Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Suppressed Link between Trinity and Lung / Skin Cancer

page: 4
72
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 06:54 PM
link   
I'm a smoker...So I like the idea that smoking may "Hold Off" the effects of cancer. This is a very interesting article. When backed up and well thought out.

I do see one problem with the theory though.

Why aren't more children dying from Cancer before they start to smoke?

I mean most smoker start in the 13 to 16 time frame. So why doesn't everyone say 13 and under have Cancer?

That was my first thought when I saw this thread.

Hope It adds to the discussion I in a meaningful way...




posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Truth4hire
 


Exactly, as i highlighted in the underlined section of my post, ADVERSE EFFECTS!! i agree with yr thread S & F already



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 06:56 PM
link   
reply to post by misfitoy
 


tar-Fumes from Roadways, The tires on your vehicle, Pine Trees, Water Repellent, Flavoring for some candy, roofing shingles, boat hulls, shampoo, Sauna smell, Everywhere
carbon monoxide-Cars release so much more, Produced by the body, improves immunity in the body, volcano activity, lawn mowers, food packaging, Everywhere
formaldehyde-Adhesives, Photography, Insulation, Everywhere
ammonia-A certain amount in all food processing, urine, fertilizers, Everywhere
hydrogen cyanide-Apples, Rinds, Peaches, Corn, Cherries, Plums, etc... Everywhere,
arsenic-Manufacture of food, Insecticides, Clothing Dye, At one time used in small amounts to treat syphilis, Preservative for wood, tanning, taxidermy preservative, Everywhere.

All these chemicals are everywhere. It is high dosages that cause problems. Do cigarettes contribute much more of a dosage of these that what is already around us?


Long time secret-Since most of the black community in this area that do smoke use menthols. I was told once from a co-worker to smoke a few menthols since I was horribly congested and the meds from the Dr. were not working. Guess what I was clear the next day. It is a nasty process but, all the phlegm loosened and came up. Even though I don't regularly smoke for a long time I do still pick up menthols whenever I get chest congestion and it is gone the next day as always.

It is moderation though. If you drink a shot of vodka every morning it is good for you. There is a huge difference if you drink a pint a day. You have a problem and your health will be affected. If a person smokes a few a day vs someone that smokes several packs a day there is a difference. If you eat a doughnut every day it is far different than someone that eats a box or two of doughnuts for a meal.



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 06:56 PM
link   
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks
 


That is great info right there. Star.

What do you think about the vunerability of smokers vs non-smokers against Avian Flu or any airborne virus for that matter?

Another thing to consider.



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Truth4hire
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks
 


That is great info right there. Star.

What do you think about the vunerability of smokers vs non-smokers against Avian Flu or any airborne virus for that matter?

Another thing to consider.


Well, I believe that there is a very high chance that it will give you added protection. Smoke does kill pathogens in many cases after all.



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 07:19 PM
link   
To DigitalAssisan

Re; your question about children dying of cancers. Sorry I don't have an answer except to say that cancer is an immune system disorder. We will all get cancer in our lifetimes. That is, mutant cells will arise. The immune system is set up to seek out and destroy such mutant cells. What we think of as cancer is when the immune system has failed to destroy the mutant cells and they grow out of proportion.

Children do get cancer but not lung cancer. Perhaps it is because their DNA is new and their immune systems are stronger.

I have another interesting question for you:

if smoking causes lung cancer - why do smoker not get lung cancer at younger ages than non-smokers. You would think that exposing your lungs to all those carcinogens, every day, many times a day would cause lung cancer to appear in smokers.

Therefore, the death statistics for lung cancer should show two humps of peak ages when lung cancer occurs. Say smokers should get lung cancer in their 40s and 50s and never smokers should get lung cancers in their 60s and 70s.

That is not happening.

Lung cancer incidence starts to rise in the 40s and 50 but really peaks in the 60s and 70s and levels off and decreases in the 80s. Lung cancer prior to the 40s is very rare.

So - how come? If the theory that smoking CAUSES lung cancer is correct - why don't smokers get it younger than non-smokers?

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by toochaos4u
 


Great post toochaos!

I starred it because I like you style, and I appreciate your efforts.

I am sure there are many more uses for these chemicals in daily life and even to be found in general nature. However your list is indeed a very good starting point for those of us who will be researching further!

Thank you for pointing this out.



