The Suppressed Link between Trinity and Lung / Skin Cancer

page: 8
72
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 03:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by ofhumandescent
reply to post by Truth4hire
As far as smoking, I lost my mother (age 10) to lung cancer She smoked Pall Malls unfiltered.

We didn't get much warning. My mother was a healthy working woman. One day she started coughing up a little tiny bit of blood. A couple days later she went into the hospital for exploratory surgery. She was then given anywhere from a few weeks to maybe a couple months. She died on February 23, 1963. Two weeks after she first started coughing up blood.

She never got to meet my husband or kids.

I miss my mother and miss that I never got to know her as an adult.


Same here with my grandmother. She died of lung cancer when I was only one year old so I never got to know her.

The thing is she gave up smoking entirely when she was pregnant of my mother (my mom cannot recall what brand or how much she smoked) some 26 years before she was diagnosed with lung cancer.



Cigarettes SUCK BIG TIME




I must agree, but not for the same reasons you do.

I recently gave up cigarettes in favor of rolling tobacco (about a week ago) and believe it or not, the first three days I had some serious withdrawel symptoms! I felt frustrated and angry and edgy. Classic withdrawal symptoms. This was not supposed to happen because there is more nicotine in rolling tobacco than there is in cigarettes.

Puzzling...


These feelings have now passed. I can only contribute this to the fact that there are some form of added addictive substances in manufactured cigarettes which are not present in the rolling tobacco I am using at present.

It is certainly not nicotine, because nicotine is present in higher quantities in the rolling tobacco. Ironic isn't it? It looks like there are other agents and substances added to cigarettes that will make them even more addictive. As if nicotine by itself is not additive enough!


I was smoking Marlboro Medium (or whatever they call it now) regular size a little less than a pack a day on average before the switch. Now I smoke pure dark tobacco straight from the cutting machine.

So much better.




posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 04:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Truth4hire
 


You are most certainly welcome to doubt all you want Truth.

I understand that some situations are too difficult to accept when a person doesn't want to face the reality of how harsh some things can affect people. So it's okay, no worries.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 05:34 AM
link   
reply to post by ofhumandescent
 



I don't want to go back to living in a cave with no toilet, hot water or lights, however anything that spews a waste that lives for hundreds of thousands of years and can alter our DNA permanently, we have no business using.


Very well said!
I can't get over that you saw two-headed bugs... that would slightly creep me out as well. I wonder if they've ever done any reports or articles about those kinds of findings.

I am so sorry to hear about the loss of your mom. I was trying to come up with the right words for it, but there just aren't any. I didn't even know lung cancer caused what she experienced. I was thinking only TB did that. (Shows how much I know). It's just beyond crummy to lose someone at such a young age. Sounds like you've grown to raise a sweet family of your own... I'm sure she would be quite pleased.

A very informative post ~ thanks for sharing.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks
 



So is A conscious now trying to say that I have no credibility and that I must be a front for big tobacco and like those scientist, anything I say must be suspect?


Geez! You seem to be taking all these too personally. My original post wasn't even in reply to your post. You are reading too much into what is just a discussion on different view points. I sense hostility, bordering on a bit of paranoia? Chill out man. You replied to my post and I reciprocated. There's all there is to that.


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.


I will let ts117 explain it for me as it was done succinctly.


I believe A Conscious was was pointing out the fact that the nicotine in tobacco smoke is addictive or habit forming (whichever terminology you wish to use) while barbecuing and burning compost is not, which obviously leads to tobacco smoke being inhaled more frequently than the smoke from the family BBQ pit.


reply to post by Truth4hire
 



I recently gave up cigarettes in favor of rolling tobacco (about a week ago) and believe it or not, the first three days I had some serious withdrawel symptoms! I felt frustrated and angry and edgy. Classic withdrawal symptoms. This was not supposed to happen because there is more nicotine in rolling tobacco than there is in cigarettes.


You have just hit the nail on the head!

Since the 1950s. the tobacco industry, through extensive secret research on nicotine, has known that the chemical has powerful addictive qualities. At the same time, publicly, they deny any knowledge that nicotine is addictive.

Remember "The Insider" movie? Where seven CEOs of big tobacco companies perjured themselves to the United States Congress about their awareness of nicotine's addictiveness.

The truth is the tobacco industry has been consciously and deliberately manipulating the nicotine contents for years knowing that once hooked, it is difficult for people to quit.

From 1998 to 2004, the amount of nicotine in most cigarettes rose by an average of almost 10%. The brands that attracted the younger generation and minorities registered the most increase in nicotine level. Marlboro products increased by 12%, while Kool Lights increased by 30%.

