Deaths Caused by Smoking, Salt and Sugary Beverages

reply to post by Dianec


Dianec

It is NOT undisputed that smoking turns lungs black

cfrankdavis.wordpress.com...

And furthermore smokers’ lungs are routinely used in lung transplants: In the UK donors with a positive smoking history provide nearly 40% of the lungs available for transplantation, according to the study’s lead author Professor Robert Bonser, of the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham and University of Birmingham. He said in a press statement: “Our data show that patients awaiting lung transplantation in the UK are likely to survive longer if they are willing to accept lungs from any suitable donor, irrespective of smoking history…

Are you really imagining smokers walking around, still alive, with black lungs dripping with tar?

How silly are you?

Tired of Control Freaks

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by Cabin

 

Cabin

So smokers are being health care, jobs and places to live because people like you can't stand a little smell?

All I can say....

I remain...

Tired of Control Freaks

Passive smoking is not good.

Ok, as far as I see, you are pro-smoking. You believe in some kind of conspiracy against smoking,right?

I will ask you who is behind? Who would be the winners if a lot of people quit smoking?

As being a heavy smoker, I can honestly tell. Smoking has no benefits, only cons. It is expensive and bad for health. Let us take your point, smoking and lung cancer might not be so related. But smoking has also other negative effects: The capacity of lungs decreases, which decreases your overall stamina. High blood pressure. High hemoglobine levels in your blood. Weakening senses (smelling & tasting). Cough. More throat deseases, like tonsillitis. Teeth problems. Skin is not good. All of these are from first-hand experience.

So why promote actions, which only take people´s money and are overally are not good for health? Actions, which have no pros, only cons?

reply to post by Cabin


You know the funniest thing bout smoking ...I was at a bus stop(outside)...A lady lit up her cig....another woman...then says to the other lady could you put out the smoke it is sending smoke my way...at exactly the same time a diesel bus just pulled away...belching thick black smoke right into the complaining ladies face.

Get a grip....people can choose to smoke...and great....up to them...stop being nannies....people can make their own choices...just as it is your choice to stand in the smoke...or choose to walk away from it.

Dad ....truck driver...Died of lung cancer....Mom heavy smoker...93 and still going strong.

the point here is...the fear mongering that goes on trying to decide what is good or not good for punlic health...leading the way to BAD TAX....take a hike...for a lot of smokers,sugar eaters,and salt cravers.....if it wasn't there they may have all died an earlier death strictly due to stress.

time to let others know we the people are not in need of babysitters...we can make our own choices...and live by them wether they be correct or incorrect....also no one can tell another what is a right or wrong choice....simply because those choices can only and will only ever be user created.

reply to post by Cabin


Cabin

Oh no you don't!

The strongest, most significant association between smoking and ANY health effect has always been lung cancer.

If they fudged the numbers there, then don't bring up anything else. Its ALL fudged.

As for who benefits: Well Big Pharma who funds most of the anti-smoking budget has been the biggest benefactor with alternative nicotene delivery systems (patches, gums, lozenges, inhalers) and with smoking cessation products like Zyban, Wellbrutrin and Champix. That is worth 2 billion dollars right there.

All levels of government benefit of course, they collect taxes not only from smokers but also from the tobacco companies to the tune of many billions of dollars per year. And of course, the politics of appearing to do something "for health".

Do you imagine that anti-smokers are volunteering their time for a worthy cause? Of course not. They are creating their own jobs and pay themselves 6 figure salaries.

Universities benefit by grants from the anti-smokers and the government to the tune of millions of dollars to do research favorable to the cause as do research scientists and sociologist.

Public health benefits by extending their power into private health as opposed to restricting themselves to public health and infectious diseases.

Big corporate restaurant and bar chains benefit because smoking bans disproponately affect mom and pop bars by driving them out of business and clearing the field for the big guys.

The big charities all benefit. All the smoking quit lines are operated by the American Cancer Society to the tune of 800 million per year. As well as all the fund raising opportunities to "fight big tobacco" and since they can blame smoking for their failure to take meaningful progress in their "war on cancer"/

of course then there are the little players - like the lawyers (one of whom went to jail for stealing tobacco settlement money), all the jobs that were created for law enforcement and the investment companies who arranged bonds on all the tobacco settlement money.

