Who Says Smokimg Is Bad For You?

[Boom Boom]

By the way, this chart may prove interesting:

Source:

http://www.lcolby.com/b-chap8.htm'>http://www.lcolby.com/b-chap8.htm

Ask any pathologist you like, they will report the same.

Maybe you should read the whole thing...

http://www.lcolby.com/

You clearly swallowed all the propaganda and have not bothered to determine fact from fiction.

[Boom Boom]

This segment is amusing...

http://www.lcolby.com/b-chap5.htm

anti-smoking researchers get very frustrated when their studies don't give the results they want.

[ccc]

By the way, this chart may prove interesting:

Source:

http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/types/lung/smoking/#geog

Unsurprisingly, cancer deaths lag number of smokers by quite a wide margin. Thus, in a country which has managed to dramatically reduce the number of people who smoke, there is an apparent discrepancy between number of smokers and number of cancer deaths. Over time though the number of cancer deaths will decline in line with the number of smokers.

By the way, I wonder if Boom Boom can tell us what the difference is between these two lungs and why:

The one on the right is Aberdeen Angus ? The left one is def one of those frozen 'steak' things you get out of Lidl.

Anyway what has this got to do with smoking ?

[rolf]

Rolf, smoking DOES cause cancer, especially respiratory ones, throat ,larynx, lung etc. It also a risk factor in many, many others. So telling people it causes cancer is NOT factually incorrect.

Prove it.

It is a risk factor in many cancers. However, if you smoke your whole life, you won't necessarily get cancer.

Therefore, you can't say that smoking causes cancer. It may or might cause cancer.

But to tell people: "smoking will give you cancer" is just plain wrong.

[monty1080]

Prove it.

It is a risk factor in many cancers. However, if you smoke your whole life, you won't necessarily get cancer.

Therefore, you can't say that smoking causes cancer. It may or might cause cancer.

But to tell people: "smoking will give you cancer" is just plain wrong.

OK, so where is the proof it causes heart disease ?

[Bob8]

Certainly, my sister (working as a nurse) seemed to quickly learn that most cases of hideous insides were explained by smoking. A terrible curse.

[Bob8]

Prove it.

It is a risk factor in many cancers. However, if you smoke your whole life, you won't necessarily get cancer.

Therefore, you can't say that smoking causes cancer. It may or might cause cancer.

But to tell people: "smoking will give you cancer" is just plain wrong.

I do not think that is argued by the scientists. However, people ask if something gives you cancer, it is understood that they mean does it have a causative effect in increasing the likelihood of cancer. However, most normal people do not talk like that.

[monty1080]

Over the next two years, Wynder doggedly reviewed records to see if there were other cases linking cigarettes and lung cancer. He found that many lung cancer patients were smokers. Interviewing lung cancer patients and "control" patients with other cancers, far more cancer occurred among the smokers. Early in 1950 he published his results in the Journal of the American Medical Association. Comparing 649 lung cancer patients with 600 controls, he found lung cancer an incredible 40 times higher among smokers, with the risk of cancer increasing with the number of cigarettes smoked.

[monty1080]

Prove it.

It is a risk factor in many cancers. However, if you smoke your whole life, you won't necessarily get cancer.

Therefore, you can't say that smoking causes cancer. It may or might cause cancer.

But to tell people: "smoking will give you cancer" is just plain wrong.

This one is especially for you Rolf, as a weed smoker.....linky

[Guest Absolutely Fabulous]

This one is especially for you Rolf, as a weed smoker.....linky

It IS true that any substance inhaled over a period compromises not only the health of the lung tissue, but the oxygen content of the blood, which in turn can affect the brain and heart.

Asthma sprays, for example - tho' often life-saving in one respect - can have a deleterious effect on the health in general in the long-term.

[rolf]

This one is especially for you Rolf, as a weed smoker.....linky

There is much argument about marijuana and respiratory illness.

Some claim that you cannot get cancer at all from MJ. Some claim that cancer from cigarettes is caused by the radiation.

Personally, I think that anything smoked is bad, but MJ less so than tobacco with all its unnatural adulterants.

Vaporising MJ I reckon is safe for the lungs.

[ccc]

What I find interesting is Doctors and Nurses attitudes to smoking and drinking. They are well known, in large numbers, to smoke like chimneys and drink like fishes.

