Try reading the methodology on some of the studies used to support anti-smoking propaganda. One of the seminal studies involved basically suffocating dogs with cigarette smoke, then claiming that the dead dogs were the result of smoking and not, say, suffocation.
Check out how studies consistently find no correlation in life expectancy with cigar smokers, and pipe smokers actually correlate with longer lifespans than non-smokers.
Best yet, look at the methodology used in determining smoking status when compiling data. People who literally smoked one cigarette in their teens are classified as smoking related deaths and illness contributors.
All you need to do is go get the surgeon general's reports on smoking starting from the 1960s and go through their citations. There is a lot of bullshit to wade through but you can find ridiculous shit left and right.
I will post some more good stuff later at home if the thread is still up, I don't have the really juicy references with me at the moment.
To keep yourself busy in the meantime, compare lung cancer rates with smoking rates in various countries. Indonesia vs. U.S. is an enlightening example.
>>7795515 >Uninteresting rant about methodology and how it's all a conspiracy
Why trust studies when you can just smoke yourself and try it out? I know I have. I smoked for years and then quit 2 years ago, and there is a direct and noticeable effect on my physical health due to quitting.
Biochemically speaking, everything is bad for you. Water breaks down into free radicals within your mitochonrdria which assault your organic molecules.
Raw tobaccco (not that highly processed chemical melange used in American cigarettes) like everything else is perfectly OK to use in moderation. Note that moderation doesn't mean that every-fifteen-minutes chain smoking that is the current fad with cigarettes. Moderation works with all things that aren't outright fatal poisons. Moderation means something like ONE cigarette a day. (I challenge you to find a guy who only smokes ONE of those fucking things a day. American cigarettes are designed to be addicting.)
>>7795700 You found your man. Smoke one a day, only when studies are packed and I'm feeling very stressed. I bought a pack of Marlboro Smooths three months ago and still have 16 left.
I think people vastly overestimate how addicting they are. However, I do think second hand smoke is a real problem but only because asthmatic people can have an attack triggered. Smokers really should be more considerate of the possibility.
>>7795349 Of course not OP we live in magical world, you can do drugs, smoke, alcohol with 0 consequences - we live in a spiritual world not a mechanical one - there are no implications for anything just chill down every tries to scare you - it's a conspiracy ...
>>7795375 true, but that doesn't mean it can't help. if 10% of smokers get lung cancer, unless ALL smokers live a lifestyle that leads them to increased smoking other than smoking itself, smoking is most likely the cause.
>>7795515 You're not going to be able to get through to these people. I don't know if you regularly come here but no one even wants to entertain the idea that smoking might be good for you or that the government or anti-smoking science is wrong.
Keep the pack in the fridge. If you carry it around or leave it out, keep it in a baggie. Remember, these packs are expected to be consumed in short order, so the company doesn't expend much effort in keeping them fresh.
As an ex-smoker I'd say that people that are prone to addictions, such as myself, find cigarettes to be kind of over-satisfying to the point you never get bored. This might fuck with your mind, stopping you from concluding projects or from being more present in your family's life. You can never know if you'll get addicted if you don't try it, but I'd advise against. After stopping I realized it's extremely uncomfortable. Other than that I wouldn't say there are any problems if you're not a chain smoker. You might feel more fatigued though.
>>7795515 >Best yet, look at the methodology used in determining smoking status when compiling data. People who literally smoked one cigarette in their teens are classified as smoking related deaths and illness contributors.
This is interesting, I've heard similar things from people who have smoking acquaintances who died and barely smoked in their lives. Their death was classified as smoking related according to them. Do you have any links?
>>7795888 >prevalence of 'x' is related most importantly to genetics >other incidences of exposure are related to overall rates That still does not refute the simple claim that legalized smoking increases exposure to various toxic and carcinogenic chemicals, and that prohibition reduces the exposure. What is the conspiracy exactly? There is money to be made off cigarettes so the only possible conspiracy would be either against particular owners of tobacco companies, or for some non-existent replacement to smoking ( there was none for a long time, and cessation products are just a cash grab at PREVIOUS smokers). Therein there is no replacement, and no incentive to reduce smoking beyond health-care costs, or general good to the public....
You are literally a fanatic and cannot be reasoned with. I wish mods gave a fuck about /sci/.
>>7795944 When only ten percent of smokers actually develop a disease it makes it sound more like it's something else or its a genetic problem, seeing as how the other 90% of smokers don't develop lung cancer or any other kind of cancer for that matter.
>>7795515 yeah but cigarrettes attest every single time to increases morbidity and mortality.
