RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer

Page: << < prev 2 3 4 [5] 6 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer - 7/16/2010 10:41:23 PM

Hippiekinkster

Posts: 5512
Joined: 11/20/2007
From: Liechtenstein
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

I offered a study that stated the cells had to be there first.

To be accurate, Tazzy, you offered your memory of said study. Note that I am not saying anything about either the existence, or the accuracy of your memory, of said study.

_____________________________

"We are convinced that freedom w/o Socialism is privilege and injustice, and that Socialism w/o freedom is slavery and brutality." Bakunin

“Nothing we do, however virtuous, can be accomplished alone; therefore we are saved by love.” Reinhold Ne

(in reply to tazzygirl)

Post #: 81

RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer - 7/16/2010 10:43:05 PM

tazzygirl

Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline

You are right, Hippie. Its something i remember reading... nothing more.. nothing less.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to Hippiekinkster)

Post #: 82

RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer - 7/16/2010 10:47:17 PM

tazzygirl

Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Icarys

quote:

Im supposed to care? lol

I offered up something i read about many years ago. you dont have to believe it. i do find it interesting that because you cant find something on the web pertaining to something that was written before the "web" became popular then you believe it didnt exist.

I dont care if you believe it or not. That wasnt the point of me posting about it. Do you also know other studies have stated that smoking causes damage to the lining of the lungs, causing a rapid regeneration that way? but again, there is the noting that a pre-cancerous cell would be present. There are studies that say smoking causes no damage, and others that say smoking causes every kind of cancer in the body. And some say alcohol causes just the same kind of damage.

Instead of sucking on your thumb and demanding proof, why dont you put on your big boy panties and go read. Those studies, other than the initial one, are out there. Bet you will claim you cant find those either.

But its what i have come to expect with you.

When citing a study maybe you should keep your trap shut unless you have proof of something...I know you won't because it's what I've come to expect out of you as well along with the attempts to dress a person down when they show just how stupid something was that you've said.

Somebody evidently isn't watching the hen house.

Ah, but you didnt know me from eve. Interesting how your story changes.

I did not offer the study as a scientific certainity, just something i read and passed along. It made perfect sense to me, and many in the medical field. But ONE study isnt enough to pin anyone's future upon. Nor is it something to get your big boy panties all twisted up about.

And the next time you decide who can post what on these boards, please, do let the Mods know. Im sure they will be interested in your point of view.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to Icarys)

Post #: 83

RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer - 7/16/2010 11:19:01 PM

Bufotenin

Posts: 66
Joined: 9/23/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aneirin

I certainly do not believe all that is said about smoking being such a bad bad thing, when we readily inhale diesel fumes on a daily basis via traffic fumes, diesel fumes known to contain four carcinogens, yet no one is saying anything about that are they or is it the petrochemical companies wield more might than tobacco industries.

Maybe you should try typing 'smog cancer' or 'smog asthma' into a search engine.

(in reply to Aneirin)

Post #: 84

RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer - 7/16/2010 11:25:05 PM

Icarys

Posts: 5757
Status: offline

quote:

Ah, but you didnt know me from eve. Interesting how your story changes.

I did not offer the study as a scientific certainity, just something i read and passed along. It made perfect sense to me, and many in the medical field. But ONE study isnt enough to pin anyone's future upon. Nor is it something to get your big boy panties all twisted up about.

And the next time you decide who can post what on these boards, please, do let the Mods know. Im sure they will be interested in your point of view.

I only know of you here but that surely isn't enough to trust your word...Make better sense to you?

It was only a suggestion but you like to project whatever you think you see onto the person..Much like my asking for a link was somehow demanding...I've noticed that you do that when you feel threatened in some way and your on the defensive.

The bigboy and the sucking thumb comments are yet another sign of that insecurity...'

It's cool though...I can be the adult and walk away.

Have a good night :>

_____________________________

submission - the feeling of patient, submissive humbleness - the state of being submissive or compliant; meekness.