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks
 


well , if the majority of lung cancer cases are indeed caused by highly toxic chemicals and or radioactive particles, that it only follows that the contaminant must first find itself within the lung of the child

then, it may take years for the contamination to actually cause cancer to develop

so perhaps by the time it forms, the kids are already grown up so to speak

i mean, has anyone ever got lung cancer overnight? or is it a long process that slowly develops over time?

so it only follows that by the time a kid would develop it, they are already an adult



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by digitalassassin
I'm a smoker...So I like the idea that smoking may "Hold Off" the effects of cancer. This is a very interesting article. When backed up and well thought out.

I do see one problem with the theory though.

Why aren't more children dying from Cancer before they start to smoke?

I mean most smoker start in the 13 to 16 time frame. So why doesn't everyone say 13 and under have Cancer?

That was my first thought when I saw this thread.

Hope It adds to the discussion I in a meaningful way...


I am sorry to tell you this, but the #2 cause of death for infants between 1 and 14 in the United States is cancer.

caonline.amcancersoc.org...

The type of cancer is unspecified.

For adults the main type of cancer suffered for both man and woman is lung cancer, with second type being prostate for men and breast for women.

Source is caonline.amcancersoc.org...

So let me ask you this:

If there are fewer and fewer people that smoke, or even start smoking or are even incontact with second hand smoke, new cases of lung cancer should drop right?

Scroll down for the answer.










Lung Cancer statistics United States:

2005 New Cases: 93,010 (Male) + 79,560 (Female) total = 172,570

2006 New Cases: 92,700 (Male) + 81,770 (Female) total = 174,470

2007 New Cases: 114,760 (Male) + 98,620 (Female) total = 213,380

2008 New Cases: 114,690 (Male) + 100,330 (Female) total = 215,020

Source: Cancer Statistics, American Cancer Society

Very scary stuff indeed.



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by toochaos4u
 


Sooo... because there are some chemicals 'out there' that you may get exposed to, might as well go ahead and be sure you get more of it eh? Alrighty then. Interesting logic, lol.