Of course, investors are making a bundle. Tobacco stocks have never been so profitable. Anti-smoking banning advertisement and sponsorship by Big Tobacco saved them a bundle and anti-smoking does all their advertising now.

Tired of Control Freaks

reply to post by Cabin


Cabin

There are numerous benefits to smoking:

voices.yahoo.com...

However, cigarette smoking has been confirmed to provide numerous benefits to the health of smokers. Surprisingly, the tobacco plant appears to have more to offer our bodies than a guarantee of certain death. Although the health benefits of smoking are far outweighed by the many very dire risks, tobacco may provide alternative relief or prevention for some diseases in certain individuals.

I am a smoker. I may die 8 years younger of some disease but I probably won't spend the last 10 years of my life in some nursing home, drooling into my diapers, from Alzeimers, Parkinson's or Multiple Sclerosis.

Don't I have a right to choose the death I want! I would much rather die painfully and gasping for my last breath at 72 then continue to live as prisoner in my own body for 10 years or so.

Tired of Control Freaks

Originally posted by StarsInDust
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks

 

All, I know on this one, personally, is that my body tends to crave what it needs. I can be extremely anemic, and I crave liver (normally I hate liver) I can crave fruits and vegetables too. How did "some" people come to crave what is bad for them?

edit on 24-3-2013 by StarsInDust because: To be clearer

Ill tell you how...
Because that stuff that is "BAD", actually tastes rather good.

Is authentic mexican food considered bad BTW?

reply to post by Cabin


Please check out the new thread called "the dirtiest lobbiest"

You will see that the Health industry far outspends any other industry. And that includes the so-called charities for anti-smoking, foundations for anti-smoking etc etc.etc.

Did you really believe that anti-smokers do it solely for the benefit of the public's health?

Tired of Control Freaks

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks

When you make cheese at home you don't add salt and it is fine same with most canned food like soup that have a ton of sodium if you buy a can.

I think it is not to preserve as they say because you can preserve very well without it. it is addictive.

Get you addicted you buy more.

We begin to crave salty and sweet foods. How many greasy fries would they sell if they were unsalted for example?

reply to post by Char-Lee


And how many people would have abnormally functioning thyroid gland without the iodine in salt?

You know you really are being very very silly. Salt is absolutely necessary for the functioning of the human body

www.straightdope.com...

"Without sodium, which the body cannot manufacture, the body would be unable to transport nutrients or oxygen, transmit nerve impulses, or move muscles, including the heart," says Kurlansky.

The percentage of salt in the water of our bodies is very tightly controlled. We excrete salt in our sweat and our urine and if we don't replace it - then we die!

Further, scientists have been trying to get the message to the public that Salt is NOT bad for your health and DOES NOT cause high blood pressure and is not linked to increased rate of heart attacks.

www.scientificamerican.com...

Like the margarine vs butter controversy - the scientists had it all wrong!

Tired of Control Freaks

Intersalt, a large study published in 1988, compared sodium intake with blood pressure in subjects from 52 international research centers and found no relationship between sodium intake and the prevalence of hypertension. In fact, the population that ate the most salt, about 14 grams a day, had a lower median blood pressure than the population that ate the least, about 7.2 grams a day.

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by Char-Lee

 

And how many people would have abnormally functioning thyroid gland without the iodine in salt?

You know you really are being very very silly. Salt is absolutely necessary for the functioning of the human body

www.straightdope.com...

"Without sodium, which the body cannot manufacture, the body would be unable to transport nutrients or oxygen, transmit nerve impulses, or move muscles, including the heart," says Kurlansky.

The percentage of salt in the water of our bodies is very tightly controlled. We excrete salt in our sweat and our urine and if we don't replace it - then we die!

Further, scientists have been trying to get the message to the public that Salt is NOT bad for your health and DOES NOT cause high blood pressure and is not linked to increased rate of heart attacks.

www.scientificamerican.com...

Like the margarine vs butter controversy - the scientists had it all wrong!

Tired of Control Freaks

Intersalt, a large study published in 1988, compared sodium intake with blood pressure in subjects from 52 international research centers and found no relationship between sodium intake and the prevalence of hypertension. In fact, the population that ate the most salt, about 14 grams a day, had a lower median blood pressure than the population that ate the least, about 7.2 grams a day.

Lol I'm silly!But clearly you know best....thus you are the real control freak.