Now why, when they see the devastating effects of this every day, would they do this ?

I doubt it is because it is not really bad for you. I would hazard a guess it is for another reason. They see so much random bad luck where people get seriously ill and die just coz - that they think why ******ing not ?

Any resident docs or nurses care to comment ?

[rolf]

What I find interesting is Doctors and Nurses attitudes to smoking and drinking. They are well known, in large numbers, to smoke like chimneys and drink like fishes.

Now why, when they see the devastating effects of this every day, would they do this ?

I doubt it is because it is not really bad for you. I would hazard a guess it is for another reason. They see so much random bad luck where people get seriously ill and die just coz - that they think why ******ing not ?

Any resident docs or nurses care to comment ?

All vices are not really a choice, they are an addiction that needs to be controlled.

Also, sure, smoking is bad for you. Eating too much is bad for you. Drinking too much is bad for you. You pay for these things in your 50s and beyond.

Not long ago, you'd be lucky to get to 50. I don't blame people for throwing caution to the wind and ignoring these things. After all, life is about quality and not quantity. Sometimes, I wish that the health brigade would shut up. They act as if health is the most important thing in life. It is very important, but on its own it is meaningless and won't lead to a meaningful and fully lived life.

[ImA20SomethingGetMeOutOfHere]

You know what, you've fallen for the biggest myth in anti-smoking hysteria. See..

http://www.lcolby.com/b-chap8.htm'>http://www.lcolby.com/b-chap8.htm

Ask any pathologist you like, they will report the same.

Maybe you should read the whole thing...

http://www.lcolby.com/

You clearly swallowed all the propaganda and have not bothered to determine fact from fiction.

Here's another nice picture for you:

Source:http://www.medicinenet.com/smokers_lung_pathology_photo_essay/page7.htm

Notice that it's not just about all the blackened crap in the lungs. There's a nice tumor in there too and a bit of emphysema. Both of these are way higher in smokers than the population as a whole.

[Guest happy?]

It IS true that any substance inhaled over a period compromises not only the health of the lung tissue, but the oxygen content of the blood, which in turn can affect the brain and heart.

Asthma sprays, for example - tho' often life-saving in one respect - can have a deleterious effect on the health in general in the long-term.

Not really comparing like with like though - side-effects from drugs are well-known and generally given as it's judged that the benefits outweigh the downside.

Whichever way you cut it the downside with smoking is all there is.

[Boom Boom]

Here's another nice picture for you:

Source:http://www.medicinenet.com/smokers_lung_pathology_photo_essay/page7.htm

Notice that it's not just about all the blackened crap in the lungs. There's a nice tumor in there too and a bit of emphysema. Both of these are way higher in smokers than the population as a whole.

Right, and the same could be seen in a non smoker, that's the point. Showing lungs with carbon deposits on cigarette packets is disingenuous

[ccc]

All vices are not really a choice, they are an addiction that needs to be controlled.

Also, sure, smoking is bad for you. Eating too much is bad for you. Drinking too much is bad for you. You pay for these things in your 50s and beyond.

Not long ago, you'd be lucky to get to 50. I don't blame people for throwing caution to the wind and ignoring these things. After all, life is about quality and not quantity. Sometimes, I wish that the health brigade would shut up. They act as if health is the most important thing in life. It is very important, but on its own it is meaningless and won't lead to a meaningful and fully lived life.

Yes - but you would think people surrounded by the horrific outcomes of these 'bad things' would be less likely to take them up themselves ? You would think it would put them off these things. Like the classic ex-chicken factory worker. Never touches processed chicken again. They have seen enough. So a nurse that has seen hundreds of people coughing up their bloody lungs into their face every day? Yet they wander outside 2 minutes later and light up themselves ?

You have to admit it seems strange. And I reckon it is down to what I said before. They see so much random stuff they realise that the choices we make can mean very little.

The fact that Docs and nurses drink and smoke a lot says a lot IMO.

[ImA20SomethingGetMeOutOfHere]

Right, and the same could be seen in a non smoker, that's the point. Showing lungs with carbon deposits on cigarette packets is disingenuous

Yes and no. It's certainly true that the chances of somebody with all of this stuff in their lungs also being a smoker are disproportionally high. That and our understanding of how cancers actually form and what is in cigarette smoke very firmly point the finger at cigarettes as being a major cause of many cancers.

