You. Your Cigarettes. Radiation Worse Than Chernobyl. What Corporation’s DON’T want you to know.

page: 7
59
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by cushycrux
 


Cushycrux

LOL - the truth of the matter here is that you responded calling people "ignorant" who have at least put some thought into what is going on in the world and when challenged, you simply could not defend yourself.

The fact that you had so many posters on hand to show the old advertisements from the tobacco companies tells me that you are a professional or volunteer anti-smoker yourself and are on this site to post dis-information.

If you really want to see lies in advertising - try reading the anti-smoking websites sometimes.

I love the one where smokers supposedly accumulate so much tar in their lungs that their lungs are black and goopy - but still acceptable for transplant!

I love the one where smokers are supposedly responsible for asthma, emphesema etc. but notice how all of these diseases have increased as the smoking rate decreased.

You never did respond to the post I put up showing the there is less lung cancer in the countries where there is the most smokers.

We all are supposed to swallow whole that smoking causes cervical and naso-pharangeal cancers - until someone discovered it was really HPV.

I will accept that you yield the field to those who know more about the subject then you do!

TIRED OF CONTROL FREAKS


Nice try.




posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 11:37 AM
link   
A moderate smoker that smokes about 5 to 10 cigarettes a day. A heavy smoker one pack or more a day.

Ok. Well... When you smoke , your lungs get a layer of mucus which you cough up mostly. This same layer of slime allso prevents other harmful particles to settle in the lungs, like asbestos for example.

Radiation is deadly yes but a prolonged exposure will actually make your immune system work a lot harder at preventing and fighting mutations inside the body.
Scientists were surprised to find that people that live in a high background radiation area were have fewer people with radiation related illnesses then people in a low background area..

Also... Nuture took back the dead zone at Tsernobyl and it is now an area with the most protective species in this part of the world thriving. A result far away from expected.

I'm not saying smoking is good or bad, but face it. We are all gonna die anyway, Besides How many of those luncancer victims were smokers ? The numbers of non smokers among them is pretty hig, But I know second hand smoke. BS

The amount of radiation, chemicals and pure toxic substances released in the environment every day is massive and has been going on for at least 150 years by now.

By the way I've had vaccin shot just yesterday with a mercury compound. Can't be that good for you.

I think they found a pretty good scape goat in smoking where they have been able to cover up other causes of disease.



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Sinter Klaas
 


Yes, something's going to get you regardless of how healthy or careful you are in life about what you're exposed to and smoking exposes you to a much higher risk in multiple ways even without the radiation factor. The thing is, it's completely optional whether you start smoking or not and I wish I'd been armed with much more info on it before I started about 50 years ago. I stopped over a year back and, touch wood, I have no smoking related health problems apart from what the doc told me was early warning signs of emphysema but maybe that was due to me smoking good quality RYO tobacco all that time although it hasn't helped some friends and relatives who've all passed away from smoking related problems like lung cancer or chronic emphysema.

I, as an ex-smoker, know all too well how effectively the addicted brain can work its way around the most obvious evidence against smoking in order to guarantee the supply of what's possibly the most addictive drug commonly available. At present I have a similar status to an alcoholic AA member IE just 1 smoke and I'd be gone again and my brain is always at me to 'just have one, it can't hurt' even after this long on the wagon. My dad used to tell me the same thing after he hadn't smoked for over 20 years (still wanted a smoke every day).

While it's true that we're exposed to naturally occurring heavy radioactive isotopes all the time, smoking is probably the most effective way of getting them directly into the bloodstream where they can do the most damage (alpha emitters in particular). There's also the proven connection between vitamin C uptake and smoking but that's a separate issue although just as significant in terms of health risks of smoking.

Yeah, I know, ex smokers are the worst when it comes to campaigning against smoking but we have the first-hand experience



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 04:50 PM
link   
Here's the question that's probably on most people's minds: Why can these corporations put harmful chemicals into tobacco, directly killing hundreds of thousands of people every single year, and not get in trouble for it? Imagine if there were chemicals intentionally added into milk that made it addictive and gave people intestinal cancer (Terrible analogy, I know), the company responsible would be all over the news and sued within 48 hours.

So how can these people get away with it? Putting a warning saying "you can die from using this" is enough? They are literally selling a product that kills 400,000 people every single year, and 99% of those deaths are COMPLETELY avoidable. Why don't they just stop selling cigarettes and go from town to town brutally murdering random people? Oh yeah, there's no profit in that. That still doesn't explain why our politicians are comfortable with hundreds of thousands of American citizens dying from something that could be prevented.

FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND PEOPLE. That is SO MANY dead people, and that's just in America sadly.
edit on 5-4-2011 by TupacShakur because: Cigarettes suck



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


TupacShakur

The tobacco companies are NOT getting away with putting chemicals in tobacco that "kill" 400,000 people per year!

