Smokers aren't the only ones that get cancer

Originally posted by guanyu
Full disclosure, I smoke and I love it.

But I agree with the OPs premise. It is like, you have lung cancer, were you a smoker? No? Must be second hand smoke.

Not true at all. That is not what is said (by those with facts). It's this, you have an X% chance to catch a certain disease. We will say 10%. Smokers have a 20% chance. Second hand smokers have a 15% chance. With these odds you are TWICE as likely to catch the disease if you smoke. But only half of smokers who get the disease get it from smoking. For second hand smokers, 33% of those who get the disease get it from second hand smoke. So no, no one with any clue says it is caused by smoke or second hand smoke. Why should I have an increased chance of death because someone else wants to participate in a harmful activity?

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
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

Can you show me this 40 years of research that says cervical cancer is 100% being caused by smoking?

Now that we have your rediculous claims which are lies out of the way, we can get to facts.

carcinogens from smoke can actually be found in cervical mucous. Those carcinogens damage cells and allow human papilloma virus, HPV, to infect cells of the cervix

Oh looky there, harmful chemicals DIRECTLY caused from smoking are found in the cervix. There is no one saying what you say they are saying. Much of why some people get cervical cancer and others do not is unknown. We do know risk factors, and smoking is one of them. Having sex and contracting the virus before the cervix is developed (18 for most women) is also a risk factor. By the way not all cervical cancer is caused by the virus, and last I checked the cause for the other 10% is really not well understood.

Originally posted by WP4YT

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)

Who cares if it was her choice? What does that have to do with the question asked and the answer given?

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
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

You're seriously going to tell someone their facts are wrong, and then make the claim that 75% of the population are smokers or former smokers? Let's start off with actual facts about COPD.

Smoking is directly responsible for approximately 80-90 percent of COPD (emphysema and chronic bronchitis) deaths.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. Tobacco Information and Prevention Source (TIPS). Tobacco Use in the United States. January 27, 2004

Now let's deal with smoking.
In 2009, there was an estimated 49.9 million adults who were former smokers(22%), and the 46.6 million current smokers(20.6%). This means 43% of the population are current or former smokers, not 75% which you claim. So using your 75% of COPD patients are current or former smokers STILL means smokers are much more likely to be effected. When you look at the actual facts, 43% of the population are smokers, and 80+% of COPD patients are smokers, there is a drastic difference.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Center for Health Statistics. National Health Interview Survey, 2009

reply to post by Jefferton


Stop driving your chemical spewing car and stop using electricity and heating your house. There are thousands of things in the air killing us. Most are from day to day living, not smoking.

Your self righteousness is not based in fact.

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by Pardon?

 

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

Maybe you should read your source again. Smoking makes the disease progress more rapidly. There most certainly is a difference in whether you are a smoker or not.

As to your last point, no one knows what caused any one particular case of COPD. That is not what anyone suggests, only people who twist what is actually said to promote a pro smoking agenda.

Let me clue you in. If 80% of COPD cases are caused by smoking, and we have 100 cases, we can say 80 of those cases are caused by smoking. Which 80 we can never determine, so no one particular case can be attricuted to smoking, but statistics can be used to determine how many of those 100 are.

reply to post by xNightwing


We all die, where is the proof it was from second hand smoke.

You are making an assumption.

reply to post by Dispo


That is your opinion.

What makes one study more valid than another, because people pick the one that suits their needs.

The study that the FDA, CDC and who base everything on has been largely discredited. All of this panic is from ONE study. Just like the climate change scandal.

Three years later, in 1992, EPA published its report, “Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking,” which claimed that SHS is a serious public-health problem, that it kills approximately 3,000 nonsmoking Americans each year from lung cancer, and that it is a Group A carcinogen (similar to benzene, asbestos, and radon).5 The report has been used by the tobacco-control movement and government agencies, including public-health departments, to justify the imposition of thousands of indoor smoking bans in public places. But the report’s conclusions are not supported by reliable scientific evidence.

It has been largely discredited and, in 1998, was legally vacated by a federal judge.

Even so, it was cited in the Surgeon General’s 2006 report on SHS, where then-Surgeon General Richard Carmona made the absurd claim that there is no risk-free level of exposure to SHS.

heartland.org...

The study was vacated by a federal judge and is still being used anyway.