It is addicting clearly! As for needing it, canned soup has 700-800 a serving and most people eat the whole can. I can make it at home with seasonings instead of salt and it tastes wonderful canned.

Sodium: How much do you need? The 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommend limiting sodium to less than 2,300 mg a day — or 1,500 mg if you're age 51 or older, or if you are black, or if you have high blood pressure, diabetes or chronic kidney disease. Keep in mind that these are upper limits, and less is usually best, especially if you're sensitive to the effects of sodium. If you aren't sure how much sodium your diet should include, talk to your doctor. Sodium: Main dietary sources The average American gets about 3,400 mg of sodium a day — much more than recommended. To help keep your sodium consumption in check, you need to know where the sodium comes from. Here are the main sources of sodium in a typical diet:

www.mayoclinic.com...

Originally posted by plube
reply to post by Cabin

 

You know the funniest thing bout smoking ...I was at a bus stop(outside)...A lady lit up her cig....another woman...then says to the other lady could you put out the smoke it is sending smoke my way...at exactly the same time a diesel bus just pulled away...belching thick black smoke right into the complaining ladies face.

Get a grip....people can choose to smoke...and great....up to them...stop being nannies....people can make their own choices...just as it is your choice to stand in the smoke...or choose to walk away from it.

Dad ....truck driver...Died of lung cancer....Mom heavy smoker...93 and still going strong.

the point here is...the fear mongering that goes on trying to decide what is good or not good for punlic health...leading the way to BAD TAX....take a hike...for a lot of smokers,sugar eaters,and salt cravers.....if it wasn't there they may have all died an earlier death strictly due to stress.

time to let others know we the people are not in need of babysitters...we can make our own choices...and live by them wether they be correct or incorrect....also no one can tell another what is a right or wrong choice....simply because those choices can only and will only ever be user created.

edit on 053131p://f35Monday by plube because: (no reason given)

edit on 053131p://f37Monday by plube because: (no reason given)

yeah well I would take the diesel any day.

There are over 4,000 chemicals in cigarette smoke. More than 50 of them are known to be carcinogens (to cause cancer). Many of the chemicals in cigarette smoke are also found in the workplace and regulated by OSHA. Some are found in common household products. This is a small sample of the toxic chemicals in cigarette smoke

www.sbctc.org...

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by Dianec

 

Dianec

It is NOT undisputed that smoking turns lungs black

cfrankdavis.wordpress.com...

And furthermore smokers’ lungs are routinely used in lung transplants: In the UK donors with a positive smoking history provide nearly 40% of the lungs available for transplantation, according to the study’s lead author Professor Robert Bonser, of the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham and University of Birmingham. He said in a press statement: “Our data show that patients awaiting lung transplantation in the UK are likely to survive longer if they are willing to accept lungs from any suitable donor, irrespective of smoking history…

Are you really imagining smokers walking around, still alive, with black lungs dripping with tar?

How silly are you?

Tired of Control Freaks

bet you won't watch this guy.

Why is a smoker's lungs black?

Answer: after a long period of time smoking, a smokers lung becomes black do to the tar inside of their tobacco product. tar is like a thick, gross, stick black fluid that builds up in your lungs (only if u smoke or receive second hand smoke). it can never come out of your lungs, it just kinda settles there.

hope i helped

wiki.answers.com...'s_lungs_black

Originally posted by davjan4
This explains a few things:

garytaubes.com...

Oh, and one thing to keep in mind... when you cut back on salt, you also cut back on iodine (because the salt is iodized). Salt, for most in the US, is the biggest source of iodine.

All you need is a serving of real food and most people eat that!

Cod 3 ounces* 99µg (66% DV)

Iodized Salt (Fortified) 1 gram 77µg (51% DV)

Baked Potato with peel 1 medium 60µg (40% DV)

Milk 1 cup (8 fluid ounces) 56µg (37% DV)

Shrimp 3 ounces 35µg (23% DV)

Fish sticks 2 fish sticks 35µg (23% DV)

Turkey breast, baked 3 ounces 34µg (23% DV)

Navy beans, cooked 1/2 cup 32µg (21% DV)

Tuna, canned in oil 3 ounces (1/2 can) 17µg (11% DV)

Egg, boiled 1 large 12µg (8% DV)

Read more at www.healthaliciousness.com...