1. The 4,000 chemicals in tobacco smoke that you see quoted are the by-products of combustion
2. Most of the "chemicals" and additives that are put in tobacco consist of sugar, rum, flavoring agents, ammonia to change the pH so that the nicotene is absorbed in the lungs and not in the mucous membranes of the mouth.
3. I live in Canada - it has been illegal here for about 20 years to put anything in tobacco except for the ammonia.

As for the 400,000 so-called deaths caused per year....those are theoretical deaths calculated by a computer called SAMMEC based on some very very shaky studies. There are no actual bodies connected to those deaths.

When a person has lung cancer or heart disease or any other so-called smokers disease, there is currently no way of pinpointing the cause of the disease.

For example - lung cancer has over 40 known or suspected "causes" of which smoking is only one of them. However, if over the course of a lifetime, if you smoked more than 100 cigarettes over your whole life, if you get lung cancer, the cause of your death will be attributed to smoking.

So if you were 13 and experimented with smoking behind the barn but quit smoking when you are 15 and then lived until you were 75 - the CAUSE of your lung cancer is said to be cigarettes that you smoked over 50 years ago. Never mind if you worked in an asbestos mine or a coal mine or with welding fumes for 30 years of your life. You are a SMOKER and the lung cancer is your punishment for not having obeyed the edicts of the nanny state!

The word smoking-related disease does not mean that never-smokers don't get those diseases. It simply means that a smoker got the disease and therefore it must have been CAUSED by smoking. A never-smoker with the very same diagnosis does not have a smoking-related disease.

TIRED OF CONTROL FREAKS



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks
 


I have to disagree with you, are you telling me that completely unaltered tobacco would still kill the same amount of people that altered tobacco does? There's no way, and my inner conspiracy theorist always told me that the chemicals they put into the cigarettes, whether they admit it or not, are there to make cigarettes physically addictive so that people will buy more, thus making the tobacco giants even more money.

And sure the statistic may not be 100% accurate because it could include deaths from other factors, but what statistic out there is 100% accurate? I mean there's always room for human error, you can't deny that hundreds of thousands of people die each year from cigarettes. I'm going to be extremely lenient here, let's say that 50% of the deaths counted towards that stat are actually non-tobacco related. That's still 200,000 American citizens that are killed from cigarettes, that really doesn't make me feel any better about the tobacco industry.



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


ok TupacShakur

Lets play a game - this game has been played before and I will provide the answer that was provided by health professionals then (and in the house of parliment) - however just for you -lets play the game again.

So you think that the statistic that there are an estimated 200,000, 400,000 or the "new" statistic that is currently being used of 500,000 deaths refer to real deaths.

My lord - that is a veritable epidemic of deaths - worse than H1NI - for which the UN rolled out a vaccine to prevent. Surely then it would be easy to do something very very simple.

Here is the game: Name three people whose deaths have been proven to be a disease CAUSED by smoking.

You can't point to a fire death. Just a death where the disease was proven to be CAUSED by smoking. Not linked to... not associated with...not "may be due to".

But the names of only 3 people whose disease was proven to be CAUSED by smoking.

Surely you must be able to name 3 people. Why at only 200,000 deaths per year, there have be 2 million deaths caused by smoking in the last decade. Surely you must know of at least 3 names.

TIRED OF CONTROL FREAKS



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks
 


I don't really spend my spare time scouring the net for stories about people dying from something that...kills people.
And I don't think I'm old enough to know that many pack-a-day smokers who are at risk of getting lung cancer, so no I don't know any names off the top of my head.

Name three people who have died from brain cancer? Surely you know at least three people who have died from it? No? Brain cancer does not kill people.

I don't understand your logic.

-Ok I re-read your post, and I think what you're trying to say is that nobody can immediately die from smoking cigarettes. You're saying that smoking itself cannot kill somebody right? A person cannot overdose from cigarettes as far as I know, and I can't really think of any other deaths directly caused by smoking itself, maybe suffocation? Too much carbon monoxide? Accidentally choking to death on a lit cigarette? But, they can still die from the long-term effects of smoking cigarettes, so, smoking kills people.
edit on 5-4-2011 by TupacShakur because: Confusion



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


No TupacShakur

I am asking a very simple question here and a very direct one

You say that even if the statistics are not quite accurate, smoking kills hundreds of thousands of people per year. I say that all the "estimated" deaths CAUSED by smoking are theoretical deaths and that smoking has not been proven to be the cause of a single death.

So the question is a very simple, clear, direct question:

Name 3 people whose disease was proven to be caused by smoking?

If you name someone with lung cancer - provide some evidence that the cause of the lung cancer was smoking. There are 40 known causes of lung cancer including breathing ordinary air. Provide me with the name of someone who died of lung cancer where there is proof that smoking CAUSED the lung cancer and that it wasn't just a disease of age or of exposure to ordinary uban air or exposure to radon

You say hundreds of thousands of people die of smoking yearly! And its not a statistic, its real deaths.

Surely with so many deaths caused by smoking - you must be able to name 3 of them? surely just over the course of your lifetime - you must have personally known 3 people whose disease was CAUSED by smoking

TIRED OF CONTROL



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 08:50 PM
link   
TupacShakur

I apologise. I re-read your post as well.

