urgent!

[mjl1717]

Did the CDC change the leading causes of death in the U.S. from:

Heart disease , cancer, stroke to


Cancer, heart disease and stroke

Or am I losing my mind??

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[AggieSean]

Why is this urgent?

 

[Depakote]

I'm having a statistical freak-out here...

 

[Depakote]

but, no... on a quick google search, I didn't find anything to suggest they changed the ranking. It's more likely you're losing your mind.

 

[strv04]

I think its still heart disease but cancer should be overtaking pretty soon. Lung cancer is going to be #1 in the world in about 20-30 years. Who says natural selection is dead? Survival of the smartest anyone?

 

[Scaredshizzles]

Did the CDC change the leading causes of death in the U.S. from:

Heart disease , cancer, stroke to


Cancer, heart disease and stroke

Or am I losing my mind??

Yes I believe it did...but perhaps the official count or whatever happens every ten years (2010)...Not sure, but you're not losing your mind, the latest statistics do appear to point to cancer as being the leading cause of death in the US.

 

[mjl1717]

Yes I believe it did...but perhaps the official count or whatever happens every ten years (2010)...Not sure, but you're not losing your mind, the latest statistics do appear to point to cancer as being the leading cause of death in the US.

Thank you... They want to crack jokes.. But little do they know this may have been as early as 2005!

 

[Sol Rosenberg]

I think its still heart disease but cancer should be overtaking pretty soon. Lung cancer is going to be #1 in the world in about 20-30 years. Who says natural selection is dead? Survival of the smartest anyone?

Natural selection would have nothing to do with that, because people are generally afflicted with lung cancer long after they are capable of reproducing.

 

[meister]

I think its still heart disease but cancer should be overtaking pretty soon. Lung cancer is going to be #1 in the world in about 20-30 years. Who says natural selection is dead? Survival of the smartest anyone?

A lot of people get addicted when they're dumb junior high schoolers. Poor bastards.

 

[Scaredshizzles]

Natural selection would have nothing to do with that, because people are generally afflicted with lung cancer long after they are capable of reproducing.

We live long enough these days that natural selection is not entirely restricted to before reproductive age...Plus smokers are less fertile and children of smokers are more likely to smoke too...

 

[Sol Rosenberg]

We live long enough these days that natural selection is not entirely restricted to before reproductive age...Plus smokers are less fertile and children of smokers are more likely to smoke too...

Not sure what you mean by your first statement (natural selection selects against those least fit to reproduce. Therefore, any condition that affects someone after their reproductive age (heart failure is the textbook example) won't be selected against.) However, I wasn't aware that there was any link between smoking and fertility, but apparently there is some evidence to support that...

 

[Pharmavixen]

From The American Society of Reproductive Medicine:

Components in cigarette smoke have been shown to
interfere with the ability of cells in the ovary to make
estrogen and to cause a woman’s eggs (oocytes) to be
more prone to genetic abnormalities. Smoking is strongly
associated with an increased risk of spontaneous
miscarriage and possibly ectopic pregnancy as well.
Pregnant smokers are more likely to have low birth weight
babies and premature birth. The incidence of sudden
infant death syndrome (SIDS) also increases in households
where someone smokes.
*snip*
Nearly twice as many in vitro
fertilization (IVF) attempts are required to conceive in
smokers than in nonsmokers. Studies of IVF have
reported that female smokers require higher doses of
gonadotropins to stimulate their ovaries, have lower peak
estradiol levels, fewer oocytes obtained, more canceled
cycles, lower implantation rates, and undergo more cycles with failed fertilization than non-smokers.

 

[werd]

Not sure what you mean by your first statement (natural selection selects against those least fit to reproduce. Therefore, any condition that affects someone after their reproductive age (heart failure is the textbook example) won't be selected against.) However, I wasn't aware that there was any link between smoking and fertility, but apparently there is some evidence to support that...

it's not that simple. even if someone's infertile, their contribution to the community in general and their family in particular helps to propagate their genes. grandparents aren't having offspring but often contribute significantly to supporting families and raising children; in this regard they are helping the next generations to propagate their own genes.
with regard to the smoking and fertility... i wouldn't date a smoker, therefore selecting against them. just kidding... but seriously.