Smokers aren't the only ones that get cancer

page: 3
9
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jefferton
Your fun habit is killing other people aside from yourself, faster even. I will never pitty disusting chemical spewing smokers.
edit on 21-2-2013 by Jefferton because: (no reason given)


Presumably you are a non-meat eater...if not, you really do have to familiarise yourself with the damage being done to the ozone layer as a result of the 'meat-chain'...then rethink, who is killing who with what...

A99
edit on 21-2-2013 by akushla99 because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Clara Cowell, British Woman, Quits Smoking At Age 102



“The secret to mum’s long life is a cigarette and a cup of tea with whiskey. That and hard work and poverty," Cowell's daughter, Lynda Fowler, told the Post.


Sorry, I couldn't help myself!


www.huffingtonpost.com...



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 08:06 PM
link   
reply to post by RooskiZombi
 


So you fell for the old lie "smoking makes cancer "go" faster.

Cervical cancer is one hundred percent caused by a virus. This is a fact despite the 40 years of research that supposedly "proves" it is caused by smoking.

I will apologise as soon as you find one study, just one, that proves that smoking makes cancer "go faster".

otherwise, I will refuse to believe yet another lie!

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 09:33 PM
link   
My grandfather worked in a coal mine, in the engine room of a ww II battleship, did asbestos work from the 50's till the mid 70's all while smoking a few packs of camels a day. He died in his 90's as an accomplished handsome man, with hair I still envy



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Carreau
 


You don't die from "2nd hand smoke", you die from the diseases the smoke causes.........

edit on 21-2-2013 by WaterBottle because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Carreau
reply to post by Jefferton
 


Strange how not a single person has ever hand "second hand smoke" on their death certificate as cause of death isn't it?

Name people that have or stop spreading lies. Death certificates are available to the public.
edit on 21-2-2013 by Carreau because: (no reason given)


www.canada.com...

There you go. Woman worked in a smoke filled restaurant for 40 years. Died of lung cancer. Doctor told her she had a smoker's tumor, but never smoked herself.



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Cusp

Originally posted by Carreau
reply to post by Jefferton
 


Strange how not a single person has ever hand "second hand smoke" on their death certificate as cause of death isn't it?

Name people that have or stop spreading lies. Death certificates are available to the public.
edit on 21-2-2013 by Carreau because: (no reason given)


www.canada.com...

There you go. Woman worked in a smoke filled restaurant for 40 years. Died of lung cancer. Doctor told her she had a smoker's tumor, but never smoked herself.


Was her choice. Would you work in a garage with running cars 40 hours a week?
edit on 21-2-2013 by WP4YT because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 05:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Jefferton
 


I was once one of those disgusting chemical spewing smokers you speak of.After 30 years of a pack a day,I finally decided I had had enough.I quit cold turkey.Now I had tried to quit previously,more than once,but it never stuck.
Eventually I reached the point where I got winded just opening a new pack.I couldn't watch a comedy on TV or listen to a friend tell a joke for fear of having a coughing fit if I started to laugh.One day,three and a half years ago,I woke up one morning and went to the store to buy a pack and the price had gone up to almost five bucks a pack.I haven't had a cigarette since and have never felt better.



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 05:21 AM
link   
So, lets assume these studies are actually correct, and smoking really does increase the chances of cancer. You non smokers should be extremely grateful for us smokers as our higher health insurance costs actually help healthy non smokers far more than those that smoke. At least thats what this says
[url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9359212/Obese-and-smokers-less-of-a-burden-on-the-NHS-than-the-healthy-who-live-longer-report.html[/ url]
although it does focus more on obesity. So in my opinion if your a healthy non smoker, and a smart person, then why are you in here arguing against smoking? We live, enjoy our lives, then die quickly and happy. While those that dont smoke get to live long lives at the end of which they require massive amounts of assistance and eventually cant even take care of themselves, and are provided for by the extra taxes and health insurance costs of the smokers.