"Ok I re-read your post, and I think what you're trying to say is that nobody can immediately die from smoking cigarettes. You're saying that smoking itself cannot kill somebody right? A person cannot overdose from cigarettes as far as I know, and I can't really think of any other deaths directly caused by smoking itself, maybe suffocation? Too much carbon monoxide? Accidentally choking to death on a lit cigarette? But, they can still die from the long-term effects of smoking cigarettes, so, smoking kills people. "

ok - first of all - lets see if we can agree on one simple fact, just one

Do you agree that there is no disease that happens to a smoker that does not also happen to a non-smoker?

For example: Smokers get lung cancer but so do never-smokers. Even never-smokers who married another never-smoker and who worked in a hospital and was never exposed in any serious fashion to second hand smoke?

Smokers get heart attacks - so do never-smokers

Smokers get bladder cancer - so do never smokers.

In short - there is no disease that is directly caused by smoking and only smoking and therefore you are safe from getting this disease if you never smoke.

Do you agree?

TIRED OF CONTROL FREAKS



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 09:01 PM
link   


smoking has not been proven to be the cause of a single death.


You win the stupidest statement of the year award! It's only April, but I'm sure you'll win, so I'll give you the prize now.
That was me throwing up in my lap, because my faith in the intelligence of mankind is shattered.

“Ninety-five per cent of lung cancer deaths are due directly to cigarette smoking", according to Dr Desmond Carney, oncologist at University College, Dublin, and secretary general of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.

And I'm 16, don't expect me to know dozens of pack-a-day smokers who have holes in their throats and oxygen tanks and all that fun stuff.



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks
 


Yes I understand that, but just because smoking cigarettes does not create some new, unique disease which kills only smokers does not mean that smoking cigarettes does not cause people to die.



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 09:07 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


I am sorry TupacShakur - I didn't realize that you were only 16. I will try to go easy on you and see if I can bring you to a logical conclusion.

Would you first answer the question I asked.

Do you agree that there is no disease that only smokers get and someone who has never directly smoked would never get?

If I jump off a 10 story building directly onto concrete - I am going to die.

If 1000 people jumped off a 10 story building directly onto concrete - they are also all going to die

Is that correct? That a fall from a 10 story building would cause the death of just about every person who jumped?

TIRED OF CONTROL FREAKS



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks
 


Sorry TupacShakur - so we do agree. There is no new disease that is unique to tobacco smoking.

Good you are with me so far!

Now do you also get that disease often have multiple risk factors. I mentioned that lung cancer has at least 40 known causes.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks

Your question: "Do you agree that there is no disease that only smokers get and someone who has never directly smoked would never get?"

My response:"but just because smoking cigarettes does not create some new, unique disease which kills only smokers does not mean that smoking cigarettes does not cause people to die."

edit on 5-4-2011 by TupacShakur because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


OK - I understand your point. But I want to stop and think very carefully about the word that you used "CAUSES"

I have been putting this word in capital letters for a reason.

I previously used the example that when I fall from a 10 story building, directly onto concrete, I would most likely die.

Would you agree that the CAUSE of my death was the fall onto the concrete?

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 09:48 PM
link   
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks
 


Yes, just like the cause of lung cancer in 95% of cases is smoking cigarettes. So I guess the cause of the cause of the death is smoking cigarettes.



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


Now you are jumping ahead TupacShakur and you are drawing conclusions with no facts. I am trying to lead you into critical thinking here.

This discussion started because you said that smoking CAUSES at least 400,000 deaths per year. I said that the statistics you quoted were theoretic deaths. Simple mathematics created by a computer called SAMMEC.

What SAMMEC does is mathematically calculate the risk factors of smoking and offers the conclusion that mathematically smoking may contribute to death by disease and theorizes that 400,000 deaths per year could be attributed to smoking.

You disagreed and insisted that the bodies were real.

If 1000 people jumped from a 10 story building, than I am quite positive that there will be 1000 dead bodies with real funerals and tombstones and everything. And the CAUSE of their death would be traumatic injuries due to a fall.

Can you say with absolute certainty that if 1000 people smoke, then 1000 people will get a disease attributable to smoking? That there will be 1000 funerals and death certificates verying that their disease was CAUSED by smoking?

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 10:45 PM
link   
TupacShakur

I don't know where you got the notion that 95 % of lung cancers are caused by smoking because several very large studies have shown that never smokers get lung cancer too?

However, if you wish to insist on this little piece of propaganda - please show me the proof that smoking causes any specific case of lung cancer. Exactly what is different about one case of lung cancer from another that allows anyone to determine what caused it.

TIRED OF CONTROL FREAKS



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 10:47 PM
link   
The Radiation in the Cigarettes is what causes the cancer. The radiation from Fukushima will cause more cancer, and we will literally be forced to rely on the system even more for our survival (hospital visits, pharmaceuticals, etc.)





new topics

top topics



 
59
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join