Alaska Bound-The Official Countdown Has Started!
http://tinyurl.com/872mcu3
http://alturl.com/mog7m

(in reply to tazzygirl)

Post #: 85

RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer - 7/17/2010 12:03:33 AM

CynthiaWVirginia

Posts: 1915
Joined: 2/28/2010
From: West Virginia, USA
Status: offline

quote:

I have always felt that the dangers of smoking (and especially second hand smoke) have been exaggerated.

Mom worked in a pharmacy for 18 years, and had to fill out insurance papers for miners...whose cig dangled from their fingers and burned like incense only inches from her face. She hated it.

Years later, she had x-rays taken and there was scar tissue all over her lungs. The doctor told her, "You never told me you were a heavy smoker." Mom answered the truth, she had never smoked, merely was exposed to second hand smoke. She has asthma now and cataracts growing.

I could sound off more on this, but I'll rest my case.

I think everyone needs a break from my epic postings, lol.

(in reply to Estring)

Post #: 86

RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer - 7/17/2010 12:18:50 AM

Termyn8or

Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline

Goddammit.

Smoking does cause cancer.

Breaking the speed limit causes traffic deaths.

Gas leaks cause house explosions.

Eating raw pork causes trichnosis.

You are taking this completely out of control. Using some supportive evidence the article might have been titled sensationally, but look at some of the title of threads around here !

What is going on here is that people want to say that since you say that you also mean this. Is that so hard to understand ?

1. Smoking causes lung cancer.
a. smoking does not always cause lung cancer.
b. not all lung cancer is caused by smoking.

2. Breaking the speed limit causes traffic deaths.
a. breaking the speed limit does not always cause traffic deaths.
b. not all traffic deaths are caused by breaking the speed limit.

In each case, (1 & 2) the statement is true. But because of whatever, people are misreading each other and are applying a bit too much interpretation. What I say is to read the lines, not betweent the lines. We have no between the lines.

The guy said what he said, and the basis of the whole thing is that the numbers have been juggled a bit. It doesn't surprise me a bit. Like 9.5% unemployment. Do you really believe that 90.5% of the people in this country are employed at or near potential ? What did someone say - "Welcome to ......". I forgot.

You fail to get the point. Now I don't care if the author is some geek in his Mother's basement. The assertion is that numbers have been manipulated. Do you agree or disagree. I believe that was the point although the proper comments for understanding by all were not made in the OP.

Now everybody is assumng all kinds of shit not even an issue, let alone in evidence. The title is a form of sensationalism of course, but if this dude is right even in the least, that means we can't trust the other side either. Nobody wants to address that, they would rather dismiss everything summarily if it doesn't come from certain sources.

Well just how did you arrive at the determination of your own personal trusted sources ? I know how I got mine, no way. Is it butter or margarine this week, we must watch our cholesterol, but wait now there is good cholesterol too, so we follow like sheep and when they change direction, you follow. I do not follow.

I personally know of enough times "they" were wrong to always doubt. If you haven't, you must be young or have lived a very sheltered life.

Which numbers are correct. Nobody says smoking is good for you OK ? But how bad is it ? How bad is sitting arounnd a campfire, or driving behind a car that is out of tune really badly, blowing oil to boot ? How bad is it when you have a fire of any kind ?

None of it can be good. It would be illogical to say so. Therefore smoking,,,,guns, deisels, campfires and all that must be stopped. No more cookouts. In fact almost no gas cooking whatsoever.

That's right, where there is smoke there is fire, therefore where there is fire there is smoke. You have a propely installed range hood on that gas stove that actually vents outside ? Well then you are subjecting your kids or friends in the driveway, as well as your neighbors with second hand smoke.

In a way it's true, and you are doing it without their consent.

Got you a BBQ grill ? Those must go. You need an electric lawnmower as well. And then since alot of power plants burn fossil fuel, you need a nuclear plant.

Oh that's great.

Perspective is the second most important thing in life. Guess the first.

T

(in reply to Hippiekinkster)

Post #: 87

RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer - 7/17/2010 12:48:42 AM

CynthiaWVirginia

Posts: 1915
Joined: 2/28/2010
From: West Virginia, USA
Status: offline

Termy, I am puzzled. Lung cancer, or merely cancer that had migrated to his lungs? If cancer that originated from kidney tissue migrated to his lungs, then it wasn't "lung cancer."

