If rated today, a film such as 2005's "Good Night, and Good Luck," about chain-smoking newsman Edward R. Murrow, would have carried a "pervasive smoking" tag but probably would have retained its PG rating because of its historical context in the 1950s, Graves said.

Titus said film raters should be as tough on smoking as they are on bad language to minimize the effects of on-screen smoking on children, including her own 5-year-old daughter.

"I don't want her using that language, but last time I checked, she's probably not going to die from that," Titus said. "If she starts smoking from these images she sees in movies, chances are she's probably going to die early from that."

While Titus' group wants tougher ratings restrictions, the MPAA released statements of support for its plan from John Seffrin, chief executive officer of the American Cancer Society, U.S. Sen. Joe Biden and filmmaker Rob Reiner, among others.

"By placing smoking on a par with considerations of violence and sex, the rating board has acknowledged the public-health dangers to children associated with glamorized images of a toxic and lethal addiction to tobacco," Barry Bloom, dean of the Harvard School of Public Health, said in a statement.
[end article]

Vote for Laurianne's Hope for Best Health Blog for the Blogger's Choice Awards 2006.

Labels: , , ,

Lung Cancer AwarenessPosted by Lynda (Laurianne's Sister) :: 2:04 PM :: 0 people are more aware

Tuesday, May 08, 2007

To Smoke, Or Not To Smoke

I really enjoy the few weeks of nice weather we have here in Indiana, before it gets too humid to really enjoy being outside. When my husband, Dan, and I met for lunch, it would be really nice to sit outside.

There is one thing that stops us though. The nice weather always brings out smokers. If there is a breeze, it always seems to blow in our direction. In a lot of ways, I am more sensitive to it than Dan is, and even he will say, "It's such nice weather. Too bad sitting outside would be ruined by smokers."

I remember the great debates about smoking in California, before their establishments became smoke-free. In Indiana, it seems to be different. I think Indiana has a great smoking population than California does. We also have some of the best cancer research centers. Go figure. The way many people in Indiana feel is that if they are smokers, they have the right to smoke. They should be able to do this whenever and where ever they want. I remember reading an article in the IndyStar about how family restaurants were going to be changed to non-smoking. A woman commented that it would be nice to go some place with her family where she didn't have to worry about breathing in the smokey air. A person commented back to her that they were a smoker, and if this woman didn't want to breathe smokey air, she should just stay home.

Even before this ordinance, I was a little conflicted. Dan and I went to two restaurants where we asked for non-smoking, and the hostess sat us on the border of the smoking section. My sister had just passed away at the time, so as soon as we started smelling the foul stench of cigarettes, I flagged down the hostess and told her that we needed to be moved or we wouldn't be patronizing their establishment. I would tell her how my sister died of cancer at 25 years old, and even though it wasn't because she was a smoker, it doesn't mean it couldn't have factored in. The truth is, we probably will never know what caused Laurianne to develop lung cancer.

Once again, these are just my opinions. I can tell people to stop smoking, and list all the harm that smoking does to the smoker. Ultimately, it is each individuals choice. I know this. But, I think it is only fair, though, that smokers and non-smokers show each other consideration. Maybe then, I could enjoy the nice weather.

Vote for Laurianne's Hope for Best Health Blog for the Blogger's Choice Awards 2006.

Labels: , , , , ,

Lung Cancer AwarenessPosted by Lynda :: 7:18 AM :: 1 people are more aware