The increase in the nicotine level, as you found out, just makes it that much harder for people to quit. You were only switching to rolling tobacco and experiencing withdrawals. Imagine how much tougher would it be for people to go cold turkey.

In 1994 the five major tobacco companies in the US submitted to the United States Department of Health and Human Services a list of additives in cigarettes. Hold on to your hat for this one. A list of 599 additives approved by the US government.

When a cigarette is lighted up, it creates over 4000 chemical compounds, some of which are toxic and/or carcinogenic.

So you may be on to something by growing your own.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 12:41 PM
link   
Here is a little information for ya'. Nicotine is one of the most potent poisons on the PLANET. One drop, (about .25 cc's) on the skin is enough to kill someone in minutes. It doesn't rival other major poisons and far surpasses them.

ARNETT OUT!



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by A Conscience
 


Wow. That is really something. Reading about it is one thing but actually experiencing the withdrawel symptoms for yourself....

I think I have just proven your last statements.

GROW....

YOUR....

OWN....

My Virginia from Virginia is already simmering.....

And ARNETT, even some kitchen herbs will kill you if taken in large doses.

So I do not really see your point. Keyword is and always needs to be moderation.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 03:40 PM
link   
I apologize if this has been posted to this thread before, but I had to post it:

books.google.com...

Very interesting reading.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amaterasu
I apologize if this has been posted to this thread before, but I had to post it:

books.google.com...

Very interesting reading.


GREAT read, thanks Amaterasu.

What the... You are at even higher risk when you quit smoking?

At least that´s how I read this. Several studies failed to create lung cancer in mice which were continuously exposed to tobacco smoke as opposed to filtered air, but in this study they exposed them for months, then paused several months and administered the carcinogenesis via injection and in the food as well which produced the desired effects.

Passive smoke inhalation for longer periods saw a significant drop in lung cancer generation.

Wow, just wow. They even admit to complete failure of previous studies for both active and passive exposure.

Bottom line and desired result: tobacco smoke causes lung cancer in mice. See? Told you so. Just wow.


Leading physician scientists and noted researchers review novel methods for determining the etiology of a variety of lung cancers and present readily reproducible techniques for examining the associated multitude of genetic abnormalities. The methods make it possible to detect these alterations at the cellular, DNA, and protein levels, to study the development of lung cancer in vitro and in vivo-either in situ or in the form of metastases, and to test targeted therapies with detailed model systems. An animal models section gives explicit instructions for setting up and testing these systems, which are rarely described in the literature.


Novel methods my foot. This is pseudo science at best where the outcome is determined up front and the methods are adapted to suit the desired outcome. We cannot generate lung cancer in mice using conventional methods, so lets eject them and place chemicals in their food as well... Viola!

I think this makes me a bit angry.

Thanks for the link, pity I cannot cut-and-paste from the content itself.

Damn!



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 09:06 PM
link   
This, I think is one facet of the war against residents of N. America. A couple things I found out recently: Good ole fashioned Grade A American-grown tobacco is one of the if not the most highly exported crop in the country. Very little of it is used in American manufactured cigarettes. One company whose tobacco I smoke and is the only company in America that offers "Organic" cigarettes is Santa Fe Natural American Spirits Co. Their cigarettes contain two ingredients: Paper and paper pulp (filter) and Grade A Virginia tobacco. Another thing I learned is Nicotine is naturally high in American-grown tobacco but non-exsistant in the tobacco you find in most other brands of cigarettes who import their tobacco from countries in the middle east and Africa. Because of the PH of the soil where these countries grow tobacco, it doesn't produce Nicotine and so the companies have developed a synthetic compound Nicotine that they've had to add to give their smokes that quality smokers seek when they smoke. But that wasn't enough so they also add over a hundred other ingredients, many of which are known carcinogens, and obviously are addictive as well. I've known many people who have switched from Camels or Maroboro to American Spirits and have gone through withdraw symptoms just as though they'd quit altogether! One more thing: Did you know that tobacco grown around the world uses fertilizer mined from radioactive sources? And guess where the plant stores this radiation.... The leaves. I don't have an answer as to which cigarettes would be subject to this problem and I'd love to know if anyone has the ability to find out...



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 11:35 PM
link   
Amatasu

This is an extemely interesting find because it also supports the theory that active smoking has a protective effect from more dangerous air contaminants! Notice that the mice that were exposed to air pollution and not tobacco smoke got more lung tumors

Unfortunately I am not educated enough to fully comprehend this study - for one thing - mice are NOT people! The results of animal studies cannot necessarily be interpreted to people

Some scientists do have a theory that quitting smoking causes lung cancer because the majority of people who get lung cancer are in fact ex-smokers

lungcancer.about.com...

www.pslgroup.com...

www.lungcancersurgery.org...

