I prefer to leave my question open-ended rather than to claim that Jennings' lung cancer was not the result of resuming his smoking. This is because I know there are two types of cancer... the agressive ones that can metastasized easily and very quickly throughout the body and the common slow growing and localized variety that would allow a person with this type of lung cancer to have a better chance of surviving. My grandparents suffered the fate of both types of lung cancer.
According to Oncolink:
The longer you go without smoking, the greater your risk declines; but it is never too late to quit because your risk declines somewhat no matter how long you have been smoking.
Is it any wonder why people are encouraged to quit smoking?
Now, smoking combined with stress can certainly be trigger causes for lung cancer with smoking (ie. carcinogen) being primarily the culprit. People have been known to get lung cancer after smoking for only several years rather than 30 years down the road. This could likely be a genetic predispostion or sensitivity to get lung cancer easily. We know that Peter Jennings began smoking by breaking his 20 year hiatus after 9/11 which was a very stressful time for Jennings and many U.S. citizens. Only a fool (and a complete idiot coupled with feeblemindedness) would say that Peter Jennings had lung cancer prior to 9/11 or that his lung cancer was not the result of his resuming his smoking after 9/11 without even looking at his medical records. What is this silly notion thinking this was a one-day marathon smoke that resulted Peter Jennings in getting lung cancer 4 years later? I said "Did 9/11 event ultimately put a path to his fateful destiny?" Note the word "path" and the article link to USATODAY, and put 2 and 2 together. Again, READ THE LINK YOU IDIOT!! More English 101 for you guys. No. Make that English 90. Rudimentary stuff I'd tell ya.
This lung cancer thing is entirely moot until we get more information on exactly what type of lung cancer Peter Jennings had, the stage he discovered the cancer, and when it may have occurred (cancerous to metastasized). Nor do we have information on how often or heavily he smoked prior to quiting versus smoking after 9/11. There are details missing here. I err on the caution side before making any sweeping conclusions about Peter Jennings' lung cancer. Only idiots would make these sweeping conclusions.
Generally so, smoking would be the most plausible culprit when it comes to lung cancer and smokers. However, during the 20 smoke free years we don't know whether Peter Jennings subjected himself to city pollution, 2nd hand smoke from his news colleagues or friends, radon or other environmental factors that would predispose Jennings to get lung cancer early on before 9/11 or after. However, we do know that Peter Jennings resumed smoking after 9/11. The question is, did his resumption of his smoking habit sealed his fate to get lung cancer? Did he already have cancer prior to his resumption to smoking? Or did this occur after 9/11? All of this is entirely moot rather than a conclusion.
And oh, I am a blogger. Not a wanna-be blogger. See? I write here which means I blog here. Therefore I am a blogger. Blogging doesn't have to be a profession. It's a hobby for me. Like hundred of thousand of other people around the world. Geez Louise!
What imbeciles I must come across to explain these things for those who failed to read carefully or cannot get the gist of my context in my blogs combined with the links. *sigh* Gawd almighty. What a totally discombobulated person we have over there.
RIP Peter Jennings. You had a long illustrious career! He left too early, IMO. He had class.
No comments:
Post a Comment