www.ditl.org

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/22/scien ... r.html?hpw

and further reading

http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/200 ... e-culprit/

The analysis still rightly points out massive inefficiencies leading to high medical costs; however there are indeed "cultural" elements to consider in the analysis of medical performance. How much can we blame doctors for the poor personal medical care many Americans take of themselves; the popular image of the fat-ass American has quite a bit of truth to it (note: I'm quite thin. Hell, I need to gain weight - and hit the weights!) and the articles also cite the high rate of smoking among American (particularly US women) through the '80's.

Yeah, well, I still don't buy that smoking is responsible for any majority of lung cancer or other respiratory diseases when we have coal power plants spewing out millions of tons of carcinogens every year.

And, maybe more Americans would take better care of themselves if the cost of seeing a doctor weren't prohibitive.

Tsukiyumi wrote:Yeah, well, I still don't buy that smoking is responsible for any majority of lung cancer or other respiratory diseases when we have coal power plants spewing out millions of tons of carcinogens every year.

While there may be some truth to this, millions of people don't inhale durectly from coal smokestacks like they do from cigarettes. There's something to be said for a concentrated dose!

And, maybe more Americans would take better care of themselves if the cost of seeing a doctor weren't prohibitive.

OK, but a lot of it's just common sense. Do you really need a doctor to tell you not to eat yourself the size of the Goodyear blimp, to exercise, eat right, and not smoke? Besides, many people see docs and still have these problems -- we can be truly stubborn, stupid animals when we want to be. In any case, I doubt the relative rates of medical attendance would come anywhere close to fully explaining the differences in personal care ethic seen between here and the rest of the world.

I wrote:In any case, I doubt the relative rates of medical attendance would come anywhere close to fully explaining the differences in personal care ethic seen between here and the rest of the world.

Hell, for some of us the fact that we don't see docs enough may be partly due to our bad health ethic to begin with, not the other way 'round!

Captain Picard's Hair wrote:

Tsukiyumi wrote:Yeah, well, I still don't buy that smoking is responsible for any majority of lung cancer or other respiratory diseases when we have coal power plants spewing out millions of tons of carcinogens every year.

While there may be some truth to this, millions of people don't inhale durectly from coal smokestacks like they do from cigarettes. There's something to be said for a concentrated dose!

Kind of like the difference between putting a gun to your head and pulling the trigger and someone shooting at you from 500 ft away.

stitch626 wrote:

Captain Picard's Hair wrote:

Tsukiyumi wrote:Yeah, well, I still don't buy that smoking is responsible for any majority of lung cancer or other respiratory diseases when we have coal power plants spewing out millions of tons of carcinogens every year.

While there may be some truth to this, millions of people don't inhale durectly from coal smokestacks like they do from cigarettes. There's something to be said for a concentrated dose!

Kind of like the difference between putting a gun to your head and pulling the trigger and someone shooting at you from 500 ft away.

No, not really. After all the concentration of a bullet does not diminish with the inverse square of your distance from it's origin. In fact given it's not a radiant effect it's probably volume dependent which makes it a cube function.

Point taken.

Tsukiyumi wrote:Yeah, well, I still don't buy that smoking is responsible for any majority of lung cancer or other respiratory diseases when we have coal power plants spewing out millions of tons of carcinogens every year.

Just out of curiosity, which carcinogens?

Tsukiyumi wrote:And, maybe more Americans would take better care of themselves if the cost of seeing a doctor weren't prohibitive.

To reiterate what CPH said - I understand why you can't see a specialist whenever you have an issue. However, that's not the same as continually practicing poor health habits, adopting a sedentary lifestyle, and eating an atrocious diet as a matter of course. There is a huge plague of refusal to accept personal responsibility in the US. I, for example, smoke cigarettes - I would never dream of suing a tobacco company for the results of my voluntary actions.

I'd be curious to see what the rates of smoking are in the US compared to continental Europe. Anecdotally, it seems like midlle/western Europeans smoke like a tire fire.

Tyyr wrote:Just out of curiosity, which carcinogens?

Really? You really need a spectrographic analysis to tell you not to suck up a big lungful of coke slag vapors?

Mikey wrote:Really? You really need a spectrographic analysis to tell you not to suck up a big lungful of coke slag vapors?

Well first off coke slag isn't coal, it's a byproduct of metal refining. Secondly, yeah. He made a claim, "millions of tons of carcinogens". I just want to know which ones he's talking about. The primary byproducts of most modern coal powerplants are carbon dioxide and water vapor, neither of which is a carcinogen. Sulfur dioxide, well that's only thousands of tons and on the decline and while it's not pleasant stuff its not a carcinogen. Nitrogen Dioxide is the only pollutant aside form CO2 that is released in millions of tons but right now its about 2 million a year, down from over triple that level 15 years ago. Also its not a carcinogen. If you're talking about mercury well we're not talking millions of tons, we're actually talking a few hundred across the entire United States, most of which is actually entrained in the ash which is removed from the flue gas stream and not released into the atmosphere or water. The remainder is about 60 tons of oxidized mercury in total across the entire United States. Not millions of tons, not a carcinogen.

There are some nasty byproducts of coal combustion, millions of tons of carcinogens aren't one of them. Those by products that are bad are also being highly controlled by modern powerplants with technology constantly pushing the quantities released lower.

So, that was a sarcastic refutation instead of a question?

BTW -

Tyyr wrote:Well first off coke slag isn't coal, it's a byproduct of metal refining.

No, most coke is a distillation product of coal.

It was a genuine question to Tsuki, I wasn't being sarcastic. I wanted to know what he was thinking before I said anything.

Mikey wrote:BTW -

Tyyr wrote:Well first off coke slag isn't coal, it's a byproduct of metal refining.

No, most coke is a distillation product of coal.

You're still wrong. Coke is a byproduct of coal, coke SLAG is what you get when you burn coke which is used heavily in metal refining. It's the left overs that don't combust. Of course you could take it one farther and point out that your unlikely to be getting much in the way of vapors coming off it since it's already been combusted. The biggest danger at that point is inhaling fine particles.

I see. Mea culpa.