The theory is that when smokers quite smoking, the lungs cells seek to replace damaged cells by generated new growths. It is these new growths that generate more cancer.

Please note in the last link that never-smokers and ex-smokers now comprise over 50% of lung cancer cases.

Of course - all of this research is seeking to link lung cancer with smoking and tobacco in some fashion. If lung cancer is only marginally related to smoking (as appears to be the case with the lung cancer epidemic increasing instead of decreasing with decreasing population smoking rates and decreasing exposures to second hand smoke) - then the thoughts of the researchers are confined in a tunnel and they are not free to think of other cause.

Also note that the epidemic of lung cancer started after the second world war. This is a couple of decades after the first world war when mustard gas was extensively used. It also started at about the same time as nuclear explosions in Japan and nuclear testing took place.

I have some learned friends I can rely on - I will give them the link and ask their opinions.

I am going to be away for a few days but will be back on Monday.

This thread is actually getting interesting!

Tired of Control Freaks.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 11:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Watermonkey
 



One more thing: Did you know that tobacco grown around the world uses fertilizer mined from radioactive sources? And guess where the plant stores this radiation.... The leaves. I don't have an answer as to which cigarettes would be subject to this problem and I'd love to know if anyone has the ability to find out...


Excellent point!

In fact, tobacco companies have known for over 35 years that tobacco is contaminated with polonium 210. This natural occurring radioactive material is trapped in phosphate rock which is used in most chemical fertilizers.

Although it is also found in food and water, it is fairly harmless. The danger is when it is inhaled into the lungs, where it gets trapped and becomes dangerous.

Polonium 210 received lots of notoriety in the poisoning of ex KGB agent Alexander V. Litvinenko in 2006. It can be argued that polonium in cigarettes is the most dangerous radiation a person can be exposed to, other than working in a nuclear power plant.

Phillip Morris experimented with ways to get rid of this radioactive material since the 60s. This include washing the leaves which wasn't successful as it is also inside the leaves that the radioactive element resides.

One study also found that United States grown tobacco compared with Indian grown has substantially more polonium 210. This may be the result of extensive use of phosphate rock for use as fertilizer in the US.


In 1982, tobacco researchers DiFranza and Winters concluded that smoking a pack and a half of cigarettes per day exposed a person to the same radiation as 300 chest x-rays per year(8). Due to improvements in X-ray technology and increasing levels of radionuclides in tobacco, the Institute of Medicine now estimates that a heavy smoker is exposed to the equivalent radiation as up to 2,000 chest X-rays every year(9). The National Institutes of Health state that tobacco is by far the largest source of radiation for the American public(10). Polonium is also present in chewing tobacco, benignly referred to as smokeless tobacco, and may contribute to the development of oral cancers(11).
www.purpleforest.net...


Maybe this might answer questions as to why lung cancer rates in developed nations continue to rise, when the number of smokers are falling. It would be interesting to study if the increased use of super phosphate as fertilizer commensurate with the rise of lung cancer.

Another one up for you Truth4Hire. Organic farming will presumably erase that problem.


[edit on 8-7-2009 by A Conscience]



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 01:09 AM
link   
reply to post by A Conscience
 


