He is right when he writes that lung cancer rates for men has been declining for several decades.
http://planning.cancer.gov/disease/Lung-Snapshot.pdf

Shows a graph of declining incidence of cancer in males, a steady decline for the past 20 years. When you do a delay-adjusted comparison between lung cancer rates and smoking you get excellent correlation.

http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2003/results_merged/sect_15_lung_bronchus.pdf

The link to the article also does not support your position. A few quotes you obviously missed.

“Increased Cancer Incidence Since Mid-1970s Due Mainly to Screening and Smoking; Cancer Death Rates Are Stable or Declining. “

“"These trends are driven largely by apparent increases in prostate cancer among men and breast cancer among women — which, according to the investigators, may be due in the main to improved detection — and by real increases in LUNG cancer among women, largely attributable to cigarette smoking."

Your writings show a propensity to manipulate the data to fit your thinking, or you are just having difficulty with what you are reading. The very article you provided states”

In 2001, Kentucky had the highest age-adjusted lung cancer incidence rates in both males (140.5 per 10,000) and females (73.3 per 100,000).  Utah had the lowest age-adjusted cancer incidence rates in both males and females (40.0 per 100,000 and 22.1 per 100,000).  These state specific rates were parallel to smoking prevalence rates.

http://marylandlung.org/content/1/2/31.html

Not fluoridation, a baseless suggestion. Causal fallacies anyone?

The three ancient women in my life who have each smoked 70 years didn't get a cancer, while the one 90 year old who never smoked a cigarette in her life came down with two of them.

Coincidental correlation and Hasty generalization. Maybe you can try tossing a coin 3 times and if you get 3 consecutive of the same conclude that the coin only has one side. You are right. Simple minds, simple explanations, but also sometimes simple minds, convoluted paranoid explanations. You seem to embrace both.

Of course to you, evidence does not matter – unless it supports your wacky ideas. Fallacy of Exclusion - Important evidence which would undermine an inductive argument is excluded from consideration.