www.sciencecases.org...
Helpful pie chart of stuff that kills you, attached to a very informative article adressing the other common denominator that sufferers share -
environment. The smoking link is there, but NOWHERE near as 'conclusive' or all encompassing as the masses have been led to believe.
Forest fires...
How many deaths mistakenly attributed to smoking cigarettes were actually due to forest fires, in Canada mostly? The amount of fine particulate
released from a modest forest fire is probably equivalent to every cigarette smoked since the dawn of human interest in tobacco. In one fire season,
enough material gets burned to kill all of mankind several times over through inhalation, it wafts around and falls hundreds and even thousands of
miles away. Are you lucky enough to catch one of those particles in your next breath?
What about radiation? Should we talk about atomic testing that lofted billions upon billions of highly radioactive dust and sand particles into the
aptmosphere? Should we talk about rain containing radioactive particles, forests containing radioactive particles, oceans, animals?
Let's talk about the good things smoking does. It coats your lungs in thick mucous, which prevents particulate from lodging in the soft tissue
beneath. When you cough, you expectorate the particulate, removing it from your lungs.
I advise all new car salesmen to smoke cigarettes, because every time they get in a new vehicle they are exposed to carcinogens. That new car smell
is positively deadly, no kidding. If you smoke cigarettes, you have a good chance
Smoking does however affect a change in breathing habits, which can have bad long term conotations. If you live in a nuclear fallout zone, or plan to
do so soon, I would advise you smoke cigarettes. It could very well save your life. Of course, all the weapons tests done in our history pretty much
guarantee the entire earth is a fallout zone now.
The composition of most lung cancers changed signifigantly after the first nuclear test. This could be a sign.
What we need is a proper diagnosis of what causes an individuals cancer. If a guy smokes, and gets cancer of the lung or throat, it's automatically
a smoking related cancer. There's no investigation to find what particle caused the cancer, what other factors might have had a hand in the
development.
A Broad Overview of Some Likely Culprits
As far as the government is concerned, smoking has to be caused by cigarettes exclusively, because if it were caused by the shadow of nuclear testing
it might force a class action lawsuit, The People of America Vs. The Government of America. That would be the trial of the century.
So you see, we have an alternative possibility, several actually, for every lung cancer case ever diagnosed in America, indeed around the world. The
question is, were these considered, or was smoking the automatic bad guy, because doctors learn in school that smoking causes cancer?
Some people claim 80+% of lung cancer cases are caused by cigarettes. What they should say, if they want to be honest, is that 80% of people who get
lung cancer smoked cigarettes. That's really fantastic, but when you think about it, it's just one statistical corrolary. It doesn't EVEN pass
for proof in my book. Show me the experiment where smoking rats got cancer. Show me those results. You might be surprised at the results. Here's
an article that talks about the smoking beagles, all smokers should worship these brave dogs.
www.lcolby.com...
I think it's mostly the latter. There was a good discussion on this going, but it's been too long, I can't retrieve it easily. A search of ATS
should find it, there were some interesting points made there if you're interested.
Recent studies have shown that for a certain subset of people, they are better off smoking than not. These are people whose blood pressure, stress,
etc are improved with smoking. You are right that many smokers do have certain common characteristics such as you describe.
You are absolutely right that no controlled double-blind study can ever be done, so the true role of smoking in the development of lung cancer will
never be accurately delineated. Just as recent studies have shown that alcohol used in moderation (1-3 drinks per day) may lengthen one's lifespan,
there may be a benefit to moderate smoking (< 1 ppd) as it may decrease stress and improve resistance to certain respiratory infections (an
unpublished WHO study).
Grandiose statements such as "smoking causes lung cancer" are patently false and prevent true intellectual debate and study. Though I personally
dislike cigarettes, I dislike even more the intellectual dishonesty that is occurring among the scientific and medical communities.
Sincerely,
Dr. Siepmann
Taken from:
www.journaloftheoretics.com... for what its worth.
That's all for now. In parting I want to say I agree wholeheartedly with the good doctor, and I bid you goodnight.