It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Smoking isn't bad for your health at all ?

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 03:28 PM
reply to post by Sinter Klaas

If smoking what healthy then emphysema, lung cancer, or just the smoker's cough wouldn't be such problems. When people say "oh my grandpa smoked and lived 89 years" they aren't mentioning the fact that they probably didn't smoke that often, they may of just had a puff of a cigar occasionally (which isn't going to affect your health too much). Now, anyone who smokes a pack a day or more are definitely going to have problems.

This book sounds like propaganda courtesy of Marlboro or whatever...

[edit on 3/28/10 by MoothyKnight]

posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 03:47 PM
I smoke, so this makes me happy

I'll have to give the evidence a look over, don't want to keep smoking on behalf of a wrongful evidence.

Smoking, cool so you don't have to be


posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 03:57 PM
I've said my grandfather smokes and is well in his eighties.
I smoked almost a pack a day.

The reason I began this thread is because we are to easily fooled about smoking to be the cause for major life threatening diseases.

Why do I bring up old people ?

For the simple reason they lived about half of their lives in a clean an healthy atmosphere.

After WW2 cities became more crowded and an increasing wealth lead to a point where everybody could afford a car.

Do you even know how much leftover particles from burning gasoline and diesel fuel are ending up in your lungs ? Especially in crowded cities.

Do you have any idea how much cancerous substances like asbestos ( which guarantee you will get cancer ) have been used and still is embedded in every building from before lets say the 1980s .

Have you got a clue about all the nuclear tests which have been done.
Just one radioactive particle which ended up lying anywhere can be taken up in the air and eventually end up in someones lungs. They die from lung cancer and 30 years later or sooner if the body gets burned can begin a new journey ending up in someone else's lungs. I'm talking about 1 single microscopic particle. 1 of billions.
It is said that the layer of residue in the lungs caused by smoking could prevent such a particle to settle because your body will get rid of the residue by coughing or swallowing it. And so protecting you.

I do not say you got to get started smoking. I just offer a different perspective.

To dig deeper, everybody has probably heard of chem trails. What can they do to you if you are protected by a little smoking ?

Then there are some more obvious ways.
If smoking is that bad for you, why do they not prohibit it. No they raise extra money as tax as if an addict could care less.

The reason I have heard is that it will cost to much money because you get cancer and so on.

But please tell me how can you cost to much money if you die 60 years old.
You will bring up less ! That's the issue.
You won't get any old age problems, you won't break a hip. You will not work as long as you should ! You will not take years of medication in your old age.

So without the conspiracy even mentioned there is already more than enough to say it's all about money.

posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 04:14 PM
Oh Jesus, here we go with more BS from these people.
Smoking causes cancer, amongst other things.
This has been proven.

posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 04:18 PM
reply to post by PublicDefenseCorp

Does does almost everything else seem to do.

Every week there is an article telling something causes or could cause cancer. Yet smoking is still the primary suspect.

posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 04:23 PM
I would like to know if there's a correlation between parents who smoke and kids with severe cystic acne. Severe cystic acne is such an "unnatural disease"(that is it isn't something that can be cured through "diet and/or exercise." If you or anyone you know have it, tell them to take accutane, immediately) that I can only theorize that it is caused by a severe genetic liver defect, probably caused by smoking.

Smoking is like the anti-thesis of beauty(generally, when something is warned in public as much as that is, you'd do well to avoid it. They have done all the research for you. Sure they'll be exceptions here and there, but they are just that, exceptions), on just about every facets of it. If you want to have beautiful and/or healthy kids, avoid it at all costs.

[edit on 28-3-2010 by np6888]

posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 04:32 PM

So they have PROVEN that smoking CAUSES lung cancer, have they? Are you absolutely sure?

Please provide this evidence.

When you are finished....I will provide proof that no such evidence exists.


posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 04:38 PM
I don't get it

I bring up something which is IMO a major conspiracy.
What will people post ?

Advice smoking is bad for you ???

What do think ? I'm not aware of anything which smoking is claimed to be the cause of ?

How could it be possible to even see what could be wrong than ?

Please !

posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 04:40 PM

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks

So they have PROVEN that smoking CAUSES lung cancer, have they? Are you absolutely sure?
Please provide this evidence.
When you are finished....I will provide proof that no such evidence exists.

If it takes to long. I'm still very interested in your evidence.
You would share it anyway, would you ?

posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 04:40 PM
reply to post by rken2

I have to disagree here....been an auto mechanic for many years, some 38 as a regular line mechanic. I have breathed in a great amount of exhaust over the years, plus the smell of raw gasoline and other automotive chemicals and liquids associated with automobiles. Now it's true these things did me no good, but I do not have any cancer, despite having smoked for 40 years, and as a small child I slept right next to an asbestos sheet, we had them around the wood stove, and I actually used to pick off pieces and play with them while in bed. Radiation causes cancer, nothing else. Blame the government for that.

posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 04:44 PM
reply to post by autowrench

You give a far point here. But asbestoscan lay dormit for decades before anything happens.
And it is a product where I do not have a good reason for removing from society in the at all.

