Americans prefer energy fix to cancer cure: poll

Nationwide survey comes as U.S. gasoline prices rocket to new highs. But pollster says emotional issues such as global warming are also a factor.
(From Reuters)

The story "Americans prefer energy fix to cancer cure: poll" published April 2, 2008 at 10:44 PM is no longer available on CNET News.

Content from Reuters expires after 30 days.

[YoCraig]

A Perverse Question...

...deserves a perverse answer. Silly questions, those of the
either/or variety. The correct answer is always we want both, but
that probably isn't one of the multiple choices available in the
survey.

[R. U. Sirius]

What?

What sort of question is that? Sounds to me like it is someone with an agenda. How about we take care of both energy and health? What a concept.

[Stating]

Polls Don't Measure Opinion, They Shape It

The shadow government behind these polls uses them to shape public opinion, not measure it. You could throw enough money at a poll that said people prefer eating cow dung over beef and the sheeple would believe it.

[Frewgle]

Shhh - Don't Tell People

the real usage of polls......

Should we re-build the nations bridges or quit using antibiotics in cattle feed?

huh?

[Stating]

Scarborough Research Paid Me $2 For Spoiling Dinner

Scarborough Research with their inane "What radio station do you listen to?" polls paid me a whole $2 for spoiling 3 of my dinners with unsolicited , UNWANTED calls. Whoopee.

The first question on the poll in CNET's story should have been, "Should pollsters that disrupt your life with stupid calls die a slow, agonizing death?"

a) Yes
b) Yes, Yes
c) Yes, Yes, Yes

[scottjoy]

Not an either-or choice

As a survivor, painfully aware of cancer's impact on people I love -- not to mention its estimated cost to the U.S. economy of $210 billion -- I'd like to see curing cancer poll even higher. However, energy and health can and should both be top priorities. We don't have to pick just one.

[k2dave]

Lower energy cost will help cancer research IMHO

Our economy is tied to the cost of energy, people's willingness to give is based on how they feel on the economy and how much they have available to give. If energy prices go up they have less, spend less, the economy tanks, everyone has less to donate to cancer cure causes, tax revenue is also down, meaning less funds for cancer research on the government level unless it's borrowed, which takes money from tomorrow.

I'd also say that low energy costs saves lives directly, it elevated the standard of living, allowing a better selection of healthy foods for the people in the lower half of the economic scale, allows them to get better health care if they have the ability to pay for it.

IMHO though cancer research is important, you really need a fix for the problem that has the potential to destroy cancer research and a lot more.

Cancer research is like building another floor on your ship, fixing the energy problem is like fixing the hole in the hull.

[david__B]

There should be a law...

That Pollsters can't use a responders answer if they don't answer "yes" to the follow up question which is, "Have you ever thought about this exact question before?"

All polls ever show is the knee-jerk reaction the public has to some crisis-of-the-moment.

Who in his RIGHT MIND wouldn't pay DOUBE for gasoline if it ment a cure for some potential cancer they could have in the future?

Dumb questions deserve dumb answers. And this was a DUMB question.

[dshan00]

well thats a no-brainer

Simply put, energy woes affect a lot more people than cancer does. Plus with oil prices at an all time high, energy is getting way more press now-a-days

[cooltoes]

fuel cost

mandatory maximum speed on highways would reduce gasoline use by at least 20% and reduce highway deaths. a win win solution

[cooltoes]

fuel cost

mandatory maximum speed to 50 mph on highways would reduce gasoline use by at least 20% and reduce highway deaths. a win win solution

[david427]

Energy fix?

What new technology is needed? We already have it, wind, solar, geothermal, tidal and nuclear. There shouldn?t be a volt of electric power being produced in this country from fossil fuels after 5 years. Until then the country?s fossil fuel reserves can easily supply all of our domestic needs. Heck, if we spent 700 billion dollars for nothing in Iraq we should be able to spend 700 billion dollars for 700-1100 new ?alternative? energy power plants. Problem solved, that wasn't hard at all, next.

Oh wait, lobbyists for Big Oil, the Petro President and spineless, greedy politicians are keeping it from happening.

Maybe if we did something about the stranglehold the Big Pharm lobbyists have we could do something about that cancer problem too. Sad that civilization as a whole is being held back by the greed of a few. It?s time for the citizens to make the government for the people by the people again.

[grmertz]

I prefer this

All this GREEN talk is nice but here is something disturbing.
Here is a patented device that can save 80% in power generation.
Lutec.com.au
The patent was applied for in 1999 and they were going to produce
units for sale this year.
All rights to the device were bought by a Hong Kong company evergreenltd.com.hk
with no plans for production, smells like an oil company is going to squelch their invention.
Reminds me of the last seen in ?Raiders of the Lost Ark? a truly world changing discovery lost to the world, or the movie ?Chain Reaction?
The Lutec Electricity Amplifier could reduce my electric bill by 80% but not my consumption, something for free; big business will not let it happen.
Sad to say people controlling the money really do not want change, or give the consumer something for free, so GREEN is just something to keep the consumer focused elsewhere.