Smokers

Smokers

  • Total voters
    111
Jim Klatt said:
Cigar smoking, even without inhaling, is known to rapidly increase ones chances of getting oral cancers(lip, mouth, throat, and tongue) as well as esophageal cancer. It also increases chances of getting heart disease, COPD, and emphysema.

Not passing judgement, just the facts. I am trying to quit smoking myself and it is the hardest thing for me.
Click to expand...

Now I don't smoke but lets at least get some "facts" straight. Smoking, anything, is not KNOWN to cause anything. Smoking and various other activities increase your "risk factor". The risk of getting cancer or heart disease etc is there for everyone. All the anti smoking literature talk about X number of deaths from smoking but actually this is just a statistical projection. The risk is fairly small in the first place and the increase is not that large. But to put it in perspective if 1 in 1,000,000 people normally die of X then a 100% risk factor means 2 people will die.

And of the major studies where there was any effort to separate pipe and cigar smokers from cigaret smokers who ALSO smoked pipes and cigars none showed a significant increase in mortality, some actually showed a decrease with the pipe smokers. Cigaret smokers all had a significant increase in mortality. But again significant is like anything over a 2% increase.

This of course says nothing of other effects like smelling like an ashtray.

There is also a whole other issue and that is the use by american cigaret makers of toxic additives and the use of "reconstituted tobacco" (basically paper pulp soaked in chemicals). Something that may explain the discrepancy between US cancer rates among smokers and European cancer rates.
 
Let's also throw in the fact that non smokers also die from cancer, and the cars that fill the streets put out higher percentages of the same toxic fumes, except for nicotine. Stuff that in your pipe and smoke it!
 
I'm sorry, but that is where you are slightly wrong about your facts,

It is true that one to one statistics can not prove any casual relationship, how ever that is not how clinical science is conducted.

Numerous attributes of the subject is computed against the target variable, from these regression models, Bayesian cluster models, even Neural models (amongst many others) are generated which can predict (within certain probability boundaries) the complex relationship between subject attributes and the target variable.

Here is just a tiny list of scientific publications on the topic:

Cigarette Smoking and the Risk of Endometrial Cancer: A Meta-Analysis
The American Journal of Medicine, Volume 121, Issue 6, June 2008, Pages 501-508.e3
Bo Zhou, Li Yang, Qingmin Sun, Rihong Cong, Haijuan Gu, Naping Tang, Huaijun Zhu, Bin Wang

The Causal Role of Cigarette Smoking in Bladder Cancer Initiation and Progression, and the Role of Urologists in Smoking Cessation
The Journal of Urology, In Press, Corrected Proof, Available online 15 May 2008
Seth A. Strope, James E. Montie

Role of tobacco smoking, chewing and alcohol drinking in the risk of oral cancer in Trivandrum, India: A nested case-control design using incident cancer cases
Oral Oncology, Volume 44, Issue 5, May 2008, Pages 446-454
Richard Muwonge, Kunnambath Ramadas, Risto Sankila, Somanathan Thara, Gigi Thomas, Jissa Vinoda, Rengaswamy Sankaranarayanan

Possible involvement of tobacco-derived advanced glycation end products (AGEs) in an increased risk for developing cancers and cardiovascular disease in former smokers
Medical Hypotheses, In Press, Corrected Proof, Available online 29 April 2008
S. Yamagishi, T. Matsui, K. Nakamura
 
I have many in my immediate/extended family that smoke, and as a young boy I always found it an odd habit. Roll up some leaves into paper, light it on fire, and stick that in your mouth and breath it....just didn't make sense to me.

That combined with the fact that I am barely able to breath when around cigarette smoke, plus watching family members die of emphysema (sp?) is why I never even tried one.


My motto is, I only smoke if I'm on fire :) (and yes, I have been on fire once ... well, ok, it was just my finger in a small electrical fire that went out within seconds, but the burn hurt for several days)
 
I remember seeing a news report years ago with the oldest known woman on the planet... a nice Russian woman who, since her 30th birthday always started her day with a shot of vodka & a cigarette..she was 114 at the time.

I myself don't smoke anymore, haven't for years... having children to worry about will do that to you (or should)...but life is short & we all have to go sometime.

A wise man once said, "I'd rather be sick when I die then healthy"
 
Have to admit, that was a fairly clever 'comeback Anhar.

It's interesting to see who does & does not smoke. I was going to start the topic about Drinking, but I think everyone drinks.

I've never tried, College was a hell hole for it, everyone of my mates smoked. Even the tutors.
 
Never smoked...cigarettes. Haha, but really I have never smoked. Tried once actually - but I was very drunk at the time.

I do indeed drink.
 
I smoke maybe one cigarette per year, usually to be sociable when hanging out with smokers on my crew.

One cigar every five years or so, if someone I know has a particular cigar he insists I "must enjoy" (the cigar: enjoyable. the 30 minutes of wracking nausea and vomiting afterwards: not so enjoyable).
 
Anhar Miah said:
I'm sorry, but that is where you are slightly wrong about your facts,

It is true that one to one statistics can not prove any casual relationship, how ever that is not how clinical science is conducted.

Numerous attributes of the subject is computed against the target variable, from these regression models, Bayesian cluster models, even Neural models (amongst many others) are generated which can predict (within certain probability boundaries) the complex relationship between subject attributes and the target variable.

...
Click to expand...