I don't know what to say, except your smoke seems like such a small amount and for all I know he spent hours each day in smokey bars or with women who smoked. Maybe he did not get enough antioxidants in his food.

Also, another thing...any of us who have gone through chemo know it's a die now or die later on type deal. Untreated, the cancer will kill us, but chemo...will often cause cancer later on. I took the chemos and chose the die later plan.

At first I got PET Scans or CAT Scans with dye and contrast every six months, I detest barium and go for the PET Scan now that I only have to get tested once per year.

Sorry for the loss of your friend.

(in reply to Termyn8or)

Post #: 88

RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer - 7/17/2010 1:28:32 AM

Termyn8or

Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline

Chynthy, I assume you are responding to my post earlier rather than #87.

They used the C word, and it was in his lungs. It was not me. By definition (yeah right) if you have ovarian cancer it is in your ovaries, if you have kidney cancer it is in your kidney, and so forth. Nobody seems to know how they got there, well some of us have some idea but we are not sure. But does it really matter if the lung cancer got there from the kidneys or not when it comes to the definition ?

The way I see it is that this is being argued in the least efficient way, and admit that I have fallen into the anecdotal form about Eugene. But the facts do remain. What's more this guy lived out in the burbs in relatively clean air, and actually at one of the highest elevations above sea level in this state. I doubt he had any problem with inversion, like LA, and we do too. There is no correlation here and this case exists. If the family had decided to sue, that would be solid.

But if anyone wants to say that I am lying, I have two questions. Where is Eugene and what do I gain by prevaricating in any way ? Surely others know of such cases. Do I have to contact the family to release his medical records ? That would not be so polite to say the least.

I never said smoking was good, nor even neutral. For that to be true someone would have to living in some pretty bad conditions. I mean like in a cesspool or something. Some smokers I know claim that the tobacco residue is like a prophylactic against more powerful poisons, but I am not buying into that right away of course. I have said that in jest, but never really meant it. But really for some it might be true because everybody is different.

It depends on alot of things, some of them controllable, others not. Some city dwellers have never taken a breath of nice clean country air, and some "hicks" would gag on the air of the inner city. It all depends, and upon what is being totally ignored by the mainstream medical community. They do it all the time.

We did not come out of a cookie cutter, we are not all the same. One and only one guy at work has a problem with me smoking. That's fine, now I get real breaks. He says it hurts him, although we work twenty feet away. But others have no problem whatsoever, and this is all among non smokers. And they ask the kid, "How the hell can it hurt you ?". You see, they would rather me not have this type of breaks. But then, what do I care ? Don't smoke around the kid, even in the shop. Fine, I'll go in the basement where I can be alone for a few minutes. No fucking problem.

What happens when the kid gets behind a smelly truck on the highway ? Is he going to risk his life and those of others to pass ? The law seems to be on his side and I am waiting for a test case because it is bound to happen. Not here, but somewhere.

Enough for now.

T

(in reply to CynthiaWVirginia)

Post #: 89

RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer - 7/17/2010 3:40:08 AM

Aneirin

Posts: 6121
Joined: 3/18/2006
From: Tamaris
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bufotenin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aneirin

I certainly do not believe all that is said about smoking being such a bad bad thing, when we readily inhale diesel fumes on a daily basis via traffic fumes, diesel fumes known to contain four carcinogens, yet no one is saying anything about that are they or is it the petrochemical companies wield more might than tobacco industries.

Maybe you should try typing 'smog cancer' or 'smog asthma' into a search engine.

I long ago had my suspicions about diesel and it's derivatives, as on a daily basis for over ten years I was immersed in a diesel enviroment as a diesel mechanic. It came to point where the literal smell of the stuff burned or unburned made me feel sick to the stomach and if one had to touch the stuff, the smell stayed with you for at least three days despite how hard you scrubbed or perfumed it was that pervasive and what it did to protective equiptment gloves et all was scary.

