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: 7
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in


posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 09:18 AM

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by Cassius666


Please provide proof that nicotene CAUSES lung cancer. Not epidimiology, which merely shows correlation. But proof that nicotene CAUSES lung cancer.

Tired of Control Freaks

Apparently it does not cause cancer, but it helps present cancer grow and spread. If you think smoking on a daily basis is fine go ahead, but dont rage if people exposed to your passive smoke are not keen on taking the plunge with you. Cigarettes are avaiable in most countries.

Who thinks about giving smoking a shot should take the health implications very seriously before making that decision.
edit on 27-2-2012 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 10:20 AM
reply to post by Cassius666


Actually nicotene is very good for you! It aids in healing by encouraging the growth of small blood cells, it helps brain function, controls blood pressure. If you only knew that amount of research that is going on with Big Pharma and nicotene right now.

Now go ahead and prove these so-called health implications. Again - proof of causation - not epidimiology which is only correlation.

And while you are at it - consider this - of all the centarians, 60 % are smokers!

Tired of Control Freaks

posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 12:03 PM
One point to make is that controversy can be a marketing tool to promote sales of a book especially if the book itself is controversial.

Another point is that smoking cigarettes with harmful additives is most likely not good for you. Clean non manufactured cigarettes are probably not as bad for you. Not sure if there is really any health benefits from smoking. There could be but i doubt smoking cigarettes with Tar and all kinds of # in them is good for you.

I do know that I smoked for 10 years. I quite smoking over 10 years ago. After I quite, I could breath better. While being a smoker, taking a deep breath made me feel un satisfied with the amount of air I was getting. Now when I take a deep breath, I feel more than satisfied with the air I am getting and feel that my lungs are processing the air properly as before it felt like they were blocked.

I think that the human body was not designed to breath in smoke. I think smoking is unhealthy.

posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 01:58 PM
The killer in tobacco is said to be polonium from phosphate fertilizers.

Po-210 is relatively long-lived fallout from the decay of radon in the atmosphere close to tobacco plants. This in turn comes from the decay of uranium-contaminated calcium phosphate fertilizer used on tobacco fields. Sub-microscopic particles of Po-210 in the air are trapped on sticky hairs on the leaves of tobacco plants. These hairs are very hydrophobic, and once trapped the radioactivity does not wash off in the rain. Other crops are not affected.

Organic and growing your own look like good ideas. For those who use electronic cigarettes, I have read that the extraction process used to make the liquid used in the e-cigs should eliminate any polonium in the final product.

posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 01:59 PM
Time for my pair of pennies. I offer no scientific evidence, just first hand experience.

I've smoked for the past 14 years. Dipped skoal (very infrequently now) for two years longer than that. I started out with Camel Wide Lights, moved to menthol, then back to non-menthol since then. I now smoke American Spirit Perique Blend. I switched because I wanted to get away from the chemicals the manufacturers put in most cigs.

I'm here to tell you it was a night and day difference. I had smokers cough on Tuesday morning. On thursday morning the smokers cough was gone and hasn't been back albeit for the few days I had a cold this year. American Spirit "black" is hard to find, though and I bought a pack of Wide Lights one day. I could barely finish the cigarette from all the burning in my throat. It's pretty much the same with any other "mainstream" blend. It's not that the cigarette is less strong, either. Blacks are actually a more robust (read: harsher) taste than Camels. Conclusion? A year after to switching to additive-free tobacco later I feel healthier at 30 than I did at 18. Obviously I'm doing something right.

Menthol cigarettes are great to assist in breathing if you've got a chest cold..if you're not normally a menthol smoker. Hurts like hell to smoke a menthol when you're sick but I find that it accelerates recovery in short term respiratory problems due to colds/flu/allergies. Menthol very nearly put me into the hospital when I was 18 and every menthol smoker I know has a ghastly smoker's cough. Menthol=medicinal only, and like all medicines, too much can hurt you. Just an FYI.

As a postscript, I feel that it is UTTER HUBRIS that medicinal cannabis cannot be discussed on this forum. That little plant is the reason my mother is painting my cousin's living room right now on 2/3 less pharmaceuticals instead of rotting in a gorram wheelchair in front of the idiot box because of rheumatoid arthritis and lupus. FACT.

posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 02:55 PM
reply to post by timmy2time

I disagree Timmy2time.

