Oesophageal cancer 'doubles in British men'

Has anyone taken a moment to think about the milk and meat we consumed in the 80's thanks to the fallout of Chernobyl?

I think that is where you will find the link. Although it will no doubt be denied by those who have the figures.

Besides, the taxation from those who purchase tobacco is what is propping up the healthcare system.

If everyone in the UK stopped smoking tomorrow, the healthcare system would collapse, there would be no money to pay for the specialist drugs. The NHS in the UK NEEDS people to smoke tobacco and drink alcohol.

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


Ive been led to believe that some oesophagus cancers may also be caused by drinking really hot drinks and eating food that has not cooled down properly. The skin is very tender and when hot substances are swallowed they burn the area.

After many years of this occurring with repeated internal burns on the epithelium which is composed of nonkeratinized stratified squamous epithelium, one will slowly develop cancerous cells due to the repeated burns and damage.

I would reckon if it burns your finger when you touch it, dont drink or eat it. If the beverage for example will scold the skin on a leg and cause redness or a blister, yet that very same drink before it fell was being consumed then it only makes sense that it has burnt the tender epithelium of the oesophagus

And again - not a single person acknowledges the issues of my post.

How does oesophogeal cancer double in the face of smoking rates that have been falling for 35 years?

Did public health and anti-smoking groups lie when they claimed that such cancers were 80 to 90 % caused by smoking?

TIRED OF CONTROL FREAKS

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
And again - not a single person acknowledges the issues of my post.

How does oesophogeal cancer double in the face of smoking rates that have been falling for 35 years?

....because, like many diseases of civilization, cancer is a multifactorial disease. In case you haven't paid attention, obesity in the UK has hit epidemic proportions over the past 1-2 decades. We, in the U.S. experienced it a little sooner. I don't know for sure, but I'd bet if you look at the numbers, the U.S. experienced the same thing.

Did public health and anti-smoking groups lie when they claimed that such cancers were 80 to 90 % caused by smoking?

Probably not. But, it's easy to generate those numbers if you know how to manipulate study methods. Are those numbers possibly exagerated, yeah. Completely wrong? No.

Calm down a little bit. Are you seriously implying that smoking cigarettes is NOT causing cancer?

Reply to DevolutionEvolved:

Why yes...yes I am saying that smoking does not cause throat cancer. Now go ahead and prove me wrong!

Tired of Control Freaks

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


Smoking causes irritation and damage to the lining of the airway. As damage continues, goblet cells increase in size and number to coat the cells that line the airway with more mucus. When the production of mucus isn't enough to keep up with the damage....we end up with cell injury. They stop functioning properly and die. They're then replaced by new cells which end up going through the same cycle. Eventually, the damaging effects cause a malignant transformation in ONE cell will not die, and tumor growth ensues.

I'm sorry....I haven't studied the history or the studies involved with this RARE, and do understand it's rare, disease. The epidemiological evidence seems to point towards a combination of cigarette smoking AND drinking. Both independently show a negligible effect on tumor growth.

But, most of the studies ARE observational, implying that there is no real arrow of causation. The lab studies of cancer would suggest that smoking does indeed have a direct, independent association with esophageal cancer incidence.

Edit to add: If you're arguing that commercialized cigarette smoke is safe and doesn't cause cancer...you should probably stop posting.

[edit on 8-9-2010 by DevolutionEvolvd]

And why should I stop posting? Please explain.

Now....one thing about cigarette smoking. It irritates the lining of the throat and lungs, as you have clearly pointed out and I agree. Production of mucous is a body defense mechanism. Mucous traps particles that we inhale and as a result, we can easily cough them out.

So how does that cause cancer?

You can't brainwash a disease. Both lung cancer and oesophogeal cancer are INCREASING 35 years after smoking in the general population started decreasing.

For centuries, tobacco has been considered a healing herb. As you yourself have stated, observational studies are extremely limited in their usage.

So what evidence do you have that proves smoking causes cancer. I have real world evidence that it does NOT. When disease rates rise 35 years after smoking rates decrease, that is pretty clear evidence.

TIRED OF CONTROL FREAKS

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks

High acid diets...a prominent feature of processed foods sources.

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


Once again.....

Cancer is a MULTIFACTORIAL disease. While less smoking has decreased incidence, other factors have increased it. Like....Vitamin D deficiency and poor dietary choices.

Now, you may have a point if you constructed your proposal a little better. (like smoking organic tobacco that is rolled by the smoker)

Yes, you should stop posting if you think commercialized cigarettes are safe. It's beyond ridiculous to think that smoking DOESN'T cause lung cancer.

Well the illustrious source has spoken - without providing one iota of proof - smoking CAUSES cancer. And what proof do you have the the incidence of either throat cancer or lung cancer DECREASED with the smoking rate but INCREASED due to some other factor?

If only an idiot would question whether smoking causes cancer or not, then I am confident that you will have absolutely no problem finding the scientific proof of your statement. It must be close to hand as EVERYONE KNOWS it.

Please would you let me on on the secret?

TIRED OF CONTROL FREAKS