Agenda agendas.....smoking, gun control, climate change.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


The studies invalidate your opinion, sorry.

Smoking is responsible for about 30 percent of all cancer deaths annually in the United States more than 155,000 each year.

So something is causing 70% of cancers and its not smoking.

"Lung cancer cases on the rise in non-smokers, study suggests"


Read more: www.foxnews.com...

Lung cancer rates are increasing among women and people who have never smoked, a new study finds.

Researchers from the French College of General Hospital Respiratory Physicians studied 7,610 lung cancer patients and 7,610 new cases of lung cancer in France in 2010.

The study found non-smokers made up 11.9 percent of the lung cancer cases, up from 7.9 percent in 2000. And the percentage of female lung cancer patients jumped from 16 percent to 24.4 percent over the decade.

Among women with a history of smoking, lung cancer rates barely changed over those 10 years, hovering around 65 percent.

Meanwhile, this figure decreased in men, while the rate of male lung cancer patients who had never smoked increased, the researchers said. Read more: www.foxnews.com...

Locher said more research is needed to understand what causes lung cancer in non-smokers,

but she pointed to exhaust fumes from diesel engines as one possible factor.

(The World Health Organization, WHO, recently classified diesel fumes as carcinogenic.) Read more: www.foxnews.com...

So this study will lead to a fight against Diesel engines, and on and on goes the madness.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


Read the study I posted earlier.

Second hand smoke is only equal to 10 cigarettes a year, of course that's if you are around it a lot.

That is a lot less than 1%.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


Don't throw stones.

The death report would certainly show drug overdose.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


Ignore the the poster "Heartland" and see who did the study, that is what matters.

Don't shoot the messenger.

You have me pulling out all the cliche sayings tonight.

In my opinion, from what this study shows, here is your cancer cause.
But no one will go after cars will they?


Automotive Exhaust Chemicals: disease causing effects


A short list of the likely pathogens in car exhaust:

Carbon Monoxide
Nitrogen dioxide
Sulphur dioxide
Suspended particles, PM-10 particles less than 10 microns in size.
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Polycyclic hydrocarbons

PAHs are a group of chemicals that are formed during the incomplete burning of coal, oil and gas, garbage, or other organic substances. PAHs can be man-made or occur naturally. There is no known use for most of these chemicals except for research purposes. A few of the PAHs are used in medicines and to make dyes, plastics, and pesticides. They are found throughout the environment in the air, water and soil.

As pure chemicals, PAHs generally exist as colorless, white, or pale yellow-green solids. Most PAHs are found as mixtures of two or more PAHs. They can occur in the air either attached to dust particles, or in soil or sediment as solids. They can also be found in substances such as crude oil, coal, coal tar pitch, creosote, road and roofing tar. Most PAHs do not dissolve easily in water, but some PAHs evaporate into the air. PAHs generally do not burn easily and they will last in the environment for months to years.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has determined that PAHs may be carcinogens. Several of the PAHs, including benzanthracene, benzopyrene, benzofluoranthene, benzofluoranthene, chrysene, dibenzanthracene, indenopyrene have caused tumors in laboratory animals when they ate them, when they were applied to their skin and when they breathed them in the air for long periods of time

Stephen J. Gislason MD. Air and Breathing. Alpha Education Books. 2011. ISBN 978-1-894787-73-4 Print Edition ISBN 978-1-894787-36-9 Digital Edition for Download




And I think we can all agree, we all have long time exposure to car exhaust, much more exposure time than to cigarettes. Plus the fact PAH are int the water and soil.

You watch the other hand.

reply to post by timetothink


James E. Enstrom and Geoffrey C. Kabat, "Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of Californians, 1960-98," British Medical Journal, May 2003

This is where the Heartland article came from.

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

Read the study I posted earlier.

Second hand smoke is only equal to 10 cigarettes a year, of course that's if you are around it a lot.

That is a lot less than 1%.

Maybe you should read the study I posted where it proves while the dose is far lower the effect is much greater than a similar dose given to a smoker. I don't care if is .0000001% if it increases heart disease rates by 30%.

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

Don't throw stones.

The death report would certainly show drug overdose.

Wrong, they are listed as poisoning. The drug overdose causes poisoning. But you agree Cocaine was the killer.

