What is the cause of most recorded deaths in history

Health related question in topics Demographics .We found some answers as below for this question “What is the cause of most recorded deaths in history”,you can compare them.

Most common causes of death: Ischemic heart disease 12.6pct Cerebrovascular diseases 9.7pct Lower respiratory infections 6.8pct [ Source: http://www.chacha.com/question/what-is-the-cause-of-most-recorded-deaths-in-history ]
More Answers to “What is the cause of most recorded deaths in history
What is the cause of most recorded deaths in history
Most common causes of death: Ischemic heart disease 12.6pct Cerebrovascular diseases 9.7pct Lower respiratory infections 6.8pct

Related Questions Answered on Y!Answers

Why do people believe in God?
Q: I know this question has already been posed, but it may need further exploring. I am looking for responses ONLY from those who already subscribe to an Athiest viewpoint. Please preface your answer with the answer to this sub-question: Do you think that ‘believers’ are victims of culture and rearing. Yes or No. And if so, why do you think most people can abandon what is logical and scientific and NOT SUBJECTIVE and replace it with supernatural myths. This has always perplexed me and I firmly believe this difference and devout division in how most human beings view the world that they live in could have terrible effects on generations of human beings yet to come. After all, hasn’t religion been the root of most of the worlds wars throughout all of recorded history? And the cause for so many deaths that still occur today because of religious fanaticism around the world? Thanks for giving it some thought. I just want to know that I’m not alone in the world! Thanks for responding!
A: The irrationality of religion has a scientific basis. It goes back to our cave man days when man was very insecure living in a hostile environment. The cerebral cortex of our brain (the complex thinking apparatus) is a relatively recent addition.The more primitive underlying limbic system, the seat of our ancient emotions or innate temperaments, is in all of us. Humans use both systems. In times of trouble, people still pray for intervention by the god(s). Prayers are requests by persons to have the laws of the universe repealed in their favor.People who are rational, relying on their cerebral cortex, look at all the absurdities in religion. Christian dogma expects people to believe the fairy tale of Noah’s ark, although it is patently impossible to squeeze even samples of billions of the world’s animals into one small ark. Rational persons consider such stories ludicrous.The bible account of the creation of man and the universe is in such contradiction to irrefutable facts that a rational person cannot help but laugh about such fantasies.Have you heard the saying “there’s no atheists in foxholes?” Its because in times of danger, humans revert to the primitive part of their brain for security. We needed religion to survive in a hostile universe back in the cave man days. Now, in the modern era, we can see all the absurdities of the varius religions….but, obsolete genes do not disappear overnight, and so you will be seeing people “believing in God.”
10 most influencial men in the world? Is this good?
Q: This little thing my sister made up is suppose to be sarcastic and funny, because she is on a men hating rampage now lol. Is this good to show to my friends or do you guys think this is stupid? I don’t think she finished yet but is it ok so far?1)Adolf Hitler – killed 11 million people. Started WWII with only one testical. Imagine what he could have done if he had…… TWO (gasp)… great guy.2)Joseph Stalin – one of the world’s finest leaders. He really knew how to take care of his own people in times of trouble. And to us air head women, he’s incredibly gorgeous WHICH – is all that matters to us because we’re uh… stupid. (Wait… who’s Stahlen?)3)Since there are too many to name, I’ll just put them in a category. Serial killers: Ted Bundy, Ed Gein, Charles Manson, Dennis Rader, Albert Fish, Jeffery Dahmer (sexy) and my personal favorite, Richard Trenton Chase. (shudder) Anyways they are influential because it really shows us what would happen if women ruled the world. Because you men really know how to kill, serially! Plus murders are fun… Great times.4)Idi Amin Dada- One of the best presidents recorded in history… Too bad he’s dead, I would have voted for him. Why is he great, you ask? Well he only killed 80,000 to 500,000 people. Not enough for our number one spot but you know, THE MORE THE BETTER. If he were a woman, he wouldn’t have killed any at all! That’s why we hate them. (Plus they hate cooties, EWW)5)George Bush – Smart, great leader who’s too brilliant for my ears sometimes. When he speaks I have to put ear plugs in because I will cream myself listening to his intelligent comments. My roommate puts ear plugs on for other reasons….6)Osama Bin Laden- He killed nearly 3,000 people and took the trade centers down with ‘em. Killed two birds with one stone, eh? NICE. Good thing he wasn’t a woman or else those people would have still been alive. (PHEW) Because if they were alive we wouldn’t have been able to go to war and kill MORE people. We men gotta tell ya…. we are so smart sometimes – I MEAN ALL THE TIME.7)Jesus – My home boy Jesus. He may have not meant to kill millions of people, but boy did he ever! See, Jesus started the majority of wars among the different religions. I don’t even think I need to tell you all the other deaths Jesus caused. So number seven really goes out to all the people who killed on behalf of Jesus! KUDOS GUYS!Thanks Kelly, <33
A: Absolutely disgusting! I was with you until you named Bush but still thought it was funny. Naming Jesus? You and your sister are sick!
Why Don’t We Talk About Smoking and Celebrity Deaths?