Just thought i would throw this out there to add to what i consider to be a completely pointless argument, since with all the "proof" out there the simple fact is if someone is still smoking your not likely to change their mind or opinions about it
huh, oh well, copy and paste to see the article
edit on 22-2-2013 by MasterOfTheDamned because: link didnt work right
edit on 22-2-2013 by MasterOfTheDamned because: same problem



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 05:37 AM
link   
It always amazes me that some people still try to defend smoking on the grounds that other things cause cancer or that “its not really that bad for you” or because its their choice and doesn’t affect anyone else.

To the all smokers, go to your local hospital and ask them to take you up to the repertory oncology ward and till me how many of the patients are or where smokers, the statistics say the number is between 80-90%. While you are their go and find a non-smoker, probably a member of staff the same age as you and of roughly equal physically then have them x-ray their lungs, do a FVC, FEC and exercise tolerance text and so on. Next compare their results with yours and I can guarantee you there will be a marked difference in your lung function and theirs.

Its just a medical fact, smoking is bad for you and as a result you are more likely to develop smoking related illnesses that cost the health service money and that is why the government tried to demonise it. If nicotine were discovered tomorrow it would become a class A (UK system) banned drug overnight because of how addictive it is and the horrible side effects that it has.

Now if you want to smoke, go for it, I am not going to say that “Smoking should be banned” because if you are intelligent enough to post on the internet them I am sure you are intelligent enough to decide if you want to smoke yourself into a grave.



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 07:49 AM
link   
reply to post by The Cusp
 


The story of Heather Crowe is far more complex than you would believe. There was a lot of political interference in her case to grant her WSIB. This has never been done in any other case before the WSIB including by fire fighters who got oral and brain cancer from the smoke they inhaled during their careers.

Heather Crowe joined an anti-smoking group BEFORE she was ever diagnosed with lung cancer. That is how she personally knew many prominent anti-smokers. At the time that she developed lung cancer, the anti-smokers were trying to introduce smoking bans. They advertised for and interviewed several candidates to be the face of the campaign. Heather Crowe was one of several so interviewed.

While on WSIB, Heather worked on the campaign with anti-smokers called "Physicicans for Smoke-Free Canada" as a volunteer. When WSIB cut her off, she became a paid employee.

Now as to the question of whether second-hand smoke CAUSES lung cancer.

There are clear reasons why you cannot proved that Heather Crowe got lung cancer from second hand smoke

The only evidence that active smoking itself CAUSES lung cancer is provided by epidimiology. This is the soft science of observation. That is - you observe two groups of people and collect data to try an prove an association. Correlation is NOT causation. That is - epidimiology is only supposed to be used to identify associations to direct hard research. There are too many sources of bias and confounding factors to use epidimiology to prove causation with epidimiology. In short, once an association is identified, a hypothesis is formed (smoking is associated with lung cancer) and hard scientists then set about trying to prove or disprove the hypotheses. one example of a confounding factor could be the fact that tobacco companies used asbestos in cigarette filters for a couple of decades before it was known that asbestos caused lung cancer. So did smokers get lung cancer because of smoking or because of asbestos?

Despite over 60 years of hard research, there has never been found a way to differentiate the causes of lung cancer (except for asbestos). Scientists have identified that smokers tend to get a type of lung cancer called squamis (non-small cell) lung cancer and adenocarcinoma tends to occur in never-smokers. However this is not a hard and fast rule because never-smokers get non-small cell lung cancer and smokers also get adenocarcinomas so this difference cannot be used to conclusively prove that smoking CAUSES lung cancer.

Now - after 60 years of anti-smoking campaigning - lets us take a look at what has happened with lung cancer.

www.forces.org...

In the 60th of the anti-smoking stampede



Lung cancer is on the rise, and has been so right since 1950. While cigarette consumption has dropped to almost half since 1981, lung cancer cases have almost doubled.


