• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

GO PINK FOR FSU/VA TECH Games

Male breast cancer is a rare condition, accounting for only about 1% of all breast cancers. The American Cancer Society estimates that in 2010, about 1,970 new cases of breast cancer in men would be diagnosed and that breast cancer would cause approximately 390 deaths in men (in comparison, almost 40,000 women die of breast cancer each year). Breast cancer is 100 times more common in women than in men. Most cases of male breast cancer are detected in men between the ages of 60 and 70, although the condition can develop in men of any age. A man's lifetime risk of developing breast cancer is about 1/10 of 1%, or one in 1,000.
 
DirkTheDeac said:
I'm seeing more women with lap tops, pads and mobiles checking out their fantasy football teams stats each Sunday. Just an observation.
Click to expand...

The women I know who play fantasy football aren't NFL fans...they are fantasy football fans.
 
RacerDeac said:
The women I know who play fantasy football aren't NFL fans...they are fantasy football fans.
Click to expand...

You can say the same for many men nowadays.
 
You also have to take into account, a lot of players, coaches, fans and staff have mothers, sister, aunts and other female relatives that have been affected by breast cancer. That is the one form of cancer that seems to hit closer to home because it does strike women more. For instance, Deangelo Williams, who plays for the Panthers, mother is a breast cancer survivor and he always have a big team walking for the Komen walk. Let's hope one day, it won't be a need to GO PINK or raise money for ANY kind of cancer period!
 
Regular color bats in playoffs today.
 
Does the fact that the NFL doesn't use the correct color pink bother anyone else? It's almost purple when compared to the one the breast cancer foundation uses.
 
legsdeacs8552 said:
You also have to take into account, a lot of players, coaches, fans and staff have mothers, sister, aunts and other female relatives that have been affected by breast cancer. That is the one form of cancer that seems to hit closer to home because it does strike women more. For instance, Deangelo Williams, who plays for the Panthers, mother is a breast cancer survivor and he always have a big team walking for the Komen walk. Let's hope one day, it won't be a need to GO PINK or raise money for ANY kind of cancer period!
Click to expand...

Yeah, DeAngelo is big into raising breast cancer awareness. Met him at a charity event his foundation put on 2 years ago. DeAngelo, his mom, J-Stew and Moose were there. Was a casino night with a silent auction, dinner and live auction. Sparsely attended which was nice as I got a chance to talk DeAngelo and Moose for about 10 minutes as we have friends in common. Also got some gameworn autographed Muhammed cleats for $100 in the silent auction. Great time.

Unfortunately the event has been scaled down greatly...2nd annual cornhole tournament.


http://www.deangelowilliams34.com/home
 
I would think that money given for breast cancer not only helps with educating and treating that disease but also prevention and treatment of cancer in general. I'd think (but not sure) that advances in BC also helps in the advances of prostate cancer too.
 
I don't really think that breast cancer research is likely to have much impact for prostate cancer, since they are so different biologically. I think it is remarkable that awareness is so much greater for breast cancer than prostate cancer. The annual incidences of breast cancer and prostate cancer (200-250K) are almost identical, and annual mortality from each is similar (30-40K deaths/year). Yet I'll bet most people didn't realize that September was supposed to be prostate cancer awareness month (where were all the blue ribbons in the NFL?)
 
How about awareness for childhood cancer? Something that is actually much more tragic and more fatal than breast cancer?
 
I'm a WF grad and I also work for Susan G. Komen. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and I could write a lengthy rebuttal re: some of the statements made in this thread. Instead, I'd simply suggest that people do a lot...not a little...a lot of research and make sure that you know all...not just a few...but all the facts before making accusatory statements re: Komen (or any other nonprofit, for that matter) and distributing medical advice on the causes of breast cancer.

But more importantly, for this thread, is that if you knew why legsdeacs8552 started this thread, you wouldn't be turning her simple request into a discussion about the good/bad of Komen, research, etc... Wearing pink isn't a show of support for Komen. It's a show of support and respect for those individuals who are battling breast cancer, have won the battle, or, sadly, lost the battle. So, for their sake, show a little compassion. I can tell you from first-hand experience that the simple gesture of wearing a pink shirt, a pink hair ribbon, pink shoe laces...whatever...means a great deal to these individuals and their families. And that emotional support can have a huge positive impact on them.

GO DEACS!!!
 
I'm going to wear a brown shirt to support colon cancer.
 
HeavyPetter said:
So if you eat a bunch of shitty food and suffer from related illnesses you have no one to blame but yourself, but if you get lung cancer you should be lobbying for more research dollars?
Click to expand...

From the Free to Breathe website:

http://www.freetobreathe.com/lungcancerfact.html

Lung cancer is the number one cancer killer of American men and women.
•Lung cancer kills almost twice as many American women as breast cancer annually and three times as many men as prostate cancer.

•1 in 13 men and 1 in 16 women will get lung cancer in their lifetime.

•Approximately 219,400 people are diagnosed with lung cancer in the U.S. each year. This means an American is diagnosed with lung cancer every 2.5 minutes.

•Lung cancer kills nearly 160,000 people annually – more people than breast, prostate, colon, liver, kidney and melanoma cancers combined.

•Although the risk of developing lung cancer goes down after you quit smoking, a significant risk remains for 20 years or longer after quitting.