Here is my reasoning and is actually a theory raised by some scientists. Man could not exist without fire. For millenia, we have used fire to heat our homes and cook our food. our homes have typically been saturated with smoke from the burning of organic material. Our airways evolved under these conditions. That is why we have little celia in our airways (to filter out particulate material).

Now I am not confident that this applies to second-hand smoke as generally there is too little smoke created from the burning of about 19 grams of dried leaves - however - since the 1950s and 1960s, we have switched from heating our homes with oil, coal and wood to using electricity and natural gas. For the first time in man's history, we are not surrounded by smoke.

Since that time, the incidence of childhood asthma and atopy (allergies) has increased by 800 %. For proof of what I say, I offer this link from the CDC

Now I know that there are many studies that show that children exposed to second hand smoke have more asthma attacks. However, what is generally not known is that there are just as many studies that show the opposite. That the children of smokers get asthma less and also have less atopy.…pubmed/ 11422156

CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates an association between current exposure to tobacco smoke and a low risk for atopic disorders in smokers themselves and a similar tendency in their children.

What is important to note about this study is that the more the parents smoked and the more the children were exposed to second hand smoke - the less and less asthma and atopy that they suffered. Remember that asthma can develop into a lifelong disability and certainly atopy can be life-threatening.

But again - epidimiology is epidimiology and shouldn't be taken too seriously unless a plausible biological pathway can be identified.

and VOILA - here it is!

“To ascertain the effects of nicotine on allergy/asthma, Brown Norway rats were treated with nicotine and sensitized and challenged with allergens. The results unequivocally show that, even after multiple allergen sensitizations, nicotine dramatically suppresses inflammatory/allergic parameters in the lung including the following: eosinophilic/lymphocytic emigration; mRNA and/or protein expression of the Th2 cytokines/chemokines IL-4, IL-5, IL-13, IL-25, and eotaxin; leukotriene C4; and total as well as allergen-specific IgE.”

Both of these are peer-reviewed published studies.

Many asthmatics find relief from their symptoms by smoking a cigarette.

There are also many many benefits to smoking that I could talk about

Tired of Control Freaks

posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 03:03 PM
reply to post by daskakik


The Polonium in tobacco is provided by phosphate rich fertilizers. the same fertilizers that are used to grow food. This fertilizer is in the soil and in all the food we eat. Further, it is in the dust that we breathe

Polonium 210 in tobacco has been thoughly investigated. It is in background level too small to cause lung cancer. Further, the half-life of Polonium 210 is only 138 days. Think of how long tobacco is cured (usually a year)

Tired of Control Freaks

posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 03:31 PM
smoking like anything else has aspects that r good for u and bad for u.

The real health issues associated with smoking come from 3 factors for most.

`: THE COST, regardless of debate, 2, 7.00 packs of smokes 14.00 a day or just about 100.00 a week or 400.00 a month.

400.00 a month is a 40.00 Gym membership, a 200.00 car payment, 60.00 on supplements and 100.00 in better foods (as example) the above would be my personal list some people might just buy a lot of Hennessy with the Money I dunno, but 400.00 is a lot of money off my health regimen, frankly, I think spending some time on the treadmill doing cardiovascular work daily taking a couple of L Carnosine daily and a vit C and D and an alphlipoic acid (total under 60.00) and you can be a light smoker forever with no ill effects. The COST is insane a pack of smokes should be like 1.00 and for all the medical bs... 400.00 is enough to insure my own damn self with a 100.00 deductible monthly so it never gets billed to anyone if it's bad, they SAY it is for the health costs, but personal insurance is supposed to do that job and I don't get Health Insurance from this country for 7-11 buck smokes via taxation do I?

2: The prohibitions, I have to stand outside if it is -10, I can't rent a decent apt some places, so cost is first but lets add on illness and rundown immune system caused by prohibitions can a person who is an addict work well if he can only get one smoke a day? of course not, jobs don't come easy, health insurance goes up like a punishment income decreases, so again, less income, more spending more of your health and ability to maintain your health goes bye bye, then you go smoke in the rain lol and go home to a place that maybe has black mold because the nice condos around the corner denied you, more health issues, (these are of course suppositions) but it all falls under a simple line, social abuse, lower income, higher costs, this will take a toll from any direction you look at it

3: Chemical additives, is SMOKING bad? or is smoking a cig dipped in 6 kinds of Ammonia plus fire retardant plus pesticides?????