Yea, hopefully people can avoid any extra chemicals by gathering their own supply and rolling them. At least then you know what's actually going into each of them. Sounds like some people are also trying out the e-cigs and have gotten some good results (such as their sense of smell improving), so hopefully that works too.

~~~~~~~~~~

For any people who are thinking of quitting all together, there is a thread going where a number of ATSers are joining in on the bandwagon to quit together.
www.abovetopsecret.com....

Whatever choice each of us makes... best wishes for a long, happy, and healthy life!



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 01:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cyprex
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.


Well, I am a smoker and peper spray, as long as they didn't get it directly in my eyes or face etc....has no effect on me.....my friend and I were sitting in a bar (actually hapened to me twice now, roflmao) and the whole place cleared out....I looked at the time, and like some yahoo started complainging that it was NO WHERE near last call, so where WAS everybody...lol...teeheeeheee...

The second time, kinda similar, except I came outta the bathroom, and everyone was gone, so I found them all outside and asked what's up...


I have allways had a suspicion about the higher taxes on smokes, but they give out deadly life ruining medicines for free here etc....

Also.....everyone KNOWS non smokers get sick wayyy more, and wayyy worse....


Not sure if that adds much but my 2 cents....



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 04:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Watermonkey
Their cigarettes contain two ingredients: Paper and paper pulp (filter) and Grade A Virginia tobacco. Another thing I learned is Nicotine is naturally high in American-grown tobacco but non-exsistant in the tobacco you find in most other brands of cigarettes who import their tobacco from countries in the middle east and Africa. Because of the PH of the soil where these countries grow tobacco, it doesn't produce Nicotine and so the companies have developed a synthetic compound Nicotine that they've had to add to give their smokes that quality smokers seek when they smoke. But that wasn't enough so they also add over a hundred other ingredients, many of which are known carcinogens, and obviously are addictive as well.




You almost sound like an insider yourself!

Is there any way you can show documentation supporting the Nicotine deficiency in tobacco sold in the U.S.???

That would be something... It would open a giant can of worms...



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 05:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
This is an extemely interesting find because it also supports the theory that active smoking has a protective effect from more dangerous air contaminants! Notice that the mice that were exposed to air pollution and not tobacco smoke got more lung tumors


That's what it says..



Please note in the last link that never-smokers and ex-smokers now comprise over 50% of lung cancer cases.

Of course - all of this research is seeking to link lung cancer with smoking and tobacco in some fashion. If lung cancer is only marginally related to smoking (as appears to be the case with the lung cancer epidemic increasing instead of decreasing with decreasing population smoking rates and decreasing exposures to second hand smoke) - then the thoughts of the researchers are confined in a tunnel and they are not free to think of other cause.


IF the link between fallout / pollution and lung cancer has any truth to it, they will not be able to hide it much longer, and they will reap the whirlwind.



I have some learned friends I can rely on - I will give them the link and ask their opinions.


Please do... and thanks.



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 06:07 AM
link   
I'm confused. I smoke rolled tobacco.. I was planning on quitting all together but now I'm being told it is safer NOT to quit? Help!



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 06:38 AM
link   
Nventual

No one can help you decide whether to quit or not. That is an individual decision. There are risks to smoking and only you can decide for yourself whether the risks outweigh the benefits. There are risks to quitting and only you can decide for yourself if the benefits outweigh the risks.

For those who have put forward the thought that cigarette smoking is more dangerous than be exposed to normal air pollution - I offer the following link comparing the partiticulate output from 30 cigarettes to the output from other sources.

Note that the particulate discharge is far higher from 1 pellet stove or fireplace than from 30 cigarettes. Further, being in your house does not protect you from outdoor air pollution. Ultrafine particulate enters yours house through even microscopic cracks as if the house wasn't even there.

There is lots and lots of info on comparing sources of air pollution on this site.

www.burningissues.org...

For those who continue to think that additives in tobacco are the "real Cause" of lung cancer....

First - cigarettes are burned when they are smoking. The scientific name for burning is oxidation. Oxidation changes chemicals. When the anti-tobacco crowd talks about 4,000 chemicals in cigarette smoke - they are not saying that there are 4,000 chemicals in a cigarette. They are referring to the by-products of combustion.

For example: Benzo(a) pyrene is NOT an additive in tobacco - its a normal by-product of combustion and is found in all smoke. Same for polyaromatic hydrocarbons, formaldehyde etc etc etc.

I don't care if you are smoking parseley - you will find 4,000 chemicals in the smoke. I don't care if you are burning cow # - there will be 4,000 chemicals in the smoke. Forest fires, house fires, burning gasoline or diesel fuel - there will be 4,000 chemicals in the smoke.

BTW - if you analyse ordinary urban air - you will find at least 4,000 chemicals in the air!

Tired of Control Freaks.



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 07:18 AM
link   
In addition, wouldn't the high temperature of the burning end of the cigarette burn most of the chemicals that aren't a byproduct of the smoke itself?



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Truth4hire

Originally posted by Amaterasu
I apologize if this has been posted to this thread before, but I had to post it:

books.google.com...

Very interesting reading.


GREAT read, thanks Amaterasu.

What the... You are at even higher risk when you quit smoking?


Yep. That's how I read it too. The smoke was protecting them mice and rats from something. I mean... They only contracted the cancers once reintroduced to fresh air? Geez.

Yeah, they are working REALLY hard and through questionable methods, to prove that tobacco kills us.

And it's because they need that excuse to "explain" the sudden jump in cancer.

"Everything you know is lies."



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


Yeah...

Such a great product as E-Cigarettes will help....


What will they say when even E-Cigarette users develop lung cancer?

"O, but you are an ex-smoker".



We have your number Lizards... I can see you.





new topics

top topics



 
72
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join