Oesophageal cancer 'doubles in British men'

Oesophageal cancer 'doubles in British men'

www.bbc.co.uk

Cancers of the food pipe in Britain have doubled in men over 25 years, figures from Cancer Research UK show.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Would some of our anti smoking zealots care to explain how esophogeal cancer (the same cancer that Micheal Douglas has currently diagnosed with) has doubled in men over the last 25 years while smoking rates have DECREASED by more than half.

Would anyone care to explain how this cancer is still increasing 25 years after smoking rates have decreased?

Of course now that smoking is banned everywhere and everyone has wrung every dollar out of every smoker for increased "health care" costs .....now we find out that it is really obesity at fault.

Now doesn't this justify charging taxes by the pound for health care? If smokers have to pay their fair share....shouldn't fat people as well?

Or maybe we can finally admit that it is all a scam to increase tax revenues and tell the government and the medical community to stick it?

Tired of Control Freaks.

www.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


I know excessive alcohol consumption is known to be a big factor in oral/esophageal cancers as well.

Its to do with the increase of Obesity which increases the acid reflux which affects the lower end of the oesophagus.

No NO NO - the resident anti-smokers do not get away from it this time.

For 50 years, we have been told that smoking causes 80 - 90 % of esophogeal cancers. They hounded the population to quit smoking "for their own good". Smokers were told that they were disease carriers because second-hand smoke caused esophogeal cancer as well. Extra health care costs were added up and smokers were charged taxes for cover these so-called "extra" costs.

Now please explain - how did a cancer, which we were told was caused almost exclusively by smoking, manage to double in incidence, 30 years after the incidence of smoking in the general population started to decrease?

Now they say its obesity....actually they say esophogeal cancer is caused by acid reflux. Since acid reflux happens in skinny and normal wieght people well... I would suggest this is just another smear campaign to blame innocent people for their disease and open opportunities for further taxation.

Is anyone ready to admit that maybe the studies smearing smoking were wrong, wrong, wrong?

Tired of Control Freaks.

Given that in 50 years no study has shown a link between pure tobacco's smoke and cancer, and that the whole "smoking causes cancer" thing was used to cover up the effects that the high atmosphere explosion of the Trinity nuclear device, with the sun covering for the skin cancers that were developing...

Given that, we must suspect that it's the added carcenogenic chemicals, the fiberglass filters, and any radioactive fallout still out there that is causing the epidemic of cancers to breathing apperati, skin and other areas which might contact the particles in question.

Like every scientist out there, I don't know exactly what causes cancer. I don't know a lot of things!

BUT I KNOW A SCAM WHEN I SEE ONE!

Which is far more than most of the anti-smokers on this site can do!

BTW - lung cancer hasn't decreased a whit in 50 years either! In fact, its increasing.

So what does all this say about the health effects of second hand smoke.

TIRED OF CONTROL FREAKS

reply to post by woodwardjnr

woodwardjnr

I agree with you - Acid reflux causes cellular mutations at the 'distal' end of the oesophagus. There are studies ongoing and otherwise which show something called Barretts oesophagitus, an inflammation of those cells which is a forerunner to the start of Adenocarcinomas forming in the 'foodpipe'
The majority of cancers / tumors start at the lower end, I think the ratio is 8 or 9 for every tumour higher up at the proximal end of the oesophagus...

I think they talk about smoking as making you more Suceptible to cancers ALL over the Body as you are introducing lots of carcinogens into the bodies systems.....

Regards

PurpleDOG UK

None of that explains how the incidence of oesophogeal cancer has DOUBLED now does it?

And NO - they are not talking about exposure to smoke making you more sucseptible to cancer.

Look at the links:

www.cancerin.com...

Quoted from an outside source:

Smoking and Alcoho:These Two have been thought to be the main risk factors (cause) in the occurrence and development of oesophageal cancer. Tobacco contains nitrosamines and other alkaline chemicals that increase the risk of contracting the disease. Smoking tobacco especially increases the risk of contracting oesophageal adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma. Drinking a lot of alcohol increases the risk of contracting squamous cell. Carcinoma: The risk becomes even greater if one drinks and smokes. Chewing tobacco also increases the risk.

cetp.fmed.ulaval.ca...

