The Suppressed Link between Trinity and Lung / Skin Cancer, page 5
Pages: <<  2    3    4    5    6    7    8  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 70 times


reply posted on 6-7-2009 @ 10:48 PM by son of total newbie
reply to post by scubagravy


95% population reduction is very close to 100%. Anyhow, what's up with this flu stuff. Is this a controlled release or just natural?

Come on.


reply posted on 7-7-2009 @ 12:06 AM by Tayesin
reply to post by secretagent woooman

There is no doubt smoking is a large cause of lung cancer... but the instance of non smokers with lung cancer is much higher than usually thought.. so, perhaps the air we breathe with it's carcinogens from pollution is the main culprit?

Maybe untainted tobacco causes less cases of lung cancer than modern cigarettes with their 300 or so ADDED toxins? I wondered why it was necessary all those years ago for cigarette maufacturer's to add this chemical cocktail for reaons other than to insure addiction... perhaps the OP has a clue for us?

Lastly, I think the government should apply the hefty taxation from cigarettes to the medical world in order to deal more effectively with the results of smoking related illness. Isn't that what the tax is for anyway?

I'm a smoker of 34 years and very much aware of the long term effects on my body and yet I detest the smell and the smoke from other smoker's. Go figure, lol.


reply posted on 7-7-2009 @ 01:39 AM by RR98
Let me just say this much...I have been smoking an average of 30 100mm cigs a day for the past 35 years with no apparent ill effect so far. In fact, I can't recall the last time I took a sick day from work for actual illness (I did take 1 sick day 2 years ago when I finally had all my wisdom teeth extracted at the same time at the age of 50...when the oral surgeon asked if I had a preference for a particular painkiller I told him "Extra-Strength Excedrin and Bourbon"...he gave me a prescription for Percocet anyway, but it went unused and unfilled, and I was back in action the next day).

There are no statistically or scientifically valid studies linking secondhand smoke to disease in nonsmokers. Sorry to any anti-smokers who might disagree, but that is a fact and not debatable, as it would be a waste of time. You would cite an invalid study, I would have to go to great lengths to show why it was invalid and did not adhere to the Scientific Method, then cite an opposing study that did and have to defend it. Not into that...just leave me alone and let me smoke in peace. You have your (uninformed) opinion and I have mine.

BTW, my blood pressure, cholesterol, ECG, respiratory function, and gastric health are all fine, even compared to a man 20 years my junior.

I eat and drink what I please, am 6 ft tall, weigh 175 lbs, and don't jog or take any particular physical exercise other than normal everyday activity.

According to Conventional Wisdom and Political Correctness, I should be dead by now.

Please pardon me for not only being alive, but healthy as well. Sorry to shatter your delusions.

I'm off to get a Big Mac Value Meal. Catch you later.


reply posted on 7-7-2009 @ 01:44 AM by r66y712
The Sedan nuclear test of the 1960s, taking place at the Nevada Test Site (which Area 51 is a part of) reached Illinois and Iowa and beyond.
en.wikipedia.org...(nuclear_test)

some info on nuke tests:
www.cancer.gov...

at most half life occurs after 30 years, at MOST. most of the time half life occurs within 8 days:
excerpt:
For example, the isotope of caesium with a mass number
of 137 (1 3 7Cs) takes 30.2 years to decay to half of its initial activi
t y, but 1 3 1I decays to one half of its initial activity in about eight
d a y s .
Most of the activity of 1 3 1I resulting from the fis s i o n
p rocess arises from the decay of short-lived precursors with halflives
ranging from 0.29 second to 30 hours. Table 2.6 p re s e n t s
the radioactive precursors and decay products of 1 3 1I, along with
their radioactive half-lives and an example of their fractional
independent yields; the latter re p resent the relative numbers of
atoms with a mass number of 131 that are created during the
nuclear explosion, expressed as a fraction of the fis s i o n - c h a i n
y i e l d .1
i10.photobucket.com...



reply posted on 7-7-2009 @ 03:10 AM by A Conscience
Smokers who are celebrating this new info should think twice as it may be premature.

A 1996 landmark scientific study from University of California, San Francisco has found indisputable proof linking smoking and lung cancer. It is the research in the tumor suppressor gene called p53 that demonstrated the direct genetic link between lung cancer and tobacco smoking. P53 is a gene that that helps prevent cancerous growth. When the P53 gene is damaged, it can lead to a uncontrolled proliferation of cancerous cells. Its mutation has been linked to 60 per cent of lung cancers.