[ImA20SomethingGetMeOutOfHere]

Yes - but you would think people surrounded by the horrific outcomes of these 'bad things' would be less likely to take them up themselves ? You would think it would put them off these things. Like the classic ex-chicken factory worker. Never touches processed chicken again. They have seen enough. So a nurse that has seen hundreds of people coughing up their bloody lungs into their face every day? Yet they wander outside 2 minutes later and light up themselves ?

You have to admit it seems strange. And I reckon it is down to what I said before. They see so much random stuff they realise that the choices we make can mean very little.

The fact that Docs and nurses drink and smoke a lot says a lot IMO.

Medicine is a seriously high stress job with long hours. My sister in law used to be a nurse and she took up smoking basically so that she could go and have a fag break every so often. A fair few doctors (and dentists for that matter) develop drink and/or drug problems, partly because of stress or escapism but also because the job seems to attract a certain number of narcicists and hedonists. Most grow out of it as they get older but some don't and that can cause problems.

[ccc]

Medicine is a seriously high stress job with long hours. My sister in law used to be a nurse and she took up smoking basically so that she could go and have a fag break every so often. A fair few doctors (and dentists for that matter) develop drink and/or drug problems, partly because of stress or escapism but also because the job seems to attract a certain number of narcicists and hedonists. Most grow out of it as they get older but some don't and that can cause problems.

I can imagine the above is a common reason. However it still doesn't answer the point. Why go for the very vices that you see every day ******ing people up so much ? There are a lot of other vices out there. They just taking the easy way out by choosing the normal vices ?

[JustYield]

So using your logic, we can assert the following

Breathing air causes cancer

Drinking water causes cancer

Boom Boom

so using your logic, you'd be happy if this was your kid?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgxPe891-JQ

[Roseland69]

I am 40. Of all the people I know who have died of health issues younger than you would expect, i.e before 70., ALL were heavy smokers. Absolutely all of them. No exception. My aunt now will be next for sure - she is on her last legs - emphysema. Smoking caused it. She is 72. I tell you, when you see someone in that state, who can hardly breathe unaided, it puts you off smoking! And I used to smoke.

As an aside, I find it bizarre that anyone would argue the toss over whether smoking is bad for you or not. Its almost... troll like. As if someone is playing devil's advocate for the sheer bloody mindedness of it all.

[Frank Hovis]

I am 40. Of all the people I know who have died of health issues younger than you would expect, i.e before 70., ALL were heavy smokers. Absolutely all of them. No exception. My aunt now will be next for sure - she is on her last legs - emphysema. Smoking caused it. She is 72. I tell you, when you see someone in that state, who can hardly breathe unaided, it puts you off smoking! And I used to smoke.

As an aside, I find it bizarre that anyone would argue the toss over whether smoking is bad for you or not. Its almost... troll like. As if someone is playing devil's advocate for the sheer bloody mindedness of it all.

Trolling, here?

Sure it's bad for you. But so's sugar.

I don't see the problem if somebody smokes 4 / 5 ciggies a day. Less bad for you then driving behind a black smoke-belching diesel for 20 minutes.

Heavy smoking is hovever very bad for you and all the heavy smokers I know are physically older than their years, both facially and in their general physique.

[ccc]

Trolling, here?

Sure it's bad for you. But so's sugar.

I don't see the problem if somebody smokes 4 / 5 ciggies a day. Less bad for you then driving behind a black smoke-belching diesel for 20 minutes.

Heavy smoking is hovever very bad for you and all the heavy smokers I know are physically older than their years, both facially and in their general physique.

Thats a very interesting point. Where is the campaign for 'smoking in moderation' ?

Not that I know the effect on your health of that. I assume it is a lot less than smoking 40 per day.

[Frank Hovis]

Thats a very interesting point. Where is the campaign for 'smoking in moderation' ?

Not that I know the effect on your health of that. I assume it is a lot less than smoking 40 per day.

It doesn't fit with the binary thinking of the ruling liberal elite.

Living in London, as compared to living in Snowdonia, is like smoking 4 fags a day because of the polluted air. Now I'm not suggesting all the Welsh hill farmers should smoke 4 a day but I have yet to see any campaign to stop people living in London.