599 additives WT FRIG?

Really 599?

So they can do whatever study they like is SMOKING Tobacco Bad? Will studies show more and more it does harmful things?

YES If your standing in the snow outside work and the temp is -3, you haven't been to a gym in weeks because the cost of smoking is 10 a pack where you live and your walking home most nights in the same immune system dropping weather because you can't make a car payment and your smoking a Big Parliament with 325 chemicals including pesticides in it and you didn't eat lunch because it was the only time you could catch a smoke and you go home to a #ty apartment and can't get health insurance from either the job that is abusing you because it doesn't offer it nor from the govt that is taxing you to death for being a smoker


If you could get a carton of regular smokes just plain ol tobacco for 3.50 nothing added to it, could just relax and enjoy that pure tobacco once in a while, weren't taxed to death, weren't given crap about jobs and health insurance didn't ingest HUNDREDS of other chemicals and smoke in the rain and snow would you get cancer?

Maybe, prolly not tho if you lived a good life otherwise, DEFINITELY being able to use that money for health insurance you'd catch it IN TIME if you did.

posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 03:36 PM

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
The Polonium in tobacco is provided by phosphate rich fertilizers. the same fertilizers that are used to grow food. This fertilizer is in the soil and in all the food we eat. Further, it is in the dust that we breathe

I'm not anti-tobacco. The link I posted says the same thing, the fertilizers are to blame and not tobacco itself. It goes on to explain why the tobacco plant traps the polonium while other plants don't.

Polonium 210 in tobacco has been thoughly investigated. It is in background level too small to cause lung cancer.

Investigated by who and who funded the research? I've read that a smoker can be exposed to 5 times as much polonium than a non smoker. Alot more? Probably not but maybe enough to make a difference in some people.

Further, the half-life of Polonium 210 is only 138 days. Think of how long tobacco is cured (usually a year)
Half-life means you have half the amount after 138 days not that it has disappeared. You'd still have 12.5% of the original amount after 414 days.

posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 08:17 PM
reply to post by daskakik

This is a link that will help you put that in perspective in regards to Polonium 210

Also you are forgetting to factor in the rate of excretion.

Tired of Control Freaks

posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 09:49 PM
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks

I'm not saying that cigarettes are as bad as they are made out to be but if given the choice to smoke organic tobacco or tobacco grown with polonium heavy fertilizer why would you choose the latter?

I found the claim the pepto-bismol "takes the cake" interesting but I can't find anything on the net that confirms it. If that isn't true then the rest could be just as wrong. What I did find is this:

Lung specimens from 25 current cigarette smokers, 2 current pipe smokers, 1 former cigarette smoker, and 8 nonsmokers ere analyzed. The average concentration of polonium in the peripheral parenchyma of current smokers was .0074 picocurie/gm and in nonsmokers was .0016.

which would prove that even with the rate of excretion there is over 4.5 times the polonium in smokers compared to non-smokers. Is it the main culprit? I don't know but it sure isn't preventive medicine.

edit on 27-2-2012 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 06:02 AM
reply to post by daskakik

And again - neither amount is sufficient to cause you harm. If it was polonium causing the lung cancer, then every smoker would get it. Remember that this does not happen. Statements that "4 times the amount" sound scary but parts per quadrillion are equal to 1 second in 35,000 years.

Tired of Control Freaks

posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 07:56 AM
reply to post by lordnightstalker

My dear lordnightstalker

The costs of smoking and the inconvenience of having to stand outside are NOT the natural consequences of smoking!

These things are imposed on me by the government, Big Pharma and anti-tobacco crusaders in an attempt to coerce me and control my choices. I am an adult woman of sound mind and body. I refuse categorically all attempts by others to restrict my choices. Smoking is legal.

As for the cost - what if everybody chose NOT to take an annual vacation? After all, that could be thousands of dollars a year used to pay a mortgage? What if everybody chose NOT to drink - they could make car payments with the money. Vacations and alcohol are not absolutely necessary to live!

If everyone was forced to forego all the things that only give them pleasure and spend the money in a utilitarian manner - what would your life be like? Why do you need that expensive motorbike and all that camping equipment anyway? The riskiest and deadliest sport is mountain climbing? Look at all the money that could be saved if only we could socially engineer mountain climbers to stop this insanity of risking their lives to climb a rock?