It is the component of tobacco smoke, benzoapyrene, which is released into cigarette smoke from the tars in the tobacco that results in the mutation of the gene.

The tobacco companies have for years taken an interest in this gene, and have in fact, funded research to cast doubt on the damming study. It actually used it ties with the editor of a peer-reviewed journal to publish its contradictory findings without proper disclosure of the editor's connection with the tobacco industry.

Subsequently, other scientists have turned up refuting the UCSF report, but in almost all cases, were found to have ties to the tobacco companies and were not properly disclosing their connections. The tobacco industry attempts at subverting uncomplimentary studies have been well documented.

As for comparing, heavy smoking countries like Japan and Greece with low incidence of lung cancer, it could also be diet related. After all, both countries have diet rich in anti-oxidants, like consumption of green tea in the case of Japan and Mediterranean diet in the latter. Anti-oxidants protect against cancer and a host of other ailments.

Cancer is an opportunist disease. While your immune system is strong, the body has the ability to repair damaged DNA and you can be reasonably cancer free even if you are a heavy smoker. However, when your immune system is weak, for one reason or another, that is when you have got to watch out.

Personally, I have known 2 smokers, who were at one stage thought themselves invincible. Both had contracted an innocuous cold or flu, but found their coughing persisted even after they have recovered. Both were diagnosed with inoperable lung cancer, and they both died shortly after.

[edit on 7-7-2009 by A Conscience]


reply posted on 7-7-2009 @ 07:10 AM by TiredofControlFreaks
aconscience

Let me quote you

A 1996 landmark scientific study from University of California, San Francisco has found indisputable proof linking smoking and lung cancer. It is the research in the tumor suppressor gene called p53 that demonstrated the direct genetic link between lung cancer and tobacco smoking. P53 is a gene that that helps prevent cancerous growth. When the P53 gene is damaged, it can lead to a uncontrolled proliferation of cancerous cells. Its mutation has been linked to 60 per cent of lung cancers.

It is the component of tobacco smoke, benzoapyrene, which is released into cigarette smoke from the tars in the tobacco that results in the mutation of the gene.


_________________________________________________________

It "can" lead to .....? It can?? So does it or doesn't it? Or is it only a possibility?

Benzo (a) pyrene is found in all smoke including the smoke from grilling meat, burning candles, burning wood, BBQ, its in vehicle exhaust, diesel exhaust etc etc etc

www.britannica.com...

So again - how do you know that the extremely small quantity of beno (a) pyrene is the CAUSE of lung cancer? Or was it the air pollution etc etc.

Primary question: Since benzo (a) pyrene is a by-product of combustion and man has been surrounded by such products since the dawn of time - how is it that the lung cancer rate is still rising?

As for your assertions that ONLY scientists funded by tobacco fail to disagree...who funded this study in the first place? Was it perhaps the Robert Woods Foundation (Johnson and Johnson) who are also in a conflict of interest because they sell smoking cessation products in direct competition with tobacco?

As Justice Nimmo Smith asked in the McTear court case - why do you not respond directly to the scientists who disagree with you instead of dismissing their objections?

If the study was funded by anti-tobacco forces - why should it be given any more credibility than a study funded by pro-tobacco forces?

Have the original scientist who did the study responded to the criticism of others or have they chosen to remain silent? What was their response? Isn't that what peer review is supposed to be about - having your work criticized and then defending it?

Tired of Control Freaks
Pages: <<  2    3    4    5    6    7    8  >>    ^^TOP^^



First Heartless Man - You Don\'t Really Need A Heart or A Pulse
  Posted 9 days ago with 51 member flags
Doctor Uses Coconut Oil to Reverse Husband\'s Alzheimer\'s Disease
  Posted 15 days ago with 28 member flags
A brief look at water fluoridation and the insanity of it
  Posted 12 days ago with 28 member flags
Brains of Addicts Are Inherently Abnormal
  Posted 9 days ago with 20 member flags
FDA say body is a drug and has the right to regulate it!
  Posted 12 days ago with 18 member flags
I\'m 24 and I feel Doomed- A rare Case - 28 reported Worldwide
  Posted 0 days ago with 16 member flags