Second hand smoke causes numerous ailments which lead to death. Those ailments are listed on the death certificate, just like poisoning is for coc aine. We both know the actual cause of death though. The drug responsible for the symptoms.

Originally posted by timetothink
In my opinion, from what this study shows, here is your cancer cause.
But no one will go after cars will they?


Automotive Exhaust Chemicals: disease causing effects


A short list of the likely pathogens in car exhaust:

Carbon Monoxide
Nitrogen dioxide
Sulphur dioxide
Suspended particles, PM-10 particles less than 10 microns in size.
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Polycyclic hydrocarbons

PAHs are a group of chemicals that are formed during the incomplete burning of coal, oil and gas, garbage, or other organic substances. PAHs can be man-made or occur naturally. There is no known use for most of these chemicals except for research purposes. A few of the PAHs are used in medicines and to make dyes, plastics, and pesticides. They are found throughout the environment in the air, water and soil.

As pure chemicals, PAHs generally exist as colorless, white, or pale yellow-green solids. Most PAHs are found as mixtures of two or more PAHs. They can occur in the air either attached to dust particles, or in soil or sediment as solids. They can also be found in substances such as crude oil, coal, coal tar pitch, creosote, road and roofing tar. Most PAHs do not dissolve easily in water, but some PAHs evaporate into the air. PAHs generally do not burn easily and they will last in the environment for months to years.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has determined that PAHs may be carcinogens. Several of the PAHs, including benzanthracene, benzopyrene, benzofluoranthene, benzofluoranthene, chrysene, dibenzanthracene, indenopyrene have caused tumors in laboratory animals when they ate them, when they were applied to their skin and when they breathed them in the air for long periods of time

Stephen J. Gislason MD. Air and Breathing. Alpha Education Books. 2011. ISBN 978-1-894787-73-4 Print Edition ISBN 978-1-894787-36-9 Digital Edition for Download




And I think we can all agree, we all have long time exposure to car exhaust, much more exposure time than to cigarettes. Plus the fact PAH are int the water and soil.

You watch the other hand.

Here is your problem. Smokers and non smokers have equal exposure to car exhaust. Yet smokers and second hand smokers have mugh higher incidences of cancer. So your theory holds no water. Just because car exhaust causes cancer does not mean cigarettes dont, that is a logical fallacy.

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

Ignore the the poster "Heartland" and see who did the study, that is what matters.

Don't shoot the messenger.

You have me pulling out all the cliche sayings tonight.

edit on 23-2-2013 by timetothink because: (no reason given)

Link to me the actual study and I will look at it. I have linked studies that 100% prove second hand smoke is harmful. It was published in 2005 and is based on a meta-analysis of 29 studies.

The pooled relative risk of heart disease in never-smokers exposed to secondhand smoke was 1.31

www.theheart.org...

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by timetothink

 

James E. Enstrom and Geoffrey C. Kabat, "Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of Californians, 1960-98," British Medical Journal, May 2003

This is where the Heartland article came from.

This is what your study says.

0.75 (0.42 to 1.35) for lung cancer

1.27 (0.78 to 2.08) for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Then they claim there is no difference. I am sorry, but when the numbers show a difference and they claim there isn't one, it makes the rest of the research very hard to take serious. Especially when you realize the research was funded by the Tobacco companies.

Funding
The authors were partially funded by the Center for Indoor Air Research (funded
primarily from US tobacco companies). Both authors have received funding in the
past from the tobacco industry.’

www.ash.org.uk...

1. PROBLEMS WITH THE QUALITY AND VALIDITY OF THE DATA
(i) Misclassification of exposure

· Marital status in 1959 as a measure of exposure to secondhand smoke
over a 40 year period is invalid because virtually everyone during the
follow up period was exposed to secondhand smoke whether married
to a smoker or not.1

· Inability to distinguish people who were exposed to secondhand smoke
from those who were not at various points in the follow-up. The
resurvey of subjects who survived and provided information on
smoking in 1999 comprised only 7% of the original 9,619 life-long
smokers at enrolment and 15% of those followed after 1972.2

· Study participants on average were 52 years old at enrolment. Many
spouses who reported smoking in 1959 would have died, quit smoking
or ended the marriage during the 38 year follow-up, yet surviving
partners are still classified as ‘exposed’.3