•Roughly 10% to 15% of lung cancer patients have never smoked. That means between 20,000 to 30,000 never-smokers are diagnosed with lung cancer in the United States each year.

•Approximately 50% of all lung cancers (106,500) occur in people who have already quit smoking.

•Less money is spent on lung cancer research than on research on other cancers. In 2006, the National Cancer Institute estimated it spent only $1,638 per lung cancer death compared to $13,519 per breast cancer death, $11,298 per prostate cancer death, and $4,588 per colorectal cancer.

My apologies for hijacking the thread. I still believe in your cause!
Go Deacs! Wear pink. Save the ta-ta's.
 
AnotherWF1stDown said:
From the Free to Breathe website:

http://www.freetobreathe.com/lungcancerfact.html

Lung cancer is the number one cancer killer of American men and women.
•Lung cancer kills almost twice as many American women as breast cancer annually and three times as many men as prostate cancer.

•1 in 13 men and 1 in 16 women will get lung cancer in their lifetime.

•Approximately 219,400 people are diagnosed with lung cancer in the U.S. each year. This means an American is diagnosed with lung cancer every 2.5 minutes.

•Lung cancer kills nearly 160,000 people annually – more people than breast, prostate, colon, liver, kidney and melanoma cancers combined.

•Although the risk of developing lung cancer goes down after you quit smoking, a significant risk remains for 20 years or longer after quitting.

•Roughly 10% to 15% of lung cancer patients have never smoked. That means between 20,000 to 30,000 never-smokers are diagnosed with lung cancer in the United States each year.

•Approximately 50% of all lung cancers (106,500) occur in people who have already quit smoking.

•Less money is spent on lung cancer research than on research on other cancers. In 2006, the National Cancer Institute estimated it spent only $1,638 per lung cancer death compared to $13,519 per breast cancer death, $11,298 per prostate cancer death, and $4,588 per colorectal cancer.

My apologies for hijacking the thread. I still believe in your cause!
Go Deacs! Wear pink. Save the ta-ta's.
Click to expand...

Wear Pink AND Black - nice combination.
 
AnotherWF1stDown said:
From the Free to Breathe website:

http://www.freetobreathe.com/lungcancerfact.html

Lung cancer is the number one cancer killer of American men and women.
•Lung cancer kills almost twice as many American women as breast cancer annually and three times as many men as prostate cancer.

•1 in 13 men and 1 in 16 women will get lung cancer in their lifetime.

•Approximately 219,400 people are diagnosed with lung cancer in the U.S. each year. This means an American is diagnosed with lung cancer every 2.5 minutes.

•Lung cancer kills nearly 160,000 people annually – more people than breast, prostate, colon, liver, kidney and melanoma cancers combined.

•Although the risk of developing lung cancer goes down after you quit smoking, a significant risk remains for 20 years or longer after quitting.

•Roughly 10% to 15% of lung cancer patients have never smoked. That means between 20,000 to 30,000 never-smokers are diagnosed with lung cancer in the United States each year.

•Approximately 50% of all lung cancers (106,500) occur in people who have already quit smoking.

•Less money is spent on lung cancer research than on research on other cancers. In 2006, the National Cancer Institute estimated it spent only $1,638 per lung cancer death compared to $13,519 per breast cancer death, $11,298 per prostate cancer death, and $4,588 per colorectal cancer.

My apologies for hijacking the thread. I still believe in your cause!
Go Deacs! Wear pink. Save the ta-ta's.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if you missed my point or not, but I'll use it to reiterate that lung cancer typically hits those who started smoking at some point in time. We have a pretty good handle on what causes the vast majority of lung cancers, just like we have a pretty good handle on what causes type 2 diabetes.
 
Really??

HeavyPetter said:
I'm not sure if you missed my point or not, but I'll use it to reiterate that lung cancer typically hits those who started smoking at some point in time. We have a pretty good handle on what causes the vast majority of lung cancers, just like we have a pretty good handle on what causes type 2 diabetes.
Click to expand...

Thanks for clarifying. But to make sure I understand: You are saying that we shouldn't waste research dollars on finding a treatment or cure for diseases that you deem as preventable or easily treatable if detected early.

I suppose that you are entitled to that opinion.
 
AnotherWF1stDown said:
Thanks for clarifying. But to make sure I understand: You are saying that we shouldn't waste research dollars on finding a treatment or cure for diseases that you deem as preventable or easily treatable if detected early.

I suppose that you are entitled to that opinion.
Click to expand...

I was originally arguing with another poster who said

This is very very true. Breast cancer has a survival rate of 90% these days. That is astronomically high. If you don't want to go get your breasts or prostate checked in this day and age than you should have no one to blame but yourself. Its similar to eating shitty food, you get HBP, Diabetes, Heart risk you have no one to blame but yourself. This false notion that breast cancer or prostate cancer needs more money for research just isn't true. We need research for things like lymphoma, lung cancer etc...
Click to expand...

I didn't get his analogy because he equated breast and prostate cancer to high blood pressure, heart disease and diabetes -- diseases that he says you have no one to blame but yourself if you contract him. Then he goes on to say that lung cancer deserves more funding, when the vast majority of those who contract lung cancer have no one to blame but themselves.

I honestly don't know what the proper allocation of cancer research funds should be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top