Quoted from an outside source:

The oesophagus, pancreas, lung, and urinary bladder are well established target organs for smoking carcino-genesis,12*3*"47 and were associated with smoking in our data.

And from the WHO
monographs.iarc.fr...

Quoted from an outside source:

Oesophagus
Tobacco smoking is causally associated with cancer of the oesophagus, particularly squamous-cell carcinoma. Tobacco smoking is also causally associated with adenocarcinoma of the oesophagus. In most of
the epidemiological studies, the risk for all types of oesophageal cancer increased with numbers of cigarettes smoked daily and duration of smoking. However, risk for oesophageal cancer remains elevated many years
after cessation of smoking.


Do you read that "CAUSALLY ASSOCIATED" Not only have they told the public that smokers get cancers of the throat due to smoking - smoking bans are justified because SECOND HAND SMOKE CAUSES throat cancer.

Don't try to skinny out of it! As for the carcinogens in tobacco smoke...please name me one carcinogen in tobacco smoke that is not also ubiquitous to the environment from other sources (and at much higher concentrations)

The WHO lied - the studies were wrong - the incidence of throat cancer increases in the face of decreasing smoking.

TIRED OF CONTROL FREAKS

None of that explains how the incidence of oesophogeal cancer has DOUBLED now does it?

And NO - they are not talking about exposure to smoke making you more sucseptible to cancer.

Look at the links:

www.cancerin.com...

Quoted from an outside source:

Smoking and Alcoho:These Two have been thought to be the main risk factors (cause) in the occurrence and development of oesophageal cancer. Tobacco contains nitrosamines and other alkaline chemicals that increase the risk of contracting the disease. Smoking tobacco especially increases the risk of contracting oesophageal adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma. Drinking a lot of alcohol increases the risk of contracting squamous cell. Carcinoma: The risk becomes even greater if one drinks and smokes. Chewing tobacco also increases the risk.

cetp.fmed.ulaval.ca...

Quoted from an outside source:

The oesophagus, pancreas, lung, and urinary bladder are well established target organs for smoking carcino-genesis,12*3*"47 and were associated with smoking in our data.

And from the WHO
monographs.iarc.fr...

Quoted from an outside source:

Oesophagus
Tobacco smoking is causally associated with cancer of the oesophagus, particularly squamous-cell carcinoma. Tobacco smoking is also causally associated with adenocarcinoma of the oesophagus. In most of
the epidemiological studies, the risk for all types of oesophageal cancer increased with numbers of cigarettes smoked daily and duration of smoking. However, risk for oesophageal cancer remains elevated many years
after cessation of smoking.


Do you read that "CAUSALLY ASSOCIATED" Not only have they told the public that smokers get cancers of the throat due to smoking - smoking bans are justified because SECOND HAND SMOKE CAUSES throat cancer.

Don't try to skinny out of it! As for the carcinogens in tobacco smoke...please name me one carcinogen in tobacco smoke that is not also ubiquitous to the environment from other sources (and at much higher concentrations)

The WHO lied - the studies were wrong - the incidence of throat cancer increases in the face of decreasing smoking.

TIRED OF CONTROL FREAKS

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks

TiredofControlFreaks


Having read through other post you have made on ATS i am wondering....

Is the point you are trying to get to, about being allowed to smoke in public as and where you want to without fear of tutting and retribution ??

Do you feel persecuted by not being able to smoke and do what you want to do ?

Regards

PurpleDOG UK

Purple Dog UK

I can very strongly assure you that no-one and I mean no-one tut tuts me for any legal activity I undertake. As a free adult human being, I would never allow such behavior!

As for you - once again - an anti-smoker who attacks the person instead of answering the question! I have read the Godbar documents and the anti-smoking paraphenalia and I am well aware that you are all instructed NOT to debate the issues.

