He was 67. I personally believe he was such a "good" man and exceptional journalist. It's a shame that the smoking he gave up 20 years ago is what killed him today.
He says that he stopped smoking 20 years ago, and then smoked over 9/11. Doesn't that seem a bit weird? 20 years smoke-free should be long enough to dramatically reduce your chances of lung cancer, and what does he mean when he says he smoked over 9/11?
I think he only smoked for a little while "over 9/11" (i.e. in the aftermath of the attacks) as a stress reliever.
But it'd be a stretch to say that his brief smoking a few years ago led to his lung cancer. It must have been festering in him for years and the more recent smoking was the straw that broke the camel's back. Too bad.
He says that he stopped smoking 20 years ago, and then smoked over 9/11. Doesn't that seem a bit weird? 20 years smoke-free should be long enough to dramatically reduce your chances of lung cancer, and what does he mean when he says he smoked over 9/11?
Yet he probably smoked for 20-30 years before that.
After doing just a little clicking around, it seems that quitting smoking can drop your chances of heart disease back down to the level of someone who has never smoked, but with lung cancer, you can reduce your risk by quitting, but your risk will always be elevated. Ugh. To quit for 20 years and then get nailed with it. \
After doing just a little clicking around, it seems that quitting smoking can drop your chances of heart disease back down to the level of someone who has never smoked, but with lung cancer, you can reduce your risk by quitting, but your risk will always be elevated. Ugh. To quit for 20 years and then get nailed with it. \
There's a mixed message with pitfalls. Doctors and companies that sell cessation products have been drumming the message that it's always worth it to quit, and it is. But too many people convert that into "it's OK to start, as long as you eventually quit". Maybe Jennings' last act will be to remind a few kids out there that qutting is great, but it's no substitute for never starting in the first place.
It's not just lung cancer, too - your risks for developing cancer in all the other tissues that were bathed with carcinogens also remains high: tongue, mouth, esophagus, stomach, etc. The more general damage to your lungs doesn't go away, either - your risk of developing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and emphysema also remains high. It's sort of like hitting yourself in the head with a baseball bat. Yeah, it's better to stop than to keep swinging, but...
[Disclosure: my grandfather died in his 60s of the emphysema that tormented him for the last 20 years of his life. Like Jennings, he smoked in his youth, starting in the war, and quit in his 40s.]
There's a mixed message with pitfalls. Doctors and companies that sell cessation products have been drumming the message that it's always worth it to quit, and it is. But too many people convert that into "it's OK to start, as long as you eventually quit". Maybe Jennings' last act will be to remind a few kids out there that qutting is great, but it's no substitute for never starting in the first place.
It's not just lung cancer, too - your risks for developing cancer in all the other tissues that were bathed with carcinogens also remains high: tongue, mouth, esophagus, stomach, etc. The more general damage to your lungs doesn't go away, either - your risk of developing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and emphysema also remains high. It's sort of like hitting yourself in the head with a baseball bat. Yeah, it's better to stop than to keep swinging, but...
[Disclosure: my grandfather died in his 60s of the emphysema that tormented him for the last 20 years of his life. Like Jennings, he smoked in his youth, starting in the war, and quit in his 40s.]
Well said, I started smoking at 18 and quit @ 31. I quit because i developed asthma and got to the stage that every cig meant inhaler time! Here in the UK cigs are going down hill big time, but when you hear stories like this one of people dying of lung cancer it makes me think of my grandad lying in hospital with tubes down his throat clearing his lungs.
He was indeed a consummate professional. Today on GMA, Brokaw and Rather were discussing how nervous they got when they found out Jennings was at the same location for a story, because they feared he would outdo them.
I was unaware of the aggressive nature of his cancer. I thought he would fight it, and be back to work. My grandfather too, died of lung cancer after years of smoking. Cancer is a terrible disease and absolutly sickening to see someone suffer from.
im still sad about this total shocker when i heard last night, died far too young. he was a name i grew up with and was an excellent man & journalist. peter will truly be missed in broadcast, as he knew a lot about the world (something people in this country dont). was totally unaware he had cancer...
i am beginning to think that in 30 years, cancer will be the number one killer of everyone in america, simply because we will start to realize how many weird and strange things get put in our food and water up the processing chain that we never know about, or i find out that the splenda and nutrasweet i have been drinking for the past ten years is guaranteed cancer or whatnot. reminiscent of the commercials in the 50's where smoking was advertised as part of a healthy lifestyle (my favorite commercial is a couple smoking while WATERSKIING.)
Wow a guy who reads the AP newsreal has died, this means what to me?