During that time, living next to a major road where diesel engined road vehicles incessantly trundled and waited in the often slow moving traffic, I could even smell the diesel exhaust fumes in the house with all windows closed. That worried me, it worried me so much I installed air cleaners and ionisers in each room and though I would have liked to adhere to the manufacturer's recommendation of cleaning the filters every six months, I did find the air filter filtering performance died off within two months and that due to a black powder that seemed to choke the filtering media. The air filters were doing their stuff, but with a realisation they were perhaps a bit too small, yet they were of a size rated for the room dimensions or was it I was worrying about nothing, the black powder was harmless, but I had seen it before in diesel engined exhaust pipe and perhaps I had become a little over sensitive because of my daily exposure to the stuff.

I installed room ionisers for the simple fact that I was aware of how those things seem to attract dust out of the air, I installed them as an addition to the room air filters, although I was aware some room air filters come with ionisers fitted within, I was not in a position to afford those types. The ionisers attracted airborne particles to the corner where they were situated and observation of that area revealed a fine film of a gritty black dust that when wiped with a finger blackened the same as one would get if they inserted their finger into a diesel exhaust pipe, the appearance and texture was the same, but at least what my devices had caught was no longer airborne for my family to breath.

Six years on now, I no longer work with diesels, they were part of the reason I left my field of expertise, but despite moving out of a sickening enviroment to a place where the Atlantic wind blows so readily, I have to from time to time venture into the towns in order to resupply and of those visits which I limit to the least possible time in there, I find I am nauseous after a very short time and fatigued on my return often with a headache, which I attribute to pollution, something I am not these days used to.

When I am on two wheels engaged in anerobic travel, I look an idiot wearing a motorcycle smog protection mask as it strikes me anerobic activity in a exhaust fume rich enviroment is not the healthy and green activity one would think it to be, aye, if the roads were self powered vehicle only, then green is something to claim, but whilst one shares those roads with the internal combustion machine, green for the self it most certainly is not, and may even if experts agree a very unhealthy activity to engage in even if the four wheel drivers were perfectly observant and safe.

But, an idea, perhaps a whacky idea at that, but an idea based upon a thought about the recent problems in the Gulf of Mexico, the subject of oil or be that fuel forms made from putrified and fossilised life from a far distant past, what is it's history of it's concentrated use in our enviroment and there the prevelence of the illnesses we know today. Is there a correlation between the two and if so could it be seen as us digging death from the past and bringing it into life of the present, could it be the past is truly a dangerous thing that we are using to poison our present and future and with that in more ways than what is plain to see ?

_____________________________

Everything we are is the result of what we have thought, the mind is everything, what we think, we become - Guatama Buddha

Conservatism is distrust of people tempered by fear - William Gladstone

(in reply to Bufotenin)

Post #: 90

RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer - 7/17/2010 4:12:33 AM

lally2

Posts: 2621
Joined: 4/16/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: xxblushesxx

quote:

ORIGINAL: lally2

i should really do an actual graph on the number of patients ive seen (as their podiatrist) who have cancer or are in remission who never smoked a fag in their lives and of those that did smoke, theyre cancer was unrelated to smoking - its been something ive been curious about for a while to be honest. having been a podiatrist now for nearly twenty years and seen alot of cancer patients over those years it is a curiosity for sure.

emphysema however is prevalent.

i think its pretty certain that familial propensity is a strong marker for cancer generally and i doubt that smoking helps.

You'd need to add in whether they lived with smokers either in their childhood or in the present. (or for long periods in their past.) You'd also need to add in whether they were exposed to smoke in their job; someone who works in a bar for instance.

agreed! - but it still doesnt really explain the greater incidence amongst passive/non smokers and active smokers - youd think it would be the other way around.

we all have famillial histories and just looking down through our immediate family histories we can pretty much work out what it is thats gonna get us in the end. cancer is one of those famillial markers (sadly) - with my bunch its heart disease -

_____________________________

So all I have to do in order to serve him, is to work out exactly how improbable he is, feed that figure into the finite improbability generator, give him a fresh cup of really hot tea ... and turn him on!