So what's the difference between the tobacco? Might it be the incidence rate? A pipe smoker probably doesn't carry his pipe around all day; it is more likely he has it as a daily habit much like afterwork drink. Does the pipe smoker select for pipe based on his inherent predilection and traits ( ie is someone who pipe smokes of a different genetic nature - on average - that then chain smoking cigarrette user)
Who knows? But the overall data for smoking is clear. >>7795885 It isn't though, and to believe it is - by nature - is a self-fulfillment delusion. You are positively selecting for evidence you want to be true, which is exactly the opposite of science. I'm sorry you feel that way.
>>7795888 >asbestos causes cancer Yes fibrous asbestos increases the prevalence of cancer, and has been outlawed as a result much like the advent of improved safety procedures in coal mining, etc.
Since asbestos fibres are unlikely to be removed they cause systemic inflammation, which in many other degenerative diseases and conditions, can lead to systemic oxidative damage and deregulation of Type-1 immune reactions ( which remove/destroy cancer and other dysfunctional cells ).
Due to these correspondent *exposures* further exposures to carcinogens are likely to spurr quick development ( as opposed to development that takes decades to accumulate ) of cancer/dysregulation/dysfunction in normal biochemical pathways.
Therein, subsequent exposure to those suffering from chronic conditions is likely to cause compounding problems. ie. smoking after asbestos exposure is liable to fuck you up.
all this denial and crying is just heresy. Go look up the massive numbers available in other studies, stratify the data into the best representations of smoking/non smoking, other exposures based on geographical locales, city bylaws per decade ( to protect against what you preclude are other causes ) and analyze the data until you see no difference between smoking and non-smoking incidence rates of cancer, etc.
Really that's what you can do to prove your inane hypothesis because really no one gives a fuck if you want to apologize for your own habits by claiming they are 'good for you'; it makes you sound pitiable.
>>7795888 >smoking promotes the formation of a thin mucous layer in the lungs, "which forms a protective layer stopping any cancer-carrying particles from entering the lung tissue." This is fucking ludicrous, while it may reducing the diffusion rate of the particulates it does not remove them... And your body naturally has this thin layer of mucus, which it uses to fucking breathe? If the viscosity changes even a bit your breathing efficiency is dampened which generically leads to higher blood pressure in the lungs and if you are predisposed genetically can lead to a variety of health problems easily googled.
>>7795989 >>7795997 I don't really know what possessed me to post that link, it was just next to the other ones and I didn't trust it that much to begin with. I was more focused on the studies that were quoted in the second link. I can't find all of them but some of them are posted.
>>7795888 >'mucous' will protect you from radioactive particulates if it creates more mucuous it is likely the viscosity is being changed, leading to a less 'productive' (expellent) cough... It is likely 'smokers cough' is in fact less productive than an healthy lung's cough.
>>7796007 OK those are old studies but interesting I will take a look. Most of the claims are never backed up in any reasonable way ( re: cancer-protective effects of chemicals in cigarettes, even if there were do they counterbalance the massive number of carcinogenic chemicals? ).
I could definitely believe in the argument that smoking can protect against exposure effects from other source by causing autophagy directly, and/or by increasing turnover. However, all indications I have seen look like if this sort of mechanism is chronic in nature it will cause advanced aging, which brings me to my other idea about centennials which is it isn't a generic genetic protection against exposure, but a specific one pertaining to the protection and sequestering of tissue specific progenitor cells/ stem-like cells that redistribute and recreate the vast majority of your body.
If they could resist hayflick degradation better (and so could create more potential deaths to be used upon exposure to limit its mutation/dysfunctional accumulation) than they would also live longer regardless of their exposures chronic or otherwise.
Basically who knows about mechanisms! They aren't relevant in any clinical setting yet and even with the advent of precisions medicines they still won't be relevant for 90% of conditions until we have data genetic/epi/exposures for many different tissues, at many different times, of significant n, for all particular/most population subsets before they become CLINICAL data and therein relevant to your treatment...
Until then mechanisms are proposed at best and specious at worst. ( i'm not talking about solved diseases like some forms of cancer, some metabolic diseases, subsets of genetic diseases like Cystic fibrosis etc)
>>7796007 >nicotine's affect on the brain Highly publized and readily available for anyone interested in it. It has received a renaissance due to interest in nootropics but many people would rather gamble on unknown long term affects than the clearly carcinogenic nature of nicotine (doi:10.3949/ccjm.82a.14054).
>>7796007 >blood pressure and its affect on plaques, DVT, hemmorrhage >RBC improvements turnover would be increased by increased exposure to MO and long term they would be upregulated to compensate for the high turn over leading to ( likely ) better VO2... That doesn't mean that the upregulation isn't itself bad, and that the turn-over would not put senescent pressure on your body and lead to premature aging... I'm not an expert in any regards but if you'd like to decide if it isn't different one could look at the autophagy of MO-poisoned Heme, and turn-over in athletes for a tentative projection. I wouldn't know.
