Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Smokers aren't the only ones that get cancer

page: 7
9
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 06:19 AM
link   
I don't smoke, I use to smoke pot but now I brew it with tea once in a while when i need to relieve stress. I have a 7 year old son who changed my life when he was born. I don't let him near smokers, I don't let him see smokers, I don't want him to even smell it, when we walk past smokers outside the mall I tell him to hold his breath and I make sure the smokers hear me too. Some of his friends have parents that do smoke, I don't let him visit these smokers because they smoke. I put tobacco addiction right up there with heroin as they both have the same effect and are both just as addictive. Smokers are a dieing off, someday we will look back at smokers and realize how stupid a habit it smoking is.




posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 06:37 AM
link   
reply to post by wissy
 


Wissy

You are raising a fearful child. Of course that is natural as you are appear to be a fearful person.

Let me set you straight on a little fact. Babyboomers were exposed to cigarette smoke at a time when the incidence of smoking was at an historic high in the 1960s. Boomers also grew up to be smokers themselves.

Since then - there has been an 800 % increase in the incidence of childhood astha

When boomers were born, our expected lifespan was between 60 and 65 years of age. Instead we are living to somewhere between 75 and 85.

We are the healthiest, longest lived generation the world has ever known. But scientists are already predicting that your kid won't be so lucky.

You don't know the difference between a heroin addict and a smoker? When was it last reported that a smoker broke into your home or went into crime and prostitution to feed their habit? When did a smoker ever put a baby in the oven due to intoxication?

You are an idiot! And not only are you stupid, you are damned by the very same death that you wish on smokers.

Guess who gets the most lung cancer now - that is right - WOMAN who have NEVER-SMOKED.

www.ctvnews.ca...
Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks
 


OccamsRazor4

Please look at the results reported in the Enstrom study




Results For participants followed from 1960 until 1998 the age adjusted relative risk (95% confidence interval) for never smokers married to ever smokers compared with never smokers married to never smokers was 0.94 (0.85 to 1.05) for coronary heart disease, 0.75 (0.42 to 1.35) for lung cancer, and 1.27 (0.78 to 2.08) for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among 9619 men, and 1.01 (0.94 to 1.08), 0.99 (0.72 to 1.37), and 1.13 (0.80 to 1.58), respectively, among 25 942 women. No significant associations were found for current or former exposure to environmental tobacco smoke before or after adjusting for seven confounders and before or after excluding participants with pre-existing disease. No significant associations were found during the shorter follow up periods of 1960-5, 1966-72, 1973-85, and 1973-98.


for coronary heart disease - the result was 0.94 or - 6 % but the confidence interval (numbers in the brackets) are 85 % to 105 %. This would mean that there was a decrease in heart disease by 6 % for never smokers exposed to second hand smoke!

Do you believe that? Are you still thinking that 5 % is clinically significant.

And for pulmonary disease for woman - the average is 13 % but the confidence interval is between 0.80 and 1.58. In short the true value is somewhere below one and therefore protective of pulmonary disease or 58 % above 1. Still think that average of 13 % is significant????

I am sorry - despite your claims to education - you are not knowledgable about statistics at all!

Tired of Control Freaks


You have zero clue what you are reading. Take a research class and then come talk to me and you will understand. I am not going to explain statistics in this post.

What I will explain is why the data is complete garbage, and his numbers are completely meaningless.

Let's say you do not smoke, and your wife does not smoke. You go to a bar 7 days a week for 5-6 hours in which there is heavy smoking going on. You work at a job where everyone around is constantly smoking and the walls have changed color as a result of it. What category would you put yourself in? Would you consider yourself a never smoker with no passive smoke history? Because Enstrom would. That person I just described is listed as a never smoker with no environmental smoke history.

Garbage in, garbage out.



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


Look at this link

www.airnow.gov...

look at the picture of that thick black smoke!




If you are healthy, you're usually not at a major risk from short-term exposures to smoke.


