It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Smoking causes lung cancer conspiracy?

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 07:40 AM
Ho Hum, hello there,

I recently quit smoking - although I do indulge a little when I'm on the piss...

Anyway I was looking at some news today about deaths from car crashes in the usa and come accross an interesting comment there.
Posted by: WyrdeOne

By comparison, the greatest cause of lung cancer is small radioactive particles kicked up from nuclear tests decades ago. They fall to earth, settle on beaches, mix up with rain, you name it...

If people knew how many died annually as a direct result of government programs involved in nuclear testing, class action lawsuits would be way of life in America well into the forseeable future.

It is best to go and read the comment enitirely as I have posted only a snippet here (I didn't want to get bush whacked by the gestapo)...

Now I thought can this be true? All those things I read and saw on the tv about smoking does this, kills that, yadda yadda - was this all created as a convenient cover up for the mass deaths occuring due to radioactive fallout from nuclear testing? If this was true the only one lighting up was the government, lighting up every damn last one of us!!!

Ok so I read the comment and then went for a sniff around on google and found this page first:

"...By the early 20th Century almost one in every two people smoked, but the incidence of lung cancer remained so low that it was almost immeasurable..."

"...This was the notorious “Trinity Test”, the first dirty nuclear weapon to be detonated in the atmosphere..."

"...Within seconds, billions of deadly radioactive particles were sucked into the atmosphere to an altitude of six miles, where high-speed jet streams could circulate them far and wide..."

"...If a single microscopic radioactive fallout particle lands on your skin at the beach, you get skin cancer. Inhale a single particle of the same lethal muck, and death from lung cancer becomes inevitable..."

"...Before you ask, no, the radioactive particles do not just “fade away”, at least not in your lifetime or that of your children and grandchildren. With a half-life of 50,000 years or longer, these countless trillions of deadly government-manufactured radioactive particles are essentially with you forever..."

This is a very interesting essay and should be read in it's entirety, this information is disturbing to say the least - actually I can remember as a kid during the cold way being frightened silly by the thought of nuclear war and the fallout, I always thought I was safe living in, first Australia, then New Zealand - Little did I know that we had all already been nuked...

Cancer of the skin, Cancer of the lung, cancer of the thyroid, breast cancer, dick cancer, etc, etc, etc - why all of a sudden to we discover these multitudes of cancers seemingly in the last 100 years? Is it becuase we have advanced in medicine or is it due to fallout... I don't know...

Anyway my google quest continued, now I thought if any of this is remotely possible the death by smoking statistics differ due to region, thus more deaths attributed to smoking in nuke test regions than in non nuke test regions.

Suprise, suprise - I found some stats very quickly have a look at this:

especially take note of the huge stat for the United States - man they must sell strong cigarettes there... or is it all the fallout...

edit:Japan has the highest percentage of men smoking (59) yet the lest amount of deaths by lung cancer...

The US has one of the lowest percentage of people smoking, yet they have the highest reates of lung cancer... in fact there times the amount of japan

Anyway I have no more time, but I just had to post this and I hope you will look around for some info as well to post here.

Now the big question is: have I done the right thing by quitting ?? hahahahahahaha!

-smoking joe

[edit on 3-2-2005 by smokinjoe]

posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 07:47 AM
Hmm I wonder why this thread doesn't appear on the front page of ats - all the other top ones do...

posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 07:49 AM
Great topic, as reaserchers have always said "smoking does not directly cause lung cancer". I think this thread shows that smoking does not cause hugely to the amount of cancer victims.
I am a very heavy smoker, so yes i am pro-smoking but it really does annoy me when people think that smoking is the only cause of lung cancer, and that the government is banning smoking in public places to stop lung cancer blah blah blah.
Yet with all the nuke testing they have done, they dont think that has contributed to cancer?
Well this thread has the
from me!
Still give it a year and i wont be able to sit down at my local pub and take in my daily glass of beer (kills the liver) while i have a smoke.

posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 08:59 AM
Wow, no replies - I thought we would have had a call from the anti-smoking zealot/gestapo by now... hmmm maybe this is a little close to home for some of you eh? Must suck when you have spent all your life resisiting the temptation of the "evil weed" while watching you friends having fun and social moments with the ciggies...

Don't worry, never too late to take up the habit - lite up today

-smoking joe

posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 09:08 AM
Because this is ridiculous! Whether it "severely" causes lung cancer or's bad for your health and that's plain common sense...for Pet's draw hot smoke into your lungs.....who cares if it's conspiracy or's still bad for you and will kill you. My father dies of lung cancer directly related to smoking! I know many people will post something and then if they don't get the replies they want ask's usually because it's something that has been done to death, makes no sense to even reply....did you try the search function first?

posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 09:11 AM
Well, that does contradict what the Japanese Health Ministry says. They say that it's a 4 trillion yen problem (health problems due to smoking) and that this cost is rising.

Same thing (rising deaths from tobacco), links to original reports:

Original report (Japanese)

The ministry report itself:

The radiation link is bogus. If the radiation carried that far and got into tobacco, then the same amount or more would be in everything we ate. We'd get lung cancer just from eating food (even organic food.)

posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 09:13 AM
Good point Byrd

Here's a couple of existing threads for ya

posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 10:17 AM

Originally posted by LadyV's usually because it's something that has been done to death, makes no sense to even reply....did you try the search function first?

Yes I did actually - tried the google one as well with keywords like smoking conspiracy nuclear tests lung cancer, etc and didn't find anything...

Originally posted by LadyV
Here's a couple of existing threads for ya

I looked at these and found nothing on the government blaming lung cancer caused by radioactive fallout on smoking. Am I blind.. ???