There is a link in the article that will allow you to examine the American Cancer Societies report and see the numbers for yourself.

And in anti-smoking heaven (Canada)

www.ctvnews.ca...

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 09:56 AM
link   
the cleaner you live the more prone to ilness your going to be .



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 10:20 AM
link   
Does the Gov really want you to quit, they seem to be doing pretty well on collecting tax on those cancer sticks. 20 billion plus in revenue, I'd actually say smoke more.

My only issue is that I now have to pay for your healthcare at the end of your life, and if you die from lung cancer that is not a cheap end to your life. But then you get to pay for my failing liver because i drank to much, and I ate bad as well, maybe I will just press on and enjoy my life and you do the same.



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by mykingdomforthetruth
 


sorry but i have to correct you here, living cleaner is actually much healthier. using antibacterial wipes, sprays and other cleaners on a daily basis other than to wash your hands, however, is a very different story. I'm guessing that that is what you actually meant, but it read as though being a slob and leaving half eaten plates of food lying around your bedroom only to eventually be burried under a mountain of dirty clothes is healthy.



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Carreau
reply to post by Jefferton
 


Strange how not a single person has ever hand "second hand smoke" on their death certificate as cause of death isn't it?

Name people that have or stop spreading lies. Death certificates are available to the public.
edit on 21-2-2013 by Carreau because: (no reason given)


Not really,
Do you get people who have died of heart disease or diabetes related incidents etc with "fat and lazy" on their certificate?
Didn't think so.



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Pardon?
 


Dear Pardon

First of all - your "facts" are wrong! Smokers or ex-smokers DO NOT account for 80 - 90 % of COPD.

copd.about.com...

Smokers and ex-smokers account for about 75 % of COPD cases. What an astounding surprise considering that almost 75 % of the population are either smokers or ex-smokers.

Now read the rest of the fact sheet for the risk factors of COPD. Do you think smokers and ex-smokers are immune to those factors? Why is it that when a smoker gets a disease - why surprise surprise - it was "caused" by smoking". But when a never-smoker gets the same disease - well there are other factors.

The medical and scientific community defines a smoker as someone who smoked only 100 cigarettes in their entire lifetime. So if you tried a few cigarettes behind the barn when you were 14 and get COPD sixty years later - why, by gosh - it was smoking what done it.

Notice what else is said in this fact sheet.

he answer to this question is yes and no. Once diagnosed, the disease runs the same, irreversible course; however, in never-smokers, the disease may be somewhat unrecognizable because doctors won't think to look for it. The disease will also progress more rapidly in those who continue to smoke as opposed to those who don't.




Does COPD Affect Never-Smokers Differently? The answer to this question is yes and no. Once diagnosed, the disease runs the same, irreversible course; however, in never-smokers, the disease may be somewhat unrecognizable because doctors won't think to look for it. The disease will also progress more rapidly in those who continue to smoke as opposed to those who don't.

THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN THE DISEASE OR IN THE COURSE OF THE DISEASE OR THE TREATMENT - whether the person is a smoker or not?

So please explain to me - how does anybody know what caused COPD in any particular person?

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by wantsome

Originally posted by Jefferton
Your fun habit is killing other people aside from yourself, faster even. I will never pitty disusting chemical spewing smokers.
edit on 21-2-2013 by Jefferton because: (no reason given)
So I'm killing people who happen to catch a whiff of my cigarette smoke faster then myself even though I'm inhailing smoke directely all day long? I don't get it the logic seems flawed to me?
edit on 21-2-2013 by wantsome because: (no reason given)


The person you replied to may not be in possession of all the facts, but they are much closer to the truth than you.

Even though second hand smoke is generally a dose of about 1% as large as active smoking ......

Indeed, the effects of secondhand smoke are, on average, 80% to 90% as large as those from active smoking


secondhand smoke increases the risk of coronary heart disease by approximately 30%


Circulation May 23, 2005
www.theheart.org...
www.medicineonline.com...