(in reply to xxblushesxx)

Post #: 91

RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer - 7/17/2010 4:15:19 AM

xxblushesxx

Posts: 9318
Joined: 11/3/2005
From: Kentucky
Status: offline

There had never been any cancer in our family until my dad got (and of course died from cause everyone who gets it does) glio blastoma. Sometimes you just can't see it coming.
Otoh, I used to sell life insurance and begged a lady whose family had breast cancer all over the place to buy a policy. She couldn't afford it. She called me a month or two later to tell me she had been diagnosed.

_____________________________

~Christina

A nice girl with a disturbing hobby

My femdom findom blog: http://www.MistressAvarice.com

(in reply to lally2)

Post #: 92

RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer - 7/17/2010 4:30:58 AM

lally2

Posts: 2621
Joined: 4/16/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: xxblushesxx

There had never been any cancer in our family until my dad got (and of course died from cause everyone who gets it does) glio blastoma. Sometimes you just can't see it coming.
Otoh, I used to sell life insurance and begged a lady whose family had breast cancer all over the place to buy a policy. She couldn't afford it. She called me a month or two later to tell me she had been diagnosed.

im sorry about youre dad)) - i have a colleague/friend with a brain tumour and he seems to be doing ok at the moment, though when you ask him how things are he usually just says 'im fine' - his hair has grown back and he's back at work. i think treatments are getting a bit better, it just depends what sort. i know that Chris doesnt and has never smoked - so another passive/nonsmoker situation.

its a shame she didnt go for a mastectomy and with her history it wasnt suggested - i would, right away, both off, straight away. i had a friend die of it when she was in her early thirties - she refused a mastectomy and it ran through her so fast. it was an awful thing.

xx

_____________________________

So all I have to do in order to serve him, is to work out exactly how improbable he is, feed that figure into the finite improbability generator, give him a fresh cup of really hot tea ... and turn him on!

(in reply to xxblushesxx)

Post #: 93

RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer - 7/17/2010 4:36:44 AM

xxblushesxx

Posts: 9318
Joined: 11/3/2005
From: Kentucky
Status: offline

Thank you. There are lots of different types of brain cancer. Dad just happened to pick the one with a 100% mortality rate. He was always an all or nothing type guy.

_____________________________

~Christina

A nice girl with a disturbing hobby

My femdom findom blog: http://www.MistressAvarice.com

(in reply to lally2)

Post #: 94

RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer - 7/17/2010 5:01:21 AM

WyldHrt

Posts: 6412
Joined: 6/5/2008
Status: offline

quote:

You'd need to add in whether they lived with smokers either in their childhood or in the present. (or for long periods in their past.) You'd also need to add in whether they were exposed to smoke in their job; someone who works in a bar for instance

Nope, not that easy, Blushes. Many smokers do not smoke in the house or car. 'Living with' a smoker doesn't mean a whole lot without knowing the circumstances, and they are varied enough to scuttle an attempt at getting impartial data.

_____________________________

"MotherFUCKER!" is NOT a safeword!!"- Steel
"We've had complaints about 'orgy noises'. This is not the neighborhood for that kind of thing"- PVE Cop

Resident "Hypnotic Eyes", "Cleavage" and "Toy Whore"
Subby Mafia, VAA Posse & Team Troll!

(in reply to xxblushesxx)

Post #: 95

RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer - 7/17/2010 6:04:02 AM

xxblushesxx

Posts: 9318
Joined: 11/3/2005
From: Kentucky
Status: offline

Idk. I know when my son had rsv, the nurse made it quite clear he had to stay away from smokers. Not just don't smoke around him, but don't have people who do smoke around him even when they weren't smoking. Something must get in because that nurse was adamant.

_____________________________

~Christina

A nice girl with a disturbing hobby

My femdom findom blog: http://www.MistressAvarice.com

(in reply to WyldHrt)

Post #: 96

RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer - 7/17/2010 7:07:49 AM

tazzygirl

Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline

blushes, sometimes you run across nurses who go far overboard as well.

