The Suppressed Link between Trinity and Lung / Skin Cancer

page: 6
72
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 08:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Truth4hire
 


Well, it's now been 2 weeks and 4 days since I last smoked tobacco I now use an E cigarette.

This OP has pissed me off big time, not because he is wrong but because I don't know if he could be right.

BUT! After 20-30 a day for 30 years I think my lungs could do with a little fresh air so I don't think I'm going back on tobacco just yet.

What the whole truth to this story is perhaps I'll never know, I don't know about anyone else here, but I think as a species we are well past calling time on allowing a small group of people do what the hell they like to our children.

We've had our time and made the choices we made, but surely our children deserve better, in that we try to get along just long enough to remove our governments and replace them with people who work for us ?

What was it that Mahatma Gandhi had that we just cannot seem to find ?

How was it possible for one bespectacled man in a loin cloth to trump the most powerful regime on earth, just by doing nothing ?

Is there nothing we can learn ?

I'm now off to inhale some water, nicotine and something else that may be discovered to be able to kill me in a few years.




posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks
 



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


Tobacco smoke contains a powerful carcinogen called benzo(a)pyrene (BAP), which, when metabolized by the body, produces a highly mutagenic substance called benzo(a)pyrene diol epoxide (BPDE). The scientists have found that BPDE when introduced to human lung cells quickly binds chemically to the P53 gene resulting in its function being compromised. It produces the same P53 gene mutation that are common in lung cancer. So in answer to your question, yes, it does lead to lung cancer.

Whether one falls prey to lung cancer eventually depends, as I mentioned before, upon the strength of your immune system and whether it is capable of repairing damaged DNA caused by cigarette smoking. Some people are blessed with strong genes, so they may go through life smoking away and not get cancer. Others may not be so lucky, and will succumb to it at a time when their immune system is suppressed or compromised.

I guess this applies to most cancers, but smoking definitely does not help.


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


Cigarette smoking is an addiction. Unless you are addicted to sniffing smoke from grilling meat, candles, vehicle exhaust or chimney daily, this argument is pointless.


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


Tobacco consumption is still on the rise in the developing world, although the rate is falling in developed nations. To exclude air pollution to the rising cancer stats, would be equally deceiving. However, cigarette smoking is liken to adding fuel to fire.

Among young teens (aged 13 to 15), about one in five smokes worldwide. Between 80,000 and 100,000 children worldwide start smoking every day - roughly half of whom live in Asia.
source:www.wpro.who.int...

This is where the tobacco industry find it new recruits

Finland has a history of monitoring its tobacco smoking and lung cancer incidences with great diligence. From the statistics gathered, the study show that there is dramatically strong evidence between smoking prevalence and the lung cancer and respiratory diseases rates. The correlation applies to both gender but more pronounced in men due to the large reduction in male smoking prevalence.

Defend the tobacco industry as much as you like, it is you who are taking all the risks. With all the hazards of modern living like pollution, pesticides, food additives, etc. do you really need another poison to the list. That is not even considering burning good money away.



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by A Conscience
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.


Sorry, but there has been no UNDISPUTED scientific study (which would include inducing lung cancer via tobacco smoke in lab animals) linking smoking to lung cancer. None. Including this one.

So called "indisputable proof" was also given when scientists needed to prove that a single bullet could account for seven wounds in JFK and Senator Connolly.

The evidence as always was bought by the many, same here with tobacco.

"How Mass Media May Shape Deep Reality Assumptions?" Remember?

However scary your experience with the "two smokers":

I will take my chances and enjoy my homegrown.



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by moocowman
 


Great post!

Hope that your solution works for you, and glad I pissed you off! LOL

Best of luck



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by A Conscience
Tobacco smoke contains a powerful carcinogen called benzo(a)pyrene (BAP), which, when metabolized by the body, produces a highly mutagenic substance called benzo(a)pyrene diol epoxide (BPDE). The scientists have found that BPDE when introduced to human lung cells quickly binds chemically to the P53 gene resulting in its function being compromised. It produces the same P53 gene mutation that are common in lung cancer. So in answer to your question, yes, it does lead to lung cancer.


A Conscience,

Even though your posts are well constructed and you sound very sure of yourself, there IS no conclusive evidence for exactly the reasons stated earlier.

And the reference to smokers statistics: ofcourse you are right, but when in 1963 42% of the population smoked with a certain percentage of lung cancer and in 2008 that percentage is less than half (for the U.S.) but the percentage of NEW lung cancer cases still keeps rising through the years there is something very fishy about all this.

Even though Vialls lays it on rather thick, and yes I am a darned smoker, I still am inclined NOT to believe the link which has been spoonfed to us.