By the way you would have to get asbetos to settle in the lungs. And you smoke. Which is said to could prevent it for setteling in the first place.

posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 04:56 PM
reply to post by MoothyKnight

Umm, no, that's not the case.
Even those who smoke hard-core manufactured cigs can, surprisingly, live healthy lives. My grandfather died from an unrelated cancer, but the last two weeks of his life was more of a struggle than it had to be due to his years of smoking packs a day. So, I would think many smokers would take the trade-off. I wouldn't.

Moderation is key with many things. Imbalance is not an option if I am aware of the balance. And on the same idea, did you even watch the video to learn what is in manufactured cigs? Buy organic tobacco with no additives. Totally different. And have some self-discipline. Eat fruits and veggies, drink PLENTY of water, and make sure you defecate once a day, or slightly more, but seldom less. A clean running system can handle a little smoke, but the crap they add to manufactured tobacco, pipe or cigs, is ridiculous and immoral and imbalanced in even small amounts.

Use your head. Don't be a slave to law, but be a good judge.

posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 05:02 PM
When I saw the title of this thread, I just had to post prior to reading any of the OP or any replies.

I say, and this is after much research, that smoking is good for you.

A scapegoat of a thing, smoking is blamed for almost all lung cancers and emphazima except for maybe asbestos and a few other chemicals.

There is also another thread that focuses on the testing of explosivves and chemicals released in the atmosphere, and specifically the testing of the A-Bomb and exposure of many military and citizens who later suffered diseases and cancers which was then blamed on smoking in a coverup.

Show me the scientific research that proves smoking causes cancer (not just show, but let's see it duplicated and published in a peer reviewed publication that is not just taken for granted from the word of a bias-researcher, but really proven.) I have yet to find one, just as is the case with vaccines.

Also, Doctors (some) admit that it is healthy for the nicotine breaks down and has a good effect on your health.

Also it is supposed to help prevent flu and virus from attacking the lungs as bad as nonsmokers due to the film left on the lung lining that is hard to penetrate.
And as other substances that are non-patentable, tabacco, hemp, DCA, etc...will be banned or illegalized so the benefits are not available which gives more perentage of the health field to big pharma.

So, I can lead you all to water...(research), but can not make you smoke. You will have to do that for yourselves.

Now, I will go basck and read the thread.
Smoke'em if you got'em!

posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 05:25 PM
reply to post by imd12c4funn

Thank you for joining in.
As you read the post you will see your examples are mentioned.
Any evidence to back it up is of course appreciated.

posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 05:37 PM
If I was prone to a seeking a conspiracy (me, neeeever!), I might suggest that mankind has always smoked, that smoking helps to function the brain and TPTB have purposely spiked our smoking resources in order to make it more harmful. Are all the chemicals they place in cigarettes necessary?

Here is something I posted on another thread… the thread was on the subject of the Pineal Gland, which I think is vitally important in overseeing the general wellbeing of humans.

Someone once told me that smoking (something the Native Americans were fond of) helps the mind to concentrate…

I have also read somewhere that tobacco breaks up the calcified minerals in the pineal gland. Does anyone on this thread know more about this subject?

Why can’t we buy pure tobacco? I’ll assume that smoking pure tobacco is safer than smoking the commercial stuff the Governments allow us to smoke.

Has mankind always smoked?

Maybe this is one of the lesser informed posts but I just wanted to know if anybody could help on this.

I’ve briefly Googled the subject but have yet to find anything constructive.

Understanding the functions of the Pineal Gland will lead to uncovering the basis of this thread’s theory…


posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 05:41 PM
To Sinter Klaus

Yes you are stubled on a massive conspiracy called "the big lie". When I first saw the Forces web site, my impression is that these people needed their tin hats adjusted.

My thought was "of course smoking causes cancer" Everyone knows that! That message has been front page news for over 6 decades.

So I started doing research. A lot of research! And over the course of 3 years, I did everything I could to "prove" that smoking causes lung cancer.

Guess what - there is no proof that smoking causes any particular disease. There is no disease that only smokers get.

The place to start your understanding of the issue is to learn about the use statistics in epidimology. Now epidimiology is a very strange science. By itself, it proves nothing. It is the use of observation to highlight potential areas of research by hard sciences.

when you read headlines like "mango juices reduces the incidence of prostate cancer by 45 %", you need to understand what that headline is actually saying.