Sure, he's famous, and yes, he was a nice guy.. but seriously, he can hardly be considered a journalist when all he does is read stories that other people wrote.
Sometimes they do fancy things like take AP stories, re-write them--further distancing them from truth--and then spouting them off without a second thought.
ABC always played it safe, nothing spectacular about it.
I think Dan Rather, even though he's a crazed self-proclaimed hero and a liar, has taken a lot more risks and done a lot more investigative work than Jennings did.
Plus Danny got beat up by some random weirdo because he was broadcasting messages into his brain while the guy screamed "WHAT'S THE FREQUENCY, KENNETH?!" Nothing cool like that ever happened to Jennings.
Comments
But it'd be a stretch to say that his brief smoking a few years ago led to his lung cancer. It must have been festering in him for years and the more recent smoking was the straw that broke the camel's back. Too bad.
Originally posted by BRussell
He says that he stopped smoking 20 years ago, and then smoked over 9/11. Doesn't that seem a bit weird? 20 years smoke-free should be long enough to dramatically reduce your chances of lung cancer, and what does he mean when he says he smoked over 9/11?
Yet he probably smoked for 20-30 years before that.
Originally posted by BRussell
After doing just a little clicking around, it seems that quitting smoking can drop your chances of heart disease back down to the level of someone who has never smoked, but with lung cancer, you can reduce your risk by quitting, but your risk will always be elevated. Ugh. To quit for 20 years and then get nailed with it.
There's a mixed message with pitfalls. Doctors and companies that sell cessation products have been drumming the message that it's always worth it to quit, and it is. But too many people convert that into "it's OK to start, as long as you eventually quit". Maybe Jennings' last act will be to remind a few kids out there that qutting is great, but it's no substitute for never starting in the first place.
It's not just lung cancer, too - your risks for developing cancer in all the other tissues that were bathed with carcinogens also remains high: tongue, mouth, esophagus, stomach, etc. The more general damage to your lungs doesn't go away, either - your risk of developing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and emphysema also remains high. It's sort of like hitting yourself in the head with a baseball bat. Yeah, it's better to stop than to keep swinging, but...
[Disclosure: my grandfather died in his 60s of the emphysema that tormented him for the last 20 years of his life. Like Jennings, he smoked in his youth, starting in the war, and quit in his 40s.]
Originally posted by Towel
There's a mixed message with pitfalls. Doctors and companies that sell cessation products have been drumming the message that it's always worth it to quit, and it is. But too many people convert that into "it's OK to start, as long as you eventually quit". Maybe Jennings' last act will be to remind a few kids out there that qutting is great, but it's no substitute for never starting in the first place.
It's not just lung cancer, too - your risks for developing cancer in all the other tissues that were bathed with carcinogens also remains high: tongue, mouth, esophagus, stomach, etc. The more general damage to your lungs doesn't go away, either - your risk of developing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and emphysema also remains high. It's sort of like hitting yourself in the head with a baseball bat. Yeah, it's better to stop than to keep swinging, but...
[Disclosure: my grandfather died in his 60s of the emphysema that tormented him for the last 20 years of his life. Like Jennings, he smoked in his youth, starting in the war, and quit in his 40s.]
Well said, I started smoking at 18 and quit @ 31. I quit because i developed asthma and got to the stage that every cig meant inhaler time! Here in the UK cigs are going down hill big time, but when you hear stories like this one of people dying of lung cancer it makes me think of my grandad lying in hospital with tubes down his throat clearing his lungs.
I was unaware of the aggressive nature of his cancer. I thought he would fight it, and be back to work. My grandfather too, died of lung cancer after years of smoking. Cancer is a terrible disease and absolutly sickening to see someone suffer from.
just goes to show you that nobody should smoke.
RIP Peter Jennings
Four months, I think, from diagnosis to... now.
Surrounded by his family, anyways.
In ten years, we'll have cancer beat. I've been hearing that for twenty years....
RIP Mr. Jennings.
Deepest sympathies to the Jennings family. My family did this about a year ago.
Aries 1B
Sure, he's famous, and yes, he was a nice guy.. but seriously, he can hardly be considered a journalist when all he does is read stories that other people wrote.
Sometimes they do fancy things like take AP stories, re-write them--further distancing them from truth--and then spouting them off without a second thought.
ABC always played it safe, nothing spectacular about it.
I think Dan Rather, even though he's a crazed self-proclaimed hero and a liar, has taken a lot more risks and done a lot more investigative work than Jennings did.
Plus Danny got beat up by some random weirdo because he was broadcasting messages into his brain while the guy screamed "WHAT'S THE FREQUENCY, KENNETH?!" Nothing cool like that ever happened to Jennings.
Total failure.