Like many posters in here I try to avoid any invasive chemicals where I can.

I never visit a doctor for whatever reason
I avoid medications like the plague
I do not take vaccines
I try to live as much of the land as I can (Tobacco starting this year yeehar)

If ever during my life I should develop (small cell) lung cancer I will not bother with oncologists or chemo, I have my recovery plan ready when needed (look it up in my previous replies).

Part of that action plan will be posting in this very thread about it, OK?

And that's that.



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by moocowman
reply to post by Truth4hire
 

I'm now off to inhale some water, nicotine and something else that may be discovered to be able to kill me in a few years.


Almost. Try Hydrogen Peroxide in a 3% solution (H2O2) using a nasal spray as inhaler.

This is only part of the cancer protocol b.t.w.




posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Truth4hire
 


jesus mate, after all that i could really use a belmont...



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kevin_X2
reply to post by Truth4hire
 


jesus mate, after all that i could really use a belmont...


Light 'em when you have 'em...




posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 12:01 PM
link   
interesting..im reading it right now but i did find this particular part funny: "
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." no he would not, but thats another story.


ill continue my reading.. thank you for posting



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 12:19 PM
link   
I always knew there was something fishy about the quit smoking campaign, this article has gotten my attention. Makes me want to question the doctor about this.



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by gamoto
I always knew there was something fishy about the quit smoking campaign, this article has gotten my attention. Makes me want to question the doctor about this.


Good initiative, but unless he graduated before the disinfo campaign started, he will know no better than what he has been taught.



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Truth4hire
 


im not going to. I dont like doctors. I do like smoking weed though, its good



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 01:30 PM
link   
I think what people are forgetting, is that there are two highly-important variables:

1. The cigarettes smoked- I smoked Marlboro Reds for 3 years and quit when I noticed my breath becoming shorter and they actually started to make me sick when I smoked them on an empty stomach. After deciding I didn't WANT to quit, I made the switch to home-rolled (roll your own tobacco, with filter tubes- NOT unfiltered) and I have been as healthy [feeling] as ever before. My personal experience insists that the brand being smoked causes at LEAST 50% of the ailments of smoking.

2. How you smoke- this one's common sense. Someone who puffs every 5 seconds is exposed to far more smoke than someone who is more casual and takes less drags on a single cigarette. Also, some people do not inhale completely, and some people take their inhale after puffing, as to avoid inhaling any loose-ashes (solid matter).

*EDIT* - I should also say that I now smoke American Spirit all natural, organic tobacco.

[edit on 7-7-2009 by ninecrimes]



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 01:37 PM
link   
This makes so much sense and I would like to take it a bit further..

Why do you think POT (OH NO, HES TALKING ABOUT MARIJUANA) is illegal despite having NUMEROUS OBVIOUS benefits? You've just brought up a less obvious benefit. I must be talking # right? Well a Harvard University study adds credence to these claims:
www.nowpublic.com...
I think that marijuana has this same blanketing affect of mucous in the lungs but the THC actually provides further protection: "THC actually activates naturally produced receptors to fight off lung cancer" (from link)
Ask yourselves why hemp was the most important crop for at least a few thousand years and then in 1930's, I believe it was, the US puts it on the Schedual 1 drug list (with drugs that provide no inherent medical benefit, such as heroine) even though it is used world wide for its irrefutable ability to promote healing, provide sleep to insomniacs, hunger for kymo patients, and even to alleviate the symptoms of some nerve disorders?



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 01:38 PM
link   
A Conscious

Now you have made a really interesting point. You talked about "addiction"

So are you saying that the study showed that the Benzoapyrene contained in the smoke from meat grilling is NOT capable of causing the gene mutation but the Benzoapyrene is cigarette smoke DOES cause the gene mutation.

Are you really suggesting that our genes are capable of passing a moral judgement on whether or not the benzoapyrene is produced from a source which society approves of or from a source society disapproves of and causing the mutation to occur accordingly?

As for the word "addiction" - please kindly give me your definition of the word addition. You see - anti-tobacco - like the government in the book 1984 by George Orwell,likes to change the meaning of common words to confuse how we think about an issue.

Prior to 1985 or so - the medical definition of the word "addiction" was quite limited. In order for a substance to considered "addictive" and for the user to be considered an "addict", the substance had to first be capable of intoxicating the user, require the user to take in larger and larger doses in order to achieve the same effect, cause the user to make decisions and take actions that he/she would not normally do in order to get the next dose (like pimp your children, steal etc etc and finally, sudden withdrawal of the substance to would be capable of cause life-threatening episodes (like dt's in an alcoholic).