As far as congestion and phlegm goes... "Guaifenesin" (aka expectorant). Works like a charm, and I'll trade that arsenic for caramel color any day!

~~~~~~~~

On a more sensible note ~ anyone know if there are alternatives for people out there who are realistically concerned about cigarette ingredients? Do things like those electronic cigarettes contain any less harmful ingredients?



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 07:42 PM
link   
i was reading a while back about vitamin b17 which contains nitrilosides which contain in-active cyanide compounds which then become active by an enzyme around the cancer that is unique to cancerous cells, as you know the cells of cancer are very similar to normal cell tissue but have an enzyme to protect them so our body just thinks they are a normal cell. The in-active cyanide becomes active and destroys the cancerous cells, this can be found in many seeds and some grasses which are definatly arent in many peoples diets.

Ive also seen some infomation about no wild peoples being found with cancer or any wild animals either id imagine animals that arent too close to civilisation anyway. There alot of infomation out there malnutrition seems to be a big cause of alot of disease related illnesses and if we just provide the nurtients we need to our body it shouldn't get this disease.



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 07:48 PM
link   
To Truth for Hire

Please be careful in posting statistics. Lung cancer is not the form of cancer that most affects men and woman

In fact lung cancer (adenocarcinoma) is a rare form of cancer affecting less than 200,000 people in the United states population

The reason why you THINK lung cancer is common is because it has a death rate of 85 % . It is the most common cause of death by cancer.

Now consider this: In 1975 - breast cancer also had a death rate of 85 %. It was decided at that time to properly fund research into means of early diagnosis and treatment. Funding for this disease occurs at the rate of about $24,000 / case. The death rate for breast cancer has now been reduced to about 15 %

In 1975, a decision was also made to throw funding at anti-tobacco groups to decrease smoking instead of funding research for lung cancer. The theory was that it was cheaper to prevent lung cancer than treat it and "everybody knows that smoking CAUSES lung cancer"

Funding for lung cancer research is less than about $1500 / case.

Almost 35 years later, the lung cancer rate is still rising for females and only very slightly decreased for males.

Coincidence? I think not!

My only consolation is that the never-smokers who made this decision are getting lung cancer too! (yes I know its nasty to think that way but think of what anti-tobacco has done to smokers)

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 07:50 PM
link   
Misfitoy

e-cigarettes contain only nicotene in an atomized form and propylene glycol. This is a chemical that is used to produce the "fog" effect in night clubs.

Tired of Control Freaks.



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Truth4hire
 

Funny in the Mass Media/Assumptions article this line: "
Stop poking fun at Michael Jackson when he appears at your local airport wearing a surgical mask over his nose and mouth. He may look eccentric, but Michael will almost certainly outlive most of us."



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 08:01 PM
link   
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks
 


I see, so they don't contain all that other stuff regular cigs do? I guess the same goes for 'rolling your own' too.

Personally, I enjoy herbs and natural health. I've done exceptionally well since following that lifestyle, so I can't see attempting something like any kind of smoking for the sake of protection. But for all of our ATS members that do smoke or are considering it, I hope people here can contribute suggestions that offer something in the way of safer alternatives. Would love to see our ATS members stay healthy!

Thanks for the response!



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
To Truth for Hire

Please be careful in posting statistics. Lung cancer is not the form of cancer that most affects men and woman

In fact lung cancer (adenocarcinoma) is a rare form of cancer affecting less than 200,000 people in the United states population

The reason why you THINK lung cancer is common is because it has a death rate of 85 % . It is the most common cause of death by cancer.

Now consider this: In 1975 - breast cancer also had a death rate of 85 %. It was decided at that time to properly fund research into means of early diagnosis and treatment. Funding for this disease occurs at the rate of about $24,000 / case. The death rate for breast cancer has now been reduced to about 15 %

In 1975, a decision was also made to throw funding at anti-tobacco groups to decrease smoking instead of funding research for lung cancer. The theory was that it was cheaper to prevent lung cancer than treat it and "everybody knows that smoking CAUSES lung cancer"

Funding for lung cancer research is less than about $1500 / case.

Almost 35 years later, the lung cancer rate is still rising for females and only very slightly decreased for males.

Coincidence? I think not!

My only consolation is that the never-smokers who made this decision are getting lung cancer too! (yes I know its nasty to think that way but think of what anti-tobacco has done to smokers)

Tired of Control Freaks


Sorry if I was unclear, I did mean deaths where I wrote affect. So the big killer is Lung cancer for both men and women, with second place killer prostate for men and breast for women. Sorry for the cold stats.

The most suffered (for a better word) cancer is Prostate in men and Breast in women with #2 suffered being Lung for both men & women.

Lung cancer statistics for infants are non existent (at least I cannot find them) and this type of cancer in children is very rare.

I do not know what the incubation rate would be from inhalation of a radiation particle to actual lung cancer.

I cannot get over the fact that the number of smokers has sharply decreased (in the US) over the past ten years but the cases of lung cancer have increased.

That is freaking me out...

[edit on 6-7-2009 by Truth4hire]



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by laketh
reply to post by Truth4hire
 

Funny in the Mass Media/Assumptions article this line: "
Stop poking fun at Michael Jackson when he appears at your local airport wearing a surgical mask over his nose and mouth. He may look eccentric, but Michael will almost certainly outlive most of us."


Yeah, I saw that, but as you might as well have gathered this article is dated.

Such a loss Michael Jackson... A great but very troubled genius.



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 08:10 PM
link   
Truth 4 Hire

The smoking rate in the general population has been decreasing since 1975. That is 33 years ago and no sign of decrease in lung cancer yet.

Further cigarettes have changed since the 1960s with a decrease in tar from 12 mg.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 08:24 PM
link   
Misfitoy

Now you are really being silly. The danger of smoking is not WHAT you are smoking. Those 4,000 chemicals you hear talk about are NOT specific to tobacco. They are the by-products of combustion! I don't care if you smoke parsely - there are still thousands of chemicals being inhaled.

Tobacco just has the benefit of being high in nicotene and when burned the nicotene is oxidized into niacin and several companion molocules like Tryptophan that have benefits.

I am not saying that smoking is without risks.

I am saying that there are benefits to smoking. And in every free society, it is the right and responsibility of every individual to wiegh those benefits and risks and decide for themselves how they are going to live their lives.

For me - I have been a never-smoker, a smoker, I quit for over 3 years and now I smoke again.

Obviously I have done a great deal of research. I understand the risks and I appreciate the benefits. For ME and ME alone, I have decided that the benefits outweigh the risks.

And I am sick and tired of individuals who have decided that they and they alone, know what is best for me and that they are entitled to lie as they wish in order to coerce me into doing something I don't wish to do.

I hold the same feeling for all the anti-obesity campaign, the anti-alcohol campaign, the anti-perfume campaign and ad nauseum for all those people who honestly believe that they know what is best for everyone else.

Tired of Control Freaks.



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
Truth 4 Hire

The smoking rate in the general population has been decreasing since 1975. That is 33 years ago and no sign of decrease in lung cancer yet.

Further cigarettes have changed since the 1960s with a decrease in tar from 12 mg.

Tired of Control Freaks


Exactly!!!

Why is it so hard to find solid statistics on world wide smokers for the last 100 years BTW? I think I know the answer... Someone may correlate those statistics with lung cancer statistics and come to a very unwanted conclusion....





new topics

top topics



 
72
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join