MORE people in Manchester are dying early from smoking-related conditions and heart disease than anywhere else.
New government figures show Manchester has more than double the smoking death rates than the London borough of Kensington and Chelsea.
Although deaths from smoking have fallen slightly, the city continues to suffer more from tobacco-related disease than anywhere else in Britain.
On average, men live to 73 - a 12-month increase from research released two years ago, but still 10 years less than in Kensington and Chelsea.
Women manage 78 years, nine years less than in the London borough, says a new snapshot of the nation's health.
The national health profiles also show the city has one of the worst binge-drinking problems.
Pat Karney, NHS director of smoke-free Greater Manchester, said: "Smoking is turning Manchester into the killing fields of England. The city must mount the biggest-ever health campaign to help Mancunians to quit and prevent young people taking up smoking."
Dr Phil Barber, head of heart and lung medicine at Wythenshawe Hospital in south Manchester, said deprived areas need 'targeted education' and support to prevent youngsters trying cigarettes and help existing smokers to quit.
He said: "I see thousands every year who are seriously ill with lung cancer - which you are 40 times more likely to have if you smoke - and other lung and heart conditions."
The health profiles which are published by the association of public health observatories are designed to help local councils and the NHS decide where to target action and resources.
Health Minister Lord Ara Dazi pledged this week to turn the NHS from a sickness to a wellness service, preventing people from becoming ill rather than just treating the sick.
He said the challenges in Manchester were 'quite significant', but no different to other cities. But much was being done in the region, including anti-smoking campaigns and work on lifestyle, diseases and obesity.
Tweet
City's smoking death toll
July 07, 2009
Showing comments 1 to 15 and replies | View All
dessie, manchester (07/07/2009 at 08:10)
NOW READING THE ABOVE STRIKES ME AS PLAIN STUPID, HOW MANY PEOPLE IN THESE PLACES ARE WORKING CLASS PEOPLE, COMPARED TO MANCHESTER!!!
smoking is a huge problem but the government is doing an ok job with advertising etc
The Higher Openshaw Exile, MANCHESTER (07/07/2009 at 08:23)
J.Hall, Tameside (07/07/2009 at 08:38)
As someone who has a mountain of confirmed evidence after 13 years of researching,firstly I have 20 MEN reports that Manchester is SMOG CITY,and its constant pollution,and then comes the Epidemiological Research conclusions that Pollution causes Cancers,Heart Diseases and a host of other serious diseases,then we have the study reports that show being in Manchester is the equivalent to smoking 23 Cigs each day,so stop pushing rhetoric and start printing the facts.
My thousands of research documents are available to the MEN if they want to learn the true facts,which are presently hidden from the Electorate.
Need To Know is a common principle of Politicians and others,but its our bodies,our families and WE need to know what information is being avoided.
Funny how I cannot get my FACTS into the Media,could it be don`t tell them they would seek claims ????.
Theowolfe (07/07/2009 at 09:22)
Can someone who indulges in such blatant hyperbole be trusted with public office?
english charlie, suffolk (07/07/2009 at 10:06)
Ace , manchester (07/07/2009 at 10:43)
english charlie, suffolk (07/07/2009 at 12:45)
Air Pollution is far more dangerous than tobacco fumes.
J.Hall, Tameside (07/07/2009 at 12:59)
Now MEN perhaps you would back such knowledge being made known, considering its our families and our bodies that this information should be available as Our Right to Know.
So the offer is there,lets see which of those mentioned in this report can face the real facts,which I can
substantiate and accept an open meeting where this taboo subect can be completely exposed.
So simply who has the bottle ??? I await a response please in the Comments from these three gentlemen.
Mad Welsh Scotsman, Cadishead (07/07/2009 at 13:08)
Smoking can cause cancer and other diseases but so can many other things, why not ban everything and wrap us in Hypoalergenic cotton wool. If a person is not exposed to polutants and germs etc how can we build up an imunity system, if the nanny state carries on like this, in years to come, a person could die from getting a plinter in their finger.
The Higher Openshaw Exile, MANCHESTER (07/07/2009 at 14:29)
I too have COPD, mine has nothing to do with smoking, it was brought on due to an accident in which I damaged one lung and the strain on my chest brought about Heart Failure, not bad for a non smoker, eh. Smoking cannot be blamed for every illness, in your case you say it was smoking, ever thought back a few years to when Manchester was the smog capital of the country.
soapy57, rainworth (07/07/2009 at 15:32)
I would not however hold my breath about a response from ASH, they only issue decrees, they do not debate. Would you agree that the reason that they persistantly refuse to enter public debate is because they have something to hide?
Ace , manchester (07/07/2009 at 15:58)
Theowolfe (07/07/2009 at 19:16)
There are few people that doubt that smoking is harmful to the health of the smoker. The spurious claims about passive smoking however lack clear statistical significant scientific evidence. But it is this alleged harm to others from passive smoking, (flimsy at best) which is driving the anti-smoking hysteria.
Based on this flimsy evidence the government, health officials and sanctimonious politicians like Pat Karney implement illiberal bans ‘for our own good.’ They and their priggish supporters within the general public believe it is okay to interfere in people’s lives based on their own prejudices. Remember the maxim ‘the road to hell is paved with good intentions.’
It is not smokers we need to be protected from but these authoritarian extremists who would interfere in every aspect of our lives. The stench of their fetid sanctimony is far worse than a little smoke and far more insidious. It is an attack on liberal democratic values.
Of course there will be those that cry “it is my right not to have to breathe the smokers ‘ polluted air.” The problem with this argument is that in a society where one person’s right trumps another’s lead to a situation where all our rights are under attack.
There are other examples of this intolerance today, the right that some people believe is theirs not to be offended, has lead to the unjustified attacks on freedom of speech and consequently open debate.
When the small minded anti-smoking prigs have finished off the smokers they will move on to some other illiberal cause.
english charlie, suffolk (07/07/2009 at 21:27)
Rob Lawrence (08/07/2009 at 08:13)
Dr Barber in the above article says you are 40 times more likely to get lung cancer from smoking.
9 in 10 does not equate to 40 times! So either doctors are crap at maths or the so called "facts" on the dangers of smoking are a load of rubbish. Also, Japan has traditionally had more smokers as a % of the population, yet way lower lung cancer rates. Expain that, sunshine!