But you are going to try to convince me that sitting in a smokey bar for an hour is lethal? Or sitting on a park bench beside a smoker CAUSES heart damage and disease?

Use some common sense will you?

Tired of control


Why are you comparing short term exposure to smoke from a wood fire to long term exposure to second hand smoke? Then you talk about common sense? I have never met anyone who was wrong on every single point they make. How about we stop the red herrings such as forest fire smoke and talk about the actual topic.



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by wissy
 


You don't know the difference between a heroin addict and a smoker?


You are on a roll. I wonder how many more times you can be wrong.

Smoking Cigarettes Affects Brain Like Heroin

www.webmd.com...


researchers at University of Chicago have found a part of the brain that responds to smoking and heroin in much the same way.

www.sciencentral.com...



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


OccamsRazor

You are simply extraordinary in clinging to your beliefs.

You believe that studies for exposure to second hand smoke with low relative risk increases are real - even though there are no control groups.

But you don't think Enstroms study is real because there was no control group.

You can't tell the difference between 5 % of a population and a 5 % increase in relative risk (and yet you still think you are qualified to "teach" me?

You believe that a 10 % increase in relative risk is PROOF that smoking or passive smoking CAUSES disease but you fail to recognise that the opposite would then also be true (that a 10 % decrease in relative risk proves that smoking or passive smoking PROTECTS people from disease).

In short - you absolutely refuse to think for yourself and only believe what you are told to believe. Have fun with that!

You go on with your bad self. I will leave you with this simple thought - only 1 out of 10 smokers ever get a smoking related disease of any kind.

Now if 100 people were to fall off a ten story building - it is quite likely that all 100 would die. There might be a stray person who manages to survive but in general, it is proved that falling 10 stores CAUSES death.

But if only 10 out of 100 people died after they fell out of ten story building, would you say that falling off a 10 story building CAUSES death or would you simply say that sometimes people die from falling 10 stories (must be bad luck)

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


OccamsRazor

You are simply extraordinary in clinging to your beliefs.

You believe that studies for exposure to second hand smoke with low relative risk increases are real - even though there are no control groups.

There are control groups. Why would you say there are not?


But you don't think Enstroms study is real because there was no control group.

I never said that. I said Enstrom's study is not real because a person who is inhaling second hand smoke for 10 hours a day is listed as having no second hand smoke exposure.


You can't tell the difference between 5 % of a population and a 5 % increase in relative risk (and yet you still think you are qualified to "teach" me?

The only one who doesn't understand is you. Please show me where I confused 5% of the population with a 5% increase in risk. I didn't. You are clueless. You think you need a 400% increase in incidences before there is anything significant. Clueless.


You believe that a 10 % increase in relative risk is PROOF that smoking or passive smoking CAUSES disease but you fail to recognise that the opposite would then also be true (that a 10 % decrease in relative risk proves that smoking or passive smoking PROTECTS people from disease).

I do not fail to recognize that. It is simply untrue that smoking is a protective factor. The only study that has it listed as one is Enstrom's, and in his study passive smoke can be either very protective, or very harmful, as his confidence intervals are so crazy large. He is 95% sure passive smokers have an incidence of 80% to 159% of the general public. Wow. Really. So very helpful. You can not tell ANYTHING from an interval that large.


In short - you absolutely refuse to think for yourself and only believe what you are told to believe. Have fun with that!

Look in the mirror my friend. I think that comment was directed inwards.


You go on with your bad self. I will leave you with this simple thought - only 1 out of 10 smokers ever get a smoking related disease of any kind.

Completely false. Only looking at ONE disease, Lung cancer, 16% of smokers get it. 25% of heavy smokers get it. There are numerous diseases associated with smoking, just that one has proven your statement false.


Now if 100 people were to fall off a ten story building - it is quite likely that all 100 would die. There might be a stray person who manages to survive but in general, it is proved that falling 10 stores CAUSES death.