Tobacco did not meet the definition of an addiction and tobacco use was considered habitual - not addictive.

But anti-tobacco did not like that definition and so in the 1985 or 1986 Surgeon General's Report, C. Everett Koop changed the english language and provided a new definition.

The word "addiction" now applies to any substance or any activity that induces the production of "pleasure chemicals' in the brain. This included smoking but also eating chocolate, jogging, sex, shopping, eating a hamburger.

I need to know what definition you are using to understand what you are talking about so that we can actually communicate. Should I be insulted because you compared me to a heroin addict or should I should feel human because I naturally seek those things that give me pleasure?

Tired of Control Freaks.



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Kevin_X2
 


mmmmmmm belmont..



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 01:57 PM
link   
well this thread started in a promising way but then became a fight between smokers/non smokers. as usually


my take on this... all those radioactive particles from trinity have long been washed by rain into streams and lay at the bottom of the oceans or lakes. while those remaining on land have probably been buried and can't harm anymore. some of those particles are still deadly and will take a long time to decay but won't harm anyone.

now to smoking - i think it's all about moderation. cigars rolled from "organic" leaves are probably safest since they are not contaminated with pesticides and other stuff like that. but if you smoke "a lot" it's going to be bad for you just as is "a lot" of drinking while light occasional social drinking did not kill anyone in the long run.

i completely agree with smoking bans in public places and i support laws that would prevent parents to smoke around underage children. my opinion is that as an adult you're allowed to do whatever you want to your body but you shouldn't be allowed to make others (especially those who can't defend themselves) inhale your smoke!

lung cancer is certainly not be exclusively caused by smoking but i'm sure it does play a role. why would you want to inhale poison and be addicted to a substance in the first place? it's not a cheap poison either! sure the air is somewhat polluted and you may not be able to avoid that, but you certainly can avoid inhaling the toxins from smoking.

i think the point about the thicker mucus of smokers being beneficial is an absolute joke. as for the beneficial effects, you can certainly get the same "good" substances from other foods, or even medication.

most of you dislike regulation, but regulating smoking is just like regulating seat belts and airbags or catalytic converters in cars. it won't save everyone who gets into accidents but it will certainly save a lot of lives in the long run.

my last point... is there a demonstrated link between throat/tongue/mouth/nose cancers and smoking? i know those cancers are just as nasty as lung cancer and i heard somewhere mouth cancer used to be common before cigarettes when people were chewing tobacco.



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 02:16 PM
link   
Dark Secret

The fact is that scientists still have a very very poor understanding of what CAUSES cancer or even what cancer is.

The HPV virus is certainly under a new spotlight. In addition to its ability to cause cervical cancer, it is a large suspect in lung cancers, mouth, throat cancers. Any cancer that occurs in a body part that is lined with mucous membrane.

As for you thoughts on government regulation of smoking - that is certainly a subject for debate.

You mention smoking in the presence of children (presumably because its "bad" for their health) but you fail to show how the health of children has been improved by smoking bans. Certainly the 800 % increase in childhood asthma rates since the 1960s is cause to suspect that lack of exposure to smoke might contribute to a poorly developed, hypersensitive respiratory system. Please explain to me how today's children - who have hardly been exposed to cigarette smoke - are "healthier" than we were in the 60s.

So are you in favor of banning all sources of smoke in the presence of children (ie no cooking, no fireplaces, no wood burning stoves, no candles, and certainly no air fresheners, no living in buildings constructed of wood with glue) or are you, like A conscious, deciding that since you don't like tobacco smoking, its important to "protect the children" from this sole source of the very same contaminants found in the other sources I have mentioned.

And when you say "public places" - do you mean those places actually owned by the public - live government offices, hospitals etc - or do you mean privately owned spaces where the public may voluntarily choose to enter - like restaurants, bars and private workplaces?

Please see the following link for a discussion of how citizens are being increasing forced to live thier lives according to rules established by government burocracy and then we can discuss this issue.

www.spiked-online.com...


Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 02:19 PM
link   
Amazing read!

I have been saying it to others for years that smokers are (or may be) immune to many things that may affect non smokers. Such as forest/brush fire smoke, volcanic ash, or fallout. Sure I was just teasing them, but I kind of believed it in the back of my mind.

One example, I live in the CA Bay area, and every time we have a fire, all the non smokers suffer from nonstop coughing and sore throat. I’m sure other smokers have noticed this to some extent, and if so please add to this.



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 02:23 PM
link   
These tests killed John Wayne. They have contaminated huge aquifers. I wondered about this fallout when I would remove the roofs of buildings that were around during these tests. Just think of the legal liability.





new topics
top topics
 
72
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join