Anyway like I said, I quit - I just thought it was interesting thats all...

posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 10:23 AM

Originally posted by Byrd
The radiation link is bogus. If the radiation carried that far and got into tobacco, then the same amount or more would be in everything we ate. We'd get lung cancer just from eating food (even organic food.)

I never said radiation traveled "that far and got into tobacco"... ?????

Anyway what of the huge difference in stats - why are so many more dying in the US from smoking statistically than say japan and israel? Why the huge fluctuation depending on region?

Maybe asian people are more resistant - it really struck me that the levels were also bloated in australia and new zealand where there as been stringent anti smoking campaigns since the 80's, where such a small percentage of the population smoke - why are the cancer rates so high? Maybe south pacific testing?

So Byrd, you are telling me that all the radiactive particles have disapated from the nuclear testing? Where does it all go - it has a half life of 50000 years does it not?

posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 10:29 AM
It's not tobacco's tar which kills, but the radiation!

There is radiation in tobacco. Read the article.

[edit on 3-2-2005 by cryptorsa1001]

posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 10:41 AM
The radiation link ABSOLUTELY ISN'T bogus. Tobacco has been shown to concentrate polonium.

I don't have any links handy but I know of several recent article, article, articles that demonstrate this quite nicely.

SMOKING tobacco is one of the main ways that humans are exposed to radiation. however the same is not true of smokeless tobacco.

[edit on 3-2-2005 by mattison0922]

posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 02:28 PM
Today's cigarette is has more than just tobacco...which is why would not be so safe...

It's best to make your own 'blunt' with just Tobacco...reason, is that i know or knew someone who used to smoke alot and live to about 117 years...Also, that person was living in one of those so-called Third World counties...

However, I dont advise anyone to smoke, if they have not started already...

posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 03:28 PM
I would also like to point out that smoking has a synergistic effect with many pollutants. The risk of lung cancer from asbestos exposure, for instance is 50 times greater for smokers than non-smokers for the same exposure.

I tend to believe that there is a link to lung cancer and the Nevada tests. However, that does not mean that radiation is the only cause of lung cancer.

posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 07:59 PM
Interesting that this thread comes up today - just read this is the paper about Dan Lee, the animator who created Nemo the fish. Died a couple weeks ago of lung cancer at age 35 - but he never smoked and led a pretty healthy lifestyle.

I just quit 6 days its hard!!! I'm so tempted to run out and buy a pack...but am taking it basically one hour at a time.

Dan Lee

posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 08:09 PM
It's interesting, especially when non smokers die of lung cancer. I feel our environment in this age when combined with smoking increases the chances of lung cancer, not that cigarettes/tobacco alone caused long cancer. In history, it was common to see many "old" men living long lives and they either chewed or smoked tobacco.

AlwaysLearning, congrats, I am day 4. First time I have made it past day 3, which always seemed to be the hardest. I find it easier to keep myself and hands occupied or put myself in surroundings or with people I don't normally smoke with.

posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 08:15 PM
Worldwatcher-back'atcha. You really have to take it a step at a time, like an alcoholic and never give in. Personally I didn't step outside for 4 days because I didn't trust myself. When I finally went out I was going to buy 1 pack and have the "odd" one (yeah, right), but I convinced myself to wait an hour, then two, then three....etc., that was 2 1/2 days ago. I could like up at any moment though. Had to avoid coffee for the first 2 days.

posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 08:19 PM

Originally posted by worldwatcher
It's interesting, especially when non smokers die of lung cancer.

My grandmother died of lung cancer....never smoked a cigarette in her life, but lived with smokers her whole life.

posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 08:22 PM
Chemical additives present in cigarettes not present 100 years ago - not good.

Prevalence of passive smoking in many environments during periods of historically highest incidence of smoking and lung cancer - not good.

There is the alternative hypothesis, of course, that cancer causes smoking, by genetic predisposition. A lot more difficult to test, therefore largely ignored.

posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 04:31 AM
Masked makes a good point about the genetic link being plausible but hard to qualify. Cancer is essentially life unbound. A cell that doesn't receive the memo to shut off its growth. Most probably that is a hardwired physical problem exacerbated or alternately alleviated by environmental conditions.

I think the US government really dropped the ball on cancer research when they started paying scientists to create links between smoking and tumor growth. It's pretty obvious to me that they just didn't want to foot the medical bill for the country they poisoned with Irridium and what not.

My final point..Just look at Jim Fix! Life is short, do what you want. Don't let the anti-smoking bandwagon run you off the road. I'll smoke more just because people won't let it go. Alcohol kills thousands upon thousands of people every year, often innocent bystanders, but that's a socially acceptable drug..

American hypocrisy knows no bounds. Look at the side effects list next time you buy medication. Now compare that side effects list to the symptoms treated by the drug manufacturers other products. Hmm.. If I take this pill to relieve my arthritis, I'll get painful rectal itch..but hey, they have a pill for that! Sweet..

This is our world people.

posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 04:55 AM
Another factor to take into consideration is diet.

In the Western World, smokers tend to eat less healthily than non-smokers.

The combination of smoking and poor diet may therefore significantly increase the chances of contracting cancers.

It's interesting to note that in many Asian and some Mediterranean countries, where the proportion of smokers is far higher than in the US and Northern Europe, the incidence of lung cancer is very much lower (possibly because of diets which are significantly lower in animal fats and dairy produce).

Here's a well referenced and interesting article that seeks to put the 'smoking causes lung cancer' scare-mongering into some sort of context:

[edit on 4-2-2005 by harrisjohns]

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in