But if only 10 out of 100 people died after they fell out of ten story building, would you say that falling off a 10 story building CAUSES death or would you simply say that sometimes people die from falling 10 stories (must be bad luck)

I would say that falling 10 stories causes death. What else would be the cause? If sometimes people die from it, then it caused those deaths. You just completely invalidated your entire argument. Furthermore, I would say if you CHOOSE to fall 10 stories, make sure I am not around you. I do not wish to be impacted by your choice to do something harmful. Feel free to do it when no one is around you. Or do you think it's ok to fall 10 stories and land on someone else?


Tired of Control Freaks


Tired of morons that think they can do whatever they want regardless of whether or not their choice is harmful to those around them.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 12:27 AM
link   
reply to post by wantsome
 


There is a problem with looking at all cancers, if that is what you actually mean. Smoking does not contribute to ALL cancers. Some cancers are genetically inherited, prostate, breast etc are usually hereditary. Lung, throat mouth etc however shown strong linkage to smoking. However other environmental and genetic factors also play a apart. Smoking is BAD for you. No one should doubt that, you are inhaling a burned plant material, your lungs were not designed to do that regularly



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by wissy
 


While I've spent most of the thread pointing out the dangers of smokers, I have to say you're quite an extremist on the issue.

As OtherSideOfTheCoin said earlier, live and let live. Smoking is bad, we know. If you want to do it, do it, but don't try and argue that you aren't harming your own and other people's health.

While second hand smoke can affect people in the same way as smoking, inhaling a whiff when passing someone on the way in to the mall will not adversely affect you in any statistically significant way. Lungs can clean themselves, blood cells are recycled, atheromas can be dislodged - the problem comes when you're smoking or inhaling second hand smoke at such a rate that your body's cleaning mechanisms cannot keep up with your smoke intake.

Making your child hold his or her breath as they walk past smokers will not affect his health in any statistically significant way, and will increase the likelihood of mental abnormalities later in life. It is detrimental to your child, and it's rude to the people you "make sure hear."

I understand where the "second hand smoke is not dangerous crowd" is coming from - in the real world, outdoor exposure is not concentrated enough to cause significant elevations in risk, indoor smoking is usually only performed in a house where both partners smoke, although it does pose risks to the children. The fact is, second hand smoke does affect health, it has been documented very well. In a real world setting however, the research does not apply in every situation, but does in others.



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 12:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dispo
reply to post by wissy
 


While I've spent most of the thread pointing out the dangers of smokers, I have to say you're quite an extremist on the issue.

As OtherSideOfTheCoin said earlier, live and let live. Smoking is bad, we know. If you want to do it, do it, but don't try and argue that you aren't harming your own and other people's health.

While second hand smoke can affect people in the same way as smoking, inhaling a whiff when passing someone on the way in to the mall will not adversely affect you in any statistically significant way. Lungs can clean themselves, blood cells are recycled, atheromas can be dislodged - the problem comes when you're smoking or inhaling second hand smoke at such a rate that your body's cleaning mechanisms cannot keep up with your smoke intake.

Making your child hold his or her breath as they walk past smokers will not affect his health in any statistically significant way, and will increase the likelihood of mental abnormalities later in life. It is detrimental to your child, and it's rude to the people you "make sure hear."

I understand where the "second hand smoke is not dangerous crowd" is coming from - in the real world, outdoor exposure is not concentrated enough to cause significant elevations in risk, indoor smoking is usually only performed in a house where both partners smoke, although it does pose risks to the children. The fact is, second hand smoke does affect health, it has been documented very well. In a real world setting however, the research does not apply in every situation, but does in others.


Agreed, a whif in passing is not a big deal. Smokers filling restaurants and other establishments you may spend hours in is though. You want to go outside and smoke in a designated area, go for it. You should not be able to light up while I am trying to eat and have a relaxing night out.

The only other problem with public smoking is smokers' belief that the world is their ashtray. Throwing the leftover butts wherever they please. Be responsible and clean up after yourselves. Want to smoke in your car, keep the butts in your car, they do not belong thrown out your _

Completely seperate topic for that though.





new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join