Answer the question: If smoking is CAUSALLY associated with oesophogeal cancer than how did the incidence of such cancers in the face of decreased smoking rates that started in the 1970s.

I want to hear you say it. REAL WORLD EXPERIENCE DEMONSTRATES THAT SMOKING CANNOT BE THE CAUSE OF THROAT CANCERS and negates every epidimiological study done on the subject.

Read the post on James Enstrom. This issue isn't about the bans. This issue is about government interference in personal lives, its about scientific integrity, its about policy decisions based on science and not which grant whore is the most successful in brain-washing the public.

TIRED OF CONTROL FREAKS.

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


TiredofControlFreaks

What right do you have (if you do smoke) to pollute the air / atmosphere that I am existing in.

If I sit in a room with you and debate issues why should I be subject to the exhaled fumes from your lungs of chemicals that I do not wish in my body ?

If you are tired of control freaks then may I suggest you stop trying to control those whom disagree with you ..


On the subject of the correlation, I don't know, I am not a scientist But I do see people on an almost daily basis with various cancers of the Gastro-intesinal tract. Many of which are Oesophageal cancers and I can assure you it is not a very nice way to go.....! so I ask why should anyone be put in a position of risk by anothers actions ??

Regards

PurpleDOG UK

Purple Dog UK

Again Sir - you have refused to debate the issue. Why would you want to change the subject?

Could it be because smoking is NOT the cause of oesophogeal cancer because the levels of carcinogens in tobacco is too low to cause cancer of any type?

If this is so - then what risk do you undertake when you sit in a room with a smoker? Are you possibly trying to convince me that there is no "safe" level of exposure. If this is true...then second hand smoke is far more toxic than sarin gas, pure dioxins and furans, mustard gas and agent orange - as all of these substances have established "safe" levels of exposure.

A mine shaft can be ventilated so that workers may enter in an environment that is normally contaminated with gases so toxic that a person would very shortly die. The exhaust from vehicles would kill a border guard in less then half an hour if it wasn't for the miracle of ventilation. Yet tobacco smoke is such an evil toxic and intelligent substance (able to follow electric wires to attack the pure lungs of non-smokers) that ventilation cannot possibly under any circumstances guarantee the safety of persons like yourself.

I am continually amazed at the lies that some people will believe.

If you demand the right not to be exposed to second hand smoke - then I am afraid your right to such demands extend only to your own private property and possibly public property. By what right do you demand to set the conditions by law under which you will enter the private property of others?

I don't like loud music. It hurts my ears and has been demonstrated to cause hearing loss. It increases the heart rate and induces stress (which can contribute to the risk of heart attacks). Does this give me the right to demand that every hospitality venue in the land limit the volume of their music to my preferred preference? You know...just in case, I might want to stop in someday.

I am also sensitive to electrical energy waves? It causes me headaches and I just can't function in the presence of it. Does this give me the right to demand that people in their own private properties cease using electricity in the event that it effects my health?

Tired of Control Freaks

By the way Purple Dog UK - love the way you slipped in that bit about how people are at increased risk of oesophogeal cancer and that such cancer is not a nice way to go.

I can tell that you are a trained professional by the way you stay "on-message" and repeat the lie about smoking causing oesophogeal cancer, even though you admit you haven't got a clue about the science and have absolutely refused to discuss why such cancers have doubled even as the smoking rate had decreased.

You even managed to slip in that little emotional tear-jerker about how oesophogeal cancer in not a nice way to go.

Nice touch!

However, if you wish to die of oesophogeal cancer then you should immediately start smoking a pack a day. Smokers are less obese than non-smokers and apparently have a DECREASED risk of oesophogeal cancer.

TIRED OF CONTROL FREAKS

Sorry - that last sentence should read: if you DON'T wish to die of oesophogeal cancer, then you should immediately start smoking....

Tired of Control Freaks.

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


TiredofControlFreaks

In our comments so far I have never said or suggested that Smoking CAUSES oesophogeal cancer.
My position on it is that is is a contributing factor towards it and the fact that people smoke Increases their chances of a tumour occurring.