How much iodine do I need? In your entire lifetime you will need less than a teaspoon of iodine to ensure good health, however, your body cannot store iodine so you have to eat a little bit every day. You only need 150 micrograms (or 20,000th of a teaspoon) to meet your daily requirement. Read more at www.healthaliciousness.com...

Beware: Too much iodine can be bad for you. Over consumption of iodine can be toxic and just as damaging as a deficiency. As little as 1000 micrograms of Iodine in a day causes irritations like burning of the mouth and throat, nausea, vomiting, stomach ache, and even coma. Like under-consumption, too much iodine prevents proper production of thyroid hormones leading to goiter. Read more at www.healthaliciousness.com...

www.healthaliciousness.com...

reply to post by Cabin

80-90% of people with lung cancers are smokers.

That does not mean that 80-90% of smokers will get lung cancer. This drives me nuts. It's been established that only something like 10% of smokers get "lung cancer" - and Japan is the "smokiest" country around, and virtually none get sick from it. It's mostly genetics and diet (I guess).

Moderation is good, too, but it's not even been 100 years since doctors prescribed smoking to pregnant women, even!
(I did not smoke or drink while pregnant.)
We need a bit of all of these culprits, sugar=energy, without fat, the brain shrivels up and dies.

Coffee is bad. No, wait, no it's not!
Beer is bad. No, wait! No, it's liquid nutrition and doesn't dehydrate the body!
Wine is bad. No, it isn't! Hold up! Wine fights cancer cells.
Dirt is bad. Oh, hold on, no, putting our bare skin in touch with real soil creates a neutralizing effect on free radicals in our bodies!

Stress is bad. Worry is bad. Anger pent up is bad. I even saw an item online yesterday that said online ranting is bad for your health.

I say relax, follow your body's impulses, and stop worrying about it.
Stress is the killer (barring accidents).

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks

I am a smoker. I may die 8 years younger of some disease but I probably won't spend the last 10 years of my life in some nursing home, drooling into my diapers, from Alzeimers, Parkinson's or Multiple Sclerosis.

Not to mention that the rabid anti-smoker activists who religiously - and addict-like (yes, exercise in excess causes addiction. Been there, done that) - go 'running' down busy streets filled with vehicle exhaust spend those extra "8 years" running down busy streets filled with vehicle exhaust.

Kind of a sucky trade-off.

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks

 

I am a smoker. I may die 8 years younger of some disease but I probably won't spend the last 10 years of my life in some nursing home, drooling into my diapers, from Alzeimers, Parkinson's or Multiple Sclerosis.

Not to mention that the rabid anti-smoker activists who religiously - and addict-like (yes, exercise in excess causes addiction. Been there, done that) - go 'running' down busy streets filled with vehicle exhaust spend those extra "8 years" running down busy streets filled with vehicle exhaust.

Kind of a sucky trade-off.

edit on 25-3-2013 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)

When I inhale cigarette smoke I go into an asthma like attack, my lungs close up.

If what someone else is doing causes you to feel like you are dying you might feel differently.

I can't get away from it, even on a wonderful fresh air trail through the redwoods someone always smoking.

reply to post by Char-Lee


Char-Lee

Then I guess you would died in the days when every home had a wood burning fireplace! Face it - you were just not meant to survive!

Why don't you just go ahead and admit that there are hundred if not thousands of asthma provoking substances. Cockroach poop, pollen, dander, fungus and moulds, soot from candles, woodburning fire places and stoves, BBQ, not to mention metal particles etc. etc. etc.

If tobacco were to disappear off the planet tomorrow -you would still be an asthmatic and you would still have asthma attacks.

So I guess you don't care that there has been an 800 % increase in the incidence of childhood asthma since the 1960s and that increase has been in lockstep with the decrease of smoking in the population.

And I guess you also don't realize that many asthmatics find that they can better control their immediate attacks by lighting a cigarette instead of using an inhaler.

Tired of Control Freaks

Reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks

Best thing for your kin to do is die and let other morons like us use our freedom to live our life.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by Char-Lee


char-lee

If you prefer to believe a photograph instead of your brain telling you that no one can possibly live with lungs that damaged, and in the knowledge that 40 % of all lung transplants in the UK are from smokers, then please feel free!

You go on with your bad self!

Tired of Control Freaks