You can do some research there if you are interested. Most smokers are not interested, and do not care that their habit is killing others. I hope you are not in that group.



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Carreau
reply to post by luciddream
 


Could you provide a link to anyone that has died of second hand smoke and is listed on their death certificate?

The anti-smoking crowd claim 55,000-63,000 die each year from this, just 3 names for any year would be great.


And the ignorance is alive and well. Do you think Cocaine kills people? Show me one death certificate that lists Cocaine as the cause of death. Seriously, the stupidity of some people is simply amazing.



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Carreau
reply to post by Dispo
 


My request for proof that second hand smoke has killed 50,000 people or more per year is valid, and you also have not shown any examples.

Scientific Evidence Shows Secondhand Smoke Is No Danger


PDF with footnotes

Dave Hitt's search for proof

Emails


Dr. Michael Siegel

Link

The American Lung Association can not provide anyone who died as a result of second hand smoke. If they could they would.


You link a webpage by Heartland? Seriously? There is zero science in the article you posted. Look at my post a few posts up. I linked an actual peer reviewed scientific journal and actual facts. You lose. You should never read anything on Heartland.



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by FriedBabelBroccoli

Originally posted by Dispo
reply to post by Carreau
 


None of those sources are credible.

Edit: Sorry, let me clarify why I said your point is invalid. Basically, it doesn't work like that. We can show that second hand smoke negatively affects general health, causes or exacerbates specific diseases etc, but second hand smoke does not cause death. Smoking does not cause death. Smoke can lead to diseases which cause death, but asking for a death certificate which says "second hand smoke" is silly because that would be like asking for a death certificate that says "driving" in place of the actual injury that caused the death.

A meta analysis of second hand smoke on children and foetuses: bmjopen.bmj.com...
Second hand smoke adversely affects people throughout life.

A study on the size of the airways in developing children due to pollution and second hand smoke: europepmc.org...
Second hand smoke makes your breathing passageways smaller.

A meta analysis on the relationship between second hand smoke and meningitis: www.biomedcentral.com...
Second hand smoke in the home doubles the incidence of meningococcal disease.
edit on 21-2-2013 by Dispo because: (no reason given)


The source isn't valid? Did you even read it?



EPA Study Soundly Rejected

In November 1995 after a 20-month study, the Congressional Research Service released a detailed analysis of the EPA report that was highly critical of EPA's methods and conclusions. In 1998, in a devastating 92-page opinion, Federal Judge William Osteen vacated the EPA study, declaring it null and void. He found a culture of arrogance, deception, and cover-up at the agency.

Osteen noted, "First, there is evidence in the record supporting the accusation that EPA 'cherry picked' its data. ... In order to confirm its hypothesis, EPA maintained its standard significance level but lowered the confidence interval to 90 percent. This allowed EPA to confirm its hypothesis by finding a relative risk of 1.19, albeit a very weak association. ... EPA cannot show a statistically significant association between [SHS] and lung cancer."

The judge added, "EPA publicly committed to a conclusion before the research had begun; adjusted established procedure and scientific norms to validate its conclusion; and aggressively utilized its authority to disseminate findings to establish a de facto regulatory scheme to influence public opinion."

In 2003 a definitive paper on SHS and lung cancer mortality was published in the British Medical Journal. It is the largest and most detailed study ever reported. The authors studied more than 35,000 California never-smokers over a 39-year period and found no statistically significant association between exposure to SHS and lung cancer mortality.


British Medical Journal & WHO conclude secondhand smoke "health hazard" claims are greatly exaggerated
www.bmj.com...

Just saying . . .


SHS have a 30% increased chance for Heart Disease .. just saying. Lung cancer is not the end all be all for smoking ailments. Does it matter what SHS causes, dead is dead.





top topics
 
9
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join