>RBCs [red blood cells] from cigarette smokers contain more glutathione and catalase and protect lung endothelial cells against O2 [dioxide] metabolites better than RBCs from nonsmoker I don't know about this; the mechanisms of protective improvement to the genome are not understood at all (re: exercise causes damage up improves oxidative control mechanisms). Or what long-term potentiation of gene regulation is bad/good...
These are very complicated issues and again rely on explanations of mechanisms in the small scale, which don't give us any sort of picture on the long-term implications on the body. No one understands aging. when they do we'll be able to easily look back at a specific mechanism and guess with some sort of reasonable expectation as to the result, but right now it is heresy. Look at mortality and morbidity and exposure and the clinical results - they are the only health science results worth considering even when you stratify for SAEs its clear that smoking is bad.
>>7796045 I really hope I don't have to reply to yet another muh cigarette conspiracy thread, although the link to radiation was interesting to consider. If you could find some released CIA documents on the topic then i'd be in ( on that there was a conspiracy ) but I still wouldn't be in on ( that risk from cigarettes doesn't exist ) as they aren't inherently related. Show me a strong study which has retroactively been stratified ( as geolocales ) to include radiation exposure and I'd be in.
Nicotine is harmful for your blood vessels. Nicotine users generally take longer to recover after surgery because the smallest blood vessels cant deliver enough blood. I'm not a doc or a smoker though, so do your own research
>>7795888 the wind patterns of the graph aren't included in http://www.sott.net/image/s3/63418/full/Windscale.jpg and from what I can see the pattern across ireland, which then descends ( for the most part is westerly, so we could expect exposure from radiation to be mostly in the eastern portion of ireland and in the mediterranean rather than nordic). No expert would love to see the study, which are never included in these articles.
I could kinda understand why some people who aren't very science literate might think the fuss about smoking fucking murdering you is overblown - but i cannot understand someone so stupid as to think smoking might actually be good for you.
Under what insane troll logic could inhaling burning particulate matter into your lungs possibly be good for you? Is asbestos good for you as well?
Since science is obviously not good for you, ill go for the good ol emotional thing instead. My maternal grandmother smoked every day of her life. She has actually just died a couple hours ago. She spent the last five years of her life on oxygen, trapped in her house, most of her lungs nonfunctional, coughing her guts out.
My father has done the same. He can't get a nights sleep without coughing himself awake, though he's quit and young enough to maybe get a little better.
Stop being a fucking pussy and either quit, satisfy your nicotine addiction in a less ridiculously harmful way, or own it and accept its harmful effects like a normal person. What you're doing right now is just insulting /sci/.
Cigar smoke is generally kept in the mouth, where it 'only' causes mouth cancer, which is less harmful and easier to operate on than lung cancer (id rather be disfigured than immobile - and this way tar doesnt clog up your lungs). And cigar smokers tend to smoke a lot, lot less than cigarette smokers.
However cigar smokers can also take in far, far more nicotine in a single session. Something like an entire packs worth can be in one cigar. So some people think its still pretty harmful. Though since the nicotine isn't usually considered what causes the main harm, id still choose cigars over cigarettes.
>>7796125 But also the fabrication process is different. Cigars are more "natural", they have less chemical products. In order to roll cigarretes in those machines they add some "stuff" to the tobbaco, Im not an expert but it seems that there is the big problem .
Anecdotal evidence: I've seen plenty of old cigar smokers that have no problems, (and a lot of cuban celebrities).
As a rule, i am very suspicious when someone starts claiming one thing is more natural and has less chemicals than something else. That's basically the same argument people who sell fraudulent medicine to the infirm use.
I get what you mean, but i think maybe you need to do some research on what makes cigars different before you say that in front of someone who will really call you out on it.
I agree that you see more old cigar smokers. And ive always viewed this as being because cigars are considered a treat. What has never made sense to me is how, considering we know for a fact nicotine is crazy addictive.
You picked a poor example though, because his almighty Churchill smoked cigars like a steam engine smokes coal.
tobacco used in cigarettes contains nicotine levels unsafe for the body, tar is also in it. the buildup of tar on the wall of the lungs can cause multiple diseases of the lungs. It slowly kills you with every puff.
>>7795515 >>7795545 I like how no one responded to this. When most of the anti-smoking ideas are rooted in the various surgeon general or EPA/WHO reports and said reports use ridiculous methodology, it's pretty clear something's wrong.
Just look at the (smoke filled) countries outside of "health" obsessed America and there's definitely a disconnect.