According to the rules of epidimiology - you design a study to pick out associations. Hence, someone compared men who drink mango juice with men who don't drink mango juice in a study. Now there are a gazillion complications with such a study. Who do you pick as your subjects, how do you correct the results for confounding factors (like men who regularly drink mango juice may be of a different ethnicity then men who don't) and you follow the subjects for a period of time.

In this particular example - let us say that out of 6,000 men, 3,000 men drank mango juice and 3,000 men didn't. And out of those 3,000 men who drank the mango juice 10 got mango juice and 15 of the non-mango juice drinkers didn't.

From this study -you could use statistics to prove that there was an association between drinking mango juice and a protective effect for prostate cancer.

But there are rules to this game! First, the relative risk must be at least 200 % before you can say there is any kind of association. And most scientists want there to be an association of about 400 % before taking it seriously.

So right off the bat - you know the headline is garbage! The relative risk is only 45 % and doesn't meet the rule!

The people doing the original study want their funding to continue - so instead of announcing that there is no association between mango juice and protection from prostate cancer (which wouldn't make an interesting headline and wouldn't attract further funding from the mango juice people) - they announce that the study results were very interesting but more study is needed to confirm the association.

And men run out and buy mango juice - just in case it does have a protective effect!

Of all the studies related to smoking and second hand smoke - there is only one association that meets the standard for statistical association. That is - there is a statistical association between smoking and lung cancer that exceeds 400 %.

More to follow:

posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 06:04 PM
I can hear many many people out there saying "ha" told you so - smoking does cause lung cancer. Epidimiology proves it!

Well - and this must be very clearly understood! Epidimiology PROVES NOTHING. Correlation (or association) is NOT CAUSATION.

There are 40 known causes of lung cancer and all the observational studies in the world cannot correct for the confounding of these other factors.

The most important confounder is diesel exhaust. Smokers and non-smokers alike are exposed to diesel exhaust. It contains the same particulate, the same benzene, formaldehydes, and methyl ethyl awfuls as tobacco smoke. As a matter of fact, all smoke contains these contaminants because these contaminates are products of combustion and NOT something that the tobacco companies put in cigarettes.

Epidimiology has proven that there is a difference between lung cancer rates in rural areas and in cities. Are anti-smokers trying to say that smoking is more toxic in the cities then in the country? Or that rural dwellers are immune to the toxic effects of smoking?

Further Epidimiology has also proven that lung cancer rates remain low in countries where smoking rates are highest!

Lastly - as I have pointed out - epidimiology is merely the science of observation to determine associations. It is used as a tool to highlight areas of further research by the hard sciences.

To date - there is no means of determining the cause of any particular case of lung cancer except for mesothelioma where asbestos particles may be present.

The proof that this so is presented in a court case called McTeer vs JTI. Three scientients presented evidence to the court that smoking CAUSES lung cancer. One of those scientists was Sir Richard Doll - the granddaddy of the anti-smoking campaign.

Three scientists also presented evidence regarding the fact that there is as yet no specific proof that the association between lung cancer and smoking is true.

This is a link for the court transcript - for your reading pleasure but the justice in this case, Nimmo Smith - summed up all the evidence that smoking CAUSES lung cancer and it all came down to "BECAUSE WE SAY IT DOES!"

Further - the evidence that smoking DOES NOT CAUSE lung cancer is contained within our very own population.

The rate of smoking in the population started declining in 1975 - more than 36 years ago - but the rate of lung cancer has not declined in any significant manner.

Further lung cancer remains a disease of aging. It occurs mainly in the 60s and 70s and its incidence starts to decline as you reach the 80s. This is the same for smokers and never-smokers.

Would you think that if smokers were actively exposing themselves to carcinogens generally starting in their early teens that they would end up with lung cancer a little sooner than the never smoking population.

Tired of Control Freaks

posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 06:14 PM
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks

Keep m coming !
Up until now you are not telling me anything new. But you do Tell it way better then I ever could

posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 06:20 PM
So some people are saying that it is proven that smoking is the absolute definite cause for cancer in smokers? It was 1964 when the Surgeon General made that proclamation based on some corollary research. Subsequent studies have gone on the assumption that report is correct and looked for collaborating evidence to support it.

I would rather not have medical treatments from 1964, as most people would not either, so why do people automatically assume that any contrary evidence are lies and propaganda from the tobacco industry? There is a reason that the Education and Media forum exists.

Lots of research has been done into cancers of various types having sources in virus. There are studies into bacteria found in common soil that can help create antibodies to some of those virus if exposed at an early age and have continuous contact over a lifetime.

I guess the only way to prove it would be to ban all smoking world-wide and when people still die of lung cancer 1000 years from now then we can all agree that the cigarettes had nothing to do with it?

posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 06:27 PM
yeah and drinking gallons of pure fluoride makes you a math genius as well as a super lover

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in