RSV is something almost every child will contract by the time they are 3. There are mild forms, and severe forms. And, yes, passive cigarette smoking can be a cause.

quote:

What Are The Risk Factors For RSV?
There are several factors that increase the risk of serious RSV infection and hospitalization. These include the following:

Preterm birth
Chronic lung disease
Congenital heart disease
Immunodeficiency
Exposure to second-hand smoke
Daycare attendance
Multiple birth
Family history of asthma
Birth within 6 months of the onset of RSV season9,10

http://www.askdrsears.com/html/8/t084300.asp

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to xxblushesxx)

Post #: 97

RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer - 7/17/2010 7:21:01 AM

vincentML

Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline

quote:

But an odd thing, when I didn't smoke, which was up until my 35th birth, year I did little exercise, I could not stick at anything, but since I have been smoking, I have found I have more energy and as a result regularly run, dance, do Iyengar yoga, pilates and sometimes tai chi and isometric training, I am as a result healthier than I believe I ever was before, but eating a complex carbohydrate rich diet when I do eat, it seems I always have enough energy and as where I live is all hills and I have no transport, I power up the hills with ease. But why given I smoke about 12g of tobacco every two days and eat little do I have so much energy, it does not make sense, but I have come across this phenomena before, years ago when I was in the armed forces when confronted with the yearly aero run.

Aneirin, nicotine is a stimulant. It increases the flow of adrenaline which explains your higher energy levels.

quote:

Yes, unfortunately I do smoke, and that reluctantly because I am addicted to nicotine. I say reluctantly because I want to give up tobacco, I want to rid the dependance on tobacco, get it out of my life, but it seems I have not the strength to quit.

"In low concentrations (an average cigarette yields about 1 mg of absorbed nicotine), the substance acts as a stimulant in mammals and is the main factor responsible for the dependence-forming properties of tobacco smoking. According to the American Heart Association, the "nicotine addiction has historically been one of the hardest addictions to break." The pharmacological and behavioral characteristics that determine tobacco addiction are similar to those that determine addiction to drugs such as heroin and cocaine.[5] Nicotine content in cigarettes has slowly increased over the years, and one study found that there was an average increase of 1.6% per year between the years of 1998 and 2005. This was found for all major market categories of cigarettes.[6]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine#In_CNS

This article is worth a read. Good luck.

_____________________________

vML

Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. ~ MLK Jr.

(in reply to Aneirin)

Post #: 98

RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer - 7/17/2010 7:28:40 AM

vincentML

Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarlingSavage

I believe it does cause cancer, as well, along with asthma, emphysema, COPD, bronchitis, and just about any other type of lung disease you can come up with. I don't think my dad had cancer that was lying dormant, the cancer spread to his brain before it was caught and he was a goner.

Ditto all of the above. Additionally, heart and coronary disease.

My dad died of stomach cancer, so we were told. He was a heavy smoker. I don't think they checked his lungs. So, I don't know if there was a cause and effect through metasisis.

Btw, the article cited by A says that USWM smokers have an 8% chance vs a 1% chance by nonsmokers. Well, if you wish to play with numbers that is an 800% increase.

_____________________________

vML

Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. ~ MLK Jr.

(in reply to DarlingSavage)

Post #: 99

RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer - 7/17/2010 8:13:03 AM

DesFIP

Posts: 25191
Joined: 11/25/2007
From: Apple County NY
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bufotenin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aneirin

I certainly do not believe all that is said about smoking being such a bad bad thing, when we readily inhale diesel fumes on a daily basis via traffic fumes, diesel fumes known to contain four carcinogens, yet no one is saying anything about that are they or is it the petrochemical companies wield more might than tobacco industries.

Maybe you should try typing 'smog cancer' or 'smog asthma' into a search engine.

Not to mention that the weather reports also offer ozone alerts for just these conditions when we are exposed to high amounts of smog. Saying no one talks about it so senseless when we're warned that the air is unhealthy that day and to stay inside in filtered and air conditioned air.

_____________________________

Slave to laundry

Cynical and proud of it!

(in reply to Bufotenin)

Post #: 100

Page: << < prev 2 3 4 [5] 6 next > >>

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer

Page: << < prev 2 3 4 [5] 6 next > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.125