>>7796145 >>7796218 yeah natural doesn't mean fuck all in regards to safety. I'm sure upwards of 90% of all known neurotoxins are natural, etc. Biology's drive to create poisons for competitors is arguably as strong as replication itself.
Are you guys fucking serious? How many of you actually studied real sciences like chemistry or physics? Do you know how easy it is for chemicals to react, thus how easy it is to get a mutation, thus how easy it is to cause a problem in the body/probably cancer? Stop with this meme bullshit and actually consider things by yourself for once.
>>7795954 >http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancerbasics/lifetime-probability-of-developing-or-dying-from-cancer about 7.5% of people develop lung cancer anyway (idk if smoking is controlled for in this info) to believe that smoking makes you 30-40% more likely to develop lung cancer is not unreasonable
>>7795936 Yes, it could be asbestos, but you need to account for lifestyle when collecting data for the risks of smoking. Let's say you have a sample size of 100 smokers and non smokers and by chance they all lead similar lifestyles (excluding smoking for non smokers), if only 10% get lung cancer in the smoker sample, then can be said to have no link if the non smokers have 10% too (equal to the control) But if they're different then smoker is at least, if not a small factor but still a contributing one.
>The vast majority (85%) of cases of lung cancer are due to long-term exposure to tobacco smoke. About 10–15% of cases occur in people who have never smoked. These cases are often caused by a combination of genetic factors and exposure to radon gas, asbestos, or other forms of air pollution, including second-hand smoke.
>>7796492 >about 7.5% of people develop lung cancer anyway (idk if smoking is controlled for in this info) >to believe that smoking makes you 30-40% more likely to develop lung cancer is not unreasonable
In America, 85% of people who get lung cancer are smokers. Roughly 5 out of 6. And only about 20% of Americans are smokers. That means smokers are about 23 times as likely to get lung cancer as non-smokers.
>>7795349 >one of the most well researched and completely irrefutable medical facts >thinking that it's a conspiracy
smoke if you want, nobody gives a fuck and we all die someday your death will statistically come much sooner and your life will most likely be filled with various extra medical complications plus you'll smell bad and have poor oral hygiene and respectable people will look down upon you and you get to pay for all of this have fun
If you mean studies by people like the surgeon general done specifically to prove the preconceived bias that smoking is harmful, then maybe
How is it irrefutable when people who smoke still can demonstrate that depending on the circumstance smoking can not only be protective in certain situations but can also live with relatively small health problems for a very long time? If it was irrefutable every smoker would have serious problems. Simply writing it off as "those people just got really lucky or won the genetic lottery" doesn't strike me as an example of the scientific method.
COPD is far, far worse than lung cancer. Lung cancer at least you die relatively quickly.
COPD you spend years, slowly, progressively becoming harder and harder to catch your breath. Literally wasting away from all the metabolism your body must do to power the muscles of respiration. Not even being able to get out of your chair and walk to the toilet without feeling that you are being suffocated. And short of a few very rare genetic syndromes COPD is exclusively caused by cigarette smoke. And its progressive even after you stop smoking :)
Also anyone doubting the science behind tobacco and its serious negative impacts on health, please kindly fuck off back to /x/ or /pol/.
Considering that many celebrities, pregnant women, and people well into their 60's have smoked daily and don't seem to suffer any profoundly negative effects, it's hard to believe that smoking or being around smoke (or being a fetus constantly exposed to smoke) is as awful or deadly as people in health related fields say it is.
>>7797444 I don't think anybody even bothered addressing the surgeon general's supposed "science" behind declaring that smoking is bad for you, nor did anyone aknowledge the EPA or WHO dramatically overstating the dangers of smoking. Apparently any study showing any kind of positive link between health and smoking is thrown aside regardless of the context behind the study.
>>7797897 If you got those numbers from the American Lung Association or American Cancer Society then I'm not buying it. they've been known to lie about how dangerous smoking is before (I'm pretty sure one of those groups started the "being around a smoker for thirty seconds/minutes greatly increases a risk for heart attack" thing.
>>7797274 The point I was trying to make is that a large number of people in the demographics I mentioned can be known to smoke a pretty sizeable amount and not have any problems normally associated with smoking (maybe except for pregnant women, but I've known a few pregnant women who smoked and their kids turned out fine). Car crashes and land wars would depend on the extent of the injuries. Most people smoke similar quantities daily, at least regarding tobacco.
The only argument I've seen refuting this is the idea that some people are genetically stronger.
It's not about being "genetically stronger," it's just dumb luck. That's how cancer works. You either get it or you don't. The more exposure to carcinogens you have, the higher the probability you'll get it. Just like the longer you spend in a war zone, the more likely you are to get shot. And smokers are 25 times as likely to get lung cancer as non-smokers.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at [email protected] with the post's information.