Actually those are "studies" and I'm not arguing that they are not valuable and pretty much as good as can be done given the subject. BUT you can not establish a causal relationship by studies unless you have a 100% correlation. What you have is a correlation to a risk factor. I can't stand the smell of cigarettes, and I don't think it's good for you but it pisses me off with what gets passed off for "facts" these days. I came from a science background and all of the BS that gets put out as fact with the rationale of "if we explain it correctly it wouldn't scare people enough" is just wrong. Sort of like the Surgeon general when he said "drugs kill" an obviously incorrect, or at least not wholly truth full statement. What has happened is that all of these "known by the xxx to cause cancer" warnings are completely dismissed by the public. I live in California and just about everything has some kind of warning on it. If you tell people the truth then it's up to them to make an informed choice. If you lie to them you deny them that informed choice. And I'm sorry but the medical profession has been one of the worst offenders of the "overstate the case to scare people into doing what you want" press releases. The truth is scary enough.
THe guy who ran the saccharin trials was so pissed off at how the results were spun that he repeated the trials with water and with US coins and "proved" that with the same protocol both "caused" cancer.
I don't think you will find any smokers arguing that it's good for you. But it is probably less likely to be the cause of your death than driving on the freeway or drinking alcohol.
 
Rick - I think you and I lived in the same boat. We use to go on vacation, a 500 mile trip in the car vacation, the windows barely down because you are on the freeway so you can't have them down much, and both parents smoking like no tomorrow. It was torture!!!
 
Noiz2 said:
BUT you can not establish a causal relationship by studies unless you have a 100% correlation. What you have is a correlation to a risk factor
Click to expand...

I too come from a science background (a Master of Science {MSc}), added with an Engineering Background, added with an Electronics background and a Computing and programming background. I’m not disputing the problem of casual relationship in fact I’m actually agreeing with you on that matter.

What I am saying though is: we can generate predictive models that are based upon sound Empirical data, and from these within certain probabilityies; it is well established that smoking does indeed increase the risk of cancer.

Now lets try out a confusion matrix and see the following:

(1) Correctly Diagnosed with cancer with Smoking correlate
(2) Incorrectly Diagnosed with cancer with Smoking correlate
(3) Correctly Diagnosed Cancer Free with Smoking correlate
(4) Incorrectly Diagnosed Cancer Free with Smoking correlate

What you need to prove is the following:

Predicted Vs Actual


0 | 1 | 0
1 | 0 | 1
0 | 1 | 0
 
Last edited:
Extreme quantities of almost anything these days can lead to cancer, red dyes and nitrates in beef, gasoline fumes, the sun, so to say that cigarettes cause cancer, yes they can. But to blame cigarettes as the sole evil, that is pretty narrow minded. All in all, we as a whole are overlooking the true source of carcinogens... white lab rats.
 
Noiz2 said:
Actually those are "studies" and I'm not arguing that they are not valuable and pretty much as good as can be done given the subject. BUT you can not establish a causal relationship by studies unless you have a 100% correlation. What you have is a correlation to a risk factor. I can't stand the smell of cigarettes, and I don't think it's good for you but it pisses me off with what gets passed off for "facts" these days. I came from a science background and all of the BS that gets put out as fact with the rationale of "if we explain it correctly it wouldn't scare people enough" is just wrong. Sort of like the Surgeon general when he said "drugs kill" an obviously incorrect, or at least not wholly truth full statement. What has happened is that all of these "known by the xxx to cause cancer" warnings are completely dismissed by the public. I live in California and just about everything has some kind of warning on it. If you tell people the truth then it's up to them to make an informed choice. If you lie to them you deny them that informed choice. And I'm sorry but the medical profession has been one of the worst offenders of the "overstate the case to scare people into doing what you want" press releases. The truth is scary enough.
THe guy who ran the saccharin trials was so pissed off at how the results were spun that he repeated the trials with water and with US coins and "proved" that with the same protocol both "caused" cancer.
I don't think you will find any smokers arguing that it's good for you. But it is probably less likely to be the cause of your death than driving on the freeway or drinking alcohol.
Click to expand...

Here's the text of the warnings printed on cigarettes packaged for the US:

Caution: Cigarette Smoking May be Hazardous to Your Health

That doesn't appear to be extreme. "May be" hazardous? That's positively soft.

Warning: The Surgeon General Has Determined that Cigarette Smoking is Dangerous to Your Health

Also reasonable.

SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING:Quitting Smoking Now Greatly Reduces Serious Risks to Your Health.

That doesn't seem over-the-top.

SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Smoking By Pregnant Women May Result in Fetal Injury, Premature Birth, And Low Birth Weight.

This is a conclusion supported by available data.

http://jpubhealth.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/20/4/455.pdf

SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Cigarette Smoke Contains Carbon Monoxide.

And that is indisputably 100% truth, by volume.

SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Smoking Causes Lung Cancer, Heart Disease, Emphysema, And May Complicate Pregnancy.

This impresses me as the only warning addressed by your objection, in that it's a flat statement of causality rather than a description of elevated risk.

Given that tobacco smoke contains known carcinogens, and that over 85% of diagnosed cases of lung cancer correlate to smoking, attributing causality - just not sole causality - impresses me as perfectly reasonable.
 
I grew up in a family of mostly non-smokers. When i'd go to my Uncles place (who smoked) i'd always feel absolutely awful. I couldn't stand the stuff. Still hate it, my excuse through school to get past the peer pressure was i played Basketball and couldn't deal with it. Worked for me even though i've seen many the bball players smoke... ewww.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top