I do not think I would be a particularly good candidate to debate with here as I feel that your level of knowledge is a much more highly developed and evolved position than mine currently....

Discretion is better than Valour...

Your point however ...

''If you demand the right not to be exposed to second hand smoke - then I am afraid your right to such demands extend only to your own private property and possibly public property. By what right do you demand to set the conditions by law under which you will enter the private property of others?''

I do NOT set a Right to enter - I just would Choose myself NOT to enter


If you do not like loud music then might I suggest you visit a library !! or avoid places with loud music, it really is not that hard....

Regarding Electrical energy waves then you have my sympathies as we are ALL continually bombarded by those little buggers all the time much in the same way as I am exposed to environmental and chemical pollutants which I, as an individual can only do my best in avoiding.....

This goes back to taking responsibility of one actions and whatever the research papers and studies say and dis-prove I know that I CHOOSE not to be exposed to cigarette smoke....

Regards

PurpleDOG UK

Purple Dog UK

Thank you for admitting that you knowledge is not quite up to par. You are right. I have a medical background and have studied the subject intensively for about 6 years now, including reading all the so-called studies and even communicating with James Enstrom personally.

To be honest, I was intensely shocked at the level of lies being told to the public to support policies of increased taxation and hate against smokers. Its worse than climategate and has cost billions of dollars.

If you think this is about the right to smoke anywhere anytime - you could not be more mistaken.

This is about old people freezing to death in the dark, suffering falls and injuries, woman being raped, loss of housing, loss of jobs, legal threat through punitive taxation, the existence of black market cigarettes funding crime and terrorism. Its about the loss of private businesses. And its about the method by which government encroaches ever closer in our private lives.

You spoke of having the "right" to protect yourself from second hand smoke. I spoke about the "right" to protect myself from noise and electrical energy waves. Face it...the fact is that if you are concerned about your health to that extent...live in a bubble. Neither of us have the right to intrude so rudely on our neighbours. Such a right does not exist in any constitution and would be utterly ridiculous if it did. Imagine being arrested for sneezing in public?

You are also correct when you say - if you don't like tobacco smoke, the correct response is stay out of those places where smoking is allowed. The correct response is not to deny smoker's their constitutional right to gather for peaceful purposes.

We have been involved and subjected to anti-smoking propaganda since the 1960's. It is time that we faced the fact that despite the decrease in smoking that started in the 1970s until now (about 35 years), there has been no decrease in any disease causally associated with smoking. There has never been any disease exclusive to smokers. Whatever disease you wish to discuss, never-smokers get it too!

The studies are wrong. Smoking may have deleterious effects but like most other substances, it also has many benefits. Nicotene is being currently researched and is looking like the next miracle drug for Parkinson's, MS, mental illnesses, depression, etc etc.

I just wanted to make the point that no matter how many times you hear something and no matter how illustrious the source....it doesn't make it true!

Tired of Control Freaks

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks

TiredofControlFreaks

Your last sentence .....

I just wanted to make the point that no matter how many times you hear something and no matter how illustrious the source....it doesn't make it true!

......Is the reason, I guess why most of us are on this site looking beyond what we are spoon fed and Expected to believe.

You sound rebellious which is interesting for an empirical / medical mind...

I shall look into this area more so some day in the future I would present as a more worthy adversary....

Regards

PurpleDOG UK

Regards Purple Dog UK - perhaps someday we will debate a subject I am not so knowledgeable and I will have to retreat.

If you do look into the subject to a greater extent, I hope someday you will realize that the risks of exposure to second hand smoke are indeed negligable. The thread on James Enstrom makes the point very clearly that his research has proven that particulate that is greater than 2.5 microns in size does not cause disease. Smoke has an average particulate size of 3.0 microns.

There are many things to fear in this world - the first and foremost should be winning the race to deliver the healthiest, best-preserved body to the undertaker because it means that...in the end, you really didn't manage to live your life!

Kiss a girl, get a job, climb a mountain, ride a bike, swim a lake etc etc - life isn't about avoiding risks, its about embracing them!

Tired of Control Freaks.