Why is everyone else allowed to spend their disposable income as THEY please but smokers are not? Has society come to this now? That we will examine each others lifestyle choices and critcize those we do not agree with? I am confident a vegan would be quick to point out the money saved by not buying meat and the increase to your health. You don't NEED that juicy t-bone to live after all, do you?

Tired of Control Freaks

posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 11:04 AM

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by daskakik

And again - neither amount is sufficient to cause you harm. If it was polonium causing the lung cancer, then every smoker would get it. Remember that this does not happen.

You don't know what amount is going to cause a particular individual harm. Not every smoker would get lung cancer because not everyone is the same, smokes the same or is exposed to other sources equally.

Statements that "4 times the amount" sound scary but parts per quadrillion are equal to 1 second in 35,000 years.

The article you posted is an anti-spin piece to a spin piece. I say take both with a grain of salt and look for more information. I keep coming across things like:

Critical support for this thesis is based upon experimental animal studies in which lung cancers that resemble adenocarcinomas are induced with as little as 15 rads of radioactive polonium, equal to one fifth the dosage inhaled by cigarette smokers who average two packs a day during a 25-year period.

which makes "4 times the amount" mean something. Again, if you have the choice to consume tobacco grown without the added polonium why not choose it just to err on the side of caution? Your getting a good dose from everything else, why add to it.

edit on 28-2-2012 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 11:32 AM
Slightly off topic, but if you smoke, have a look at e cigarettes. Me and the wife smoked a huge amount of tobacco, now we don't. They're very, very good.

I'd also like to echo the posters who mentioned Hpv in relation to cancer as I feel this goes a long way to explaining the "My gran smoked 2 packs a day and lived to 90" type stories that abound.

posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 04:31 AM
I started smoking, ummm.....a different plant other than tobacco every day when I was around 17 or so, I still do, and have never felt any health problems from it. When I was around 20 or so I started smoking cigarettes, though it was less than a pack a week. After a few weeks I started feeling differently in my health, especially in my lungs and throat.

When I was 21 I started rolling my own cigarettes and I started smoking about 4-7 a day. My lungs were not doing good. I tried quitting several times, I would go weeks without smoking a single cigarette and my lungs and throat felt much better. When I relapsed
I noticed right away that my throat would start hurting like I had strap throat and my lungs felt different. I quit and have felt much better.

Are cigarettes bad for you? I don't know for sure, but I would say yes in my opinion. What I can say is I definitely did not gain any health benefits from smoking cigarettes and I doubt anyone really has.

Every now and then I crave a cigarette, especially when I eat a good meal or have a good lay, but I try and keep myself from them.

posted on Mar, 16 2013 @ 02:39 AM
you know.. if anything here is a "conspiracy" it's anything and everything about smoking and the companies that manufacture cigarets.

just 2 examples from personal experience.. my dad smoked his entire life, he was upto almost 2 packs a day, no health problems whatsoever.. as far as i can remember he's never even had a cold. one day he decides to quit smoking because he calculated the amount of money he could save and it blew his mind so he started a self made cold turkey routine and within 3 months he was absolutely finished smoking, six months later he was dead.

my wife.. she decided to quit for the same reason, realizing how much she'd be able to spend on herself and kids was her motivation but yikes, her habit was very, very substantial, again though she had smoked since her teens and just about all health issues she's had are not contributed to smoking so she starts her routine, i was very encouraging but her habit was such that i thought secretly that only Divine Intervention could help her, anyway.. after about 5 months she completely kicked the habit. i was elated beyond words thinking we'd have more time on earth together.

she didn't die, Thank God but less than a month of her being completely clear of cigarets she had to have her big toe cut off and she's losing her toes one by one, literally. it happens very fast to.. she'll see what looks like a blister and in less than a month that toe needs to be removed.

what the F*!&K kind of chemicals are in these things? anyway.. if you're a smoker and thinking about quitting remember these words. if i was a smoker i'd try making the quitting process a long and drawn out process.. take a year maybe two.. give your body enough time to adjust and acclimate.

if you ask me.. the dudes high up in cigarette companies are worse than lawyers, insurance companies, government officials combined.

take care.

new topics

top topics

<< 4  5  6   >>

log in