Q: Before anyone critisises,I know what it is like to see someone suffer suffer with cancer from smoking and other related diseases, Trust me its not pleasant. its heart breaking.Actress Suzanne Pleshette’s recent death from “respiratory distress” was sad. Most of the articles about it briefly mention that she had been fighting lung cancer, but fail to mention that she had been a cigarette smoker in the past. Cigarette smoking is the single biggest cause of lung cancer. It is rarely discussed, but tobacco has taken an extraordinarily heavy toll on Hollywood. The list of beloved celebrities killed by smoking and secondhand smoke is huge, and growing: George Harrison, Johnny Carson, Dana Reeve, Amanda Blake, Lucille Ball, Walt Disney, Nat King Cole, Joe DiMaggio, Michael Landon, Sammy Davis, Jr., Dean Martin, Betty Grable, and Babe Ruth to name just a few. Despite this, the failure to mention a person’s smoking history in obituary columns is the norm in celebrity deaths. In just one glaring example, a four page obituary about the 2005 death of prominent news anchor Peter Jennings published by his own network, ABC, fails to mention the contribution that smoking made to Jennings’ tragic and untimely death. A CNN’s column about Jennings’ death didn’t mention it either. Something is up when major news organizations omit any mention the single most prominent cause of the death of a renowned news anchor. Big Screen SmokingSilver Screen Star Marlene DietrichSmoking has always been common in the entertainment industry, and Hollywood has a track record of promoting smoking. Lois Lane, a reporter who never smoked throughout her 40 years in Superman comics, was suddenly shown smoking on-screen in the movie Superman II. Tobacco industry documents reveal that Sylvester Stallone signed a contract with Brown & Williamson to plug their brands in five of his movies in exchange for $500,000. A study published in the American Journal of Public Health in 2004 shows that on-screen smoking rates in movies have now returned to rates seen in the 1950s, even though far fewer people smoke now than in the 1950s. Given that smoking was perceived as a more normal activity when Suzanne Pleshette came of age, her smoking wasn’t unusual. As the years went on, she was able to quit. But the harm had already been done. So why is the media so reticent to mention the part cigarettes play in killing off so many beloved public figures? Probably because of the cruel but popular belief that people who suffer from lung cancer and emphysema have caused their own diseases. Reporters don’t want to be perceived as blaming the victim. Jacking Up NicotineThis damaging and misplaced stigma, however, ignores some important information that has emerged from tobacco industry documents: cigarette companies chemically engineer their products to maximize their addictive qualities. In the mid-1970s, cigarette companies began freebasing nicotine by adding ammonia to tobacco. Freebasing is a chemical process that makes smoke slightly more alkaline, resulting in nicotine being converted to a form that is more rapidly absorbed by the body. It gives the smoker a faster, harder “kick” after lighting up. Tobacco companies that first employed this chemical change, like Philip Morris, won a bigger market share for their products. This did not go unnoticed by competitors, who eventually discovered the change and started freebasing nicotine, too. Ultimately, it became state-of-the-art in cigarette manufacturing. Freebasing is the same chemical process that drug dealers use to turn cocaine into crack. Tobacco companies even use the same chemical that drug dealers use to freebase cocaine, ammonia. But they neglected to ever make consumers aware of this subtle, but powerful, chemical change in cigarettes. By comparison, heroin, a notoriously addictive illegal drug that has killed a tiny fraction of the celebrities and others killed by cigarettes, doesn’t have this type of chemical engineering, since it doesn’t have wealthy corporate research and development departments working to make them more addictive. This under-the-radar chemical engineering, and its ultimate effect on smokers of making it harder to quit, is one reason why it is unfair to blame smokers for their diseases. Another reason why media outlets are hesitant to mention smoking as a contributor to celebrity deaths may be that big media conglomerates also now own magazines and other media outlets that still accept advertising from tobacco companies, which themselves own numerous subsidiaries that make non-tobacco products. To repeatedly highlight the part that smoking plays in killing well-known public figures could result in a loss of advertising dollars. Tobacco industry documents show that tobacco companies used to get upset when newspaper publishers placed cigarette ads next to obituary columns and funeral notices, back when most newspapers still accepted cigarette ads. Read Between the LinesReporters may also lack the authoritative documentation they need to back up statements that smoking contributed to a person’s death. Most death certificate forms don’t have an easy way for doctors to indicate the part tobacco played in contributing to someone’s death. Industry documents show that tobacco companies had a hand in this as well. The Tobacco Institute worked quietly behind the scenes to prevent legislation that would allow states to place a check box on death certificates allowing doctors to indicate whether a deceased person had used tobacco. Such a check box would have made it far easier to accumulate data regarding the number of people killed by cigarettes, and would have facilitated tabulation of the overall contribution of cigarettes to the death rate in society. This small change on death certificates posed a distinct threat to tobacco companies. The result is that information quantifying cigarette deaths is more difficult to accumulate than it might be if the cigarette industry not interfered with what can be put on death certificates. Whatever the reason that smoking is not openly discussed in celebrity deaths, the result is a chronic underreporting of the seriousness of the damage this product is doing to our population. Every celebrity who dies from smoking and about whom we cover up that information is a missed opportunity to educate the public about the toll cigarettes take on society. We need to more clearly define smoking’s contribution to the death rate, so that the living can more clearly see the urgency in minimizing tobacco use.I am also a x smoker, for only 16 months after smoking for many years.anti smoking lobby NO!
A: your right midnidght i have personally seen it happen but i think the goverment will not outlaw it until there is no money to be made at the end of the day i personnally think if the goverment is;nt makin money they will outlaw it until they have a way to tax it its the same since prohibition at the end of the day i think thats the way it is and will alwaysbe unless we decideto do something about it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
People also view

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *