[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vip /vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y ] [Search | Home]
4Archive logo
Is tobacco really bad for you? Or is it just...
If images are not shown try to refresh the page. If you like this website, please disable any AdBlock software!

You are currently reading a thread in /sci/ - Science & Math

Thread replies: 109
Thread images: 7
File: fact_0247.jpg (92 KB, 550x550) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
fact_0247.jpg
92 KB, 550x550
Is tobacco really bad for you? Or is it just politicized meme science?
>>
>>7795349
Tobacco? Other than its addictive qualities, not much.

But SMOKE? Yep, that's bad for you.

Last factoid I heard was something like 10% of long-term smokers get lung cancer, a figure many times higher than the average person.
>>
>>7795371
> 10% of long-term smokers get lung cancer
correlation isn't causation
>>
I smoke one a day max, usually when I'm munted drunk.
How bad is that for you, really?
>>
Burning the tobacco releases toxic gas, that is why smoking is bad. That is why snus is way better, exept that when you get addicted you cant stop.
>>
>>7795383
Because the lungs are less resistant to ionizing radiation than the mouth.

https://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/t/tissue-weight-factor.htm
>>
>>7795383
Oden's, best snus.
>>
>>7795349

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.
>>
>>7795515
MOAR
>>
Most /sci/entists smoke under 5 cigs a day and feel bad about their courses of action.
>>
>>7795508
Get the fuck out. Ettan lös or General original is the shit
>>
>>7795521

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.
>>
File: 4629015_tabac[1].jpg (76 KB, 880x435) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
4629015_tabac[1].jpg
76 KB, 880x435
>>7795349
Yes.

Sorry for the frogrunes, it say that tobacco cost 15 billions € per year to the French taxpayer.
>>
It is. You get people who say "oh my grandma smoked a thousand a day and she lived to 90" but that just means she won the genetic lottery.
>>
>>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.
>>
>>7795611
>hur dur conspiracy tinfoil literally the current year

Go fucking read the surgeon general reports if you don't believe me. It isn't a conspiracy, it is typical government bullshit where they do and say what they want.
>>
>>7795382
Not thaaaat bad. It is bad, but one a day is okayish, just stop before getting old (30+)
>>
>>7795349
>Is tobacco really bad for you?

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.
>>
File: 193.gif (176 KB, 300x100) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
193.gif
176 KB, 300x100
>>7795789
>triggered
>>
>aggressive smear campaign's on tobacco companies are now a business

Amazing.
>>
>>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.
>>
File: image.jpg (58 KB, 447x599) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
image.jpg
58 KB, 447x599
>say that I'll no longer make tobacco threads
>someone else makes one

Cool
>>
>>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.
>>
http://www.sott.net/article/226999-Smoking-Helps-Protect-Against-Lung-Cancer

http://hawaiianlibertarian.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-longevity-paradox-tobacco.html?m=1

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/12539801/

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0013935180901280
>>
>>7795789

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?
>>
>>7795867
If it's only ten percent I don't really see how that proves that lung cancer is caused by smoking. Maybe it's something else in the air or asbestos?
>>
>>7795936
you're literally retarded
what you're doing is meme science; it is not the other way around. causative proof is rare in literally all sciences
>>
>>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.
>>
>>7795954
calling it a problem is incredibly specious, perhaps those people are at greater risk for other diseases, who knows?

the centennial argument is similarly fallacious. Those people simply have much more robust repair and maintenance genetics than others, and are simply more immune to exposure.

That doesn't mean exposure isn't bad, do you understand?
>>
>>7795969
sorry likely have*
>>
>>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
> radioactive particles do not just "fade away"
yes, yes they do newb.
>>
>>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.

http://www.ukcia.org/research/EffectsOfMarijuanaOnLungAndImmuneDefenses.php
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26229460
>>
>>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.
>>
>>7795349
cigarretes are bad. Cigars are ok.
>>
>>7795403

Why are you talking about ionizing radiation when he is talking about rubbing moist tobacco power on his gums?

Tobacco gives you cancer, so can radiation. but not all things that cause cancer are radioactive.
>>
>>7795885

> smoking might be good for you

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/.
>>
>>7796074

Cigarettes are bad, cigars are weird.

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.
>>
File: churchill.jpg (17 KB, 267x298) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
churchill.jpg
17 KB, 267x298
>>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).
>>
>>7796145

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.
>>
>>7796218

How is Churchill a bad example? He enforces my point.
>>
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.
>>
I want /pol/ to leave and to take its shitty "red-pilled" bait threads with it
>>
>>7795383

Is snus in some way safer than chewing tobacco? 'Cause that shit definitely makes people's jaws rot off
>>
Vaping is the answer, lads

just be circumspect about it so you don't look like a massive tool
>>
>>7796459
from what i read of the 50s morbidity data snuff looked good and compared well to pipe smoking.

i love how no one addressed any of the points i made :D
>>
>>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
>>
Where is the evidence it is safe?
>>
>>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.
>>
>>7796496
Evidence or no evidence of safety, still addictive. Why give yourself uncontrollable craves?
>>
>The vast majority (85%) of cases of lung cancer are due to long-term exposure to tobacco smoke.[1] About 10–15% of cases occur in people who have never smoked.[4] These cases are often caused by a combination of genetic factors[5] and exposure to radon gas,[5] asbestos,[6] or other forms of air pollution,[5] including second-hand smoke.[7][8]
>>
>>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.
>>
>>7796520
Statistics is "meme science", and therefore wrong.
>>
thread was tl:dr

tobacco probably isnt bad for you but smoking it is really bad for lots of things.

>breathe shallow and fast
>always out of breath
>wake up coughing
>cold hands and feet from poor circulation
>stained teeth and hands

source: heavy smoker for last 7 years
>>
>>7796471
which posts are yours?
>>
My heart tends to hurt if I chain smoke. No heart problems in my family. I would guess its from the additives than the tobacco since when I smoke something else like shisha im fine
>>
Not another one of these threads
>>
>>7796577
>Not another one of these threads

Seriously, what the fuck is up with these? Tobacco company shills? /pol/tards who think literally everything is a jewish conspiracy?
>>
>>7795349
Oh look, this thread again.
>>
>>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
>>
>>7796604
>well researched

If you mean studies by people like the surgeon general done specifically to prove the preconceived bias that smoking is harmful, then maybe

>irrefutable

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.
>>
>>7796635
>hurr durr risk is unscientific
>>
>>7796635
>If it was irrefutable every smoker would have serious problems.

This sentence shows a complete misunderstanding at a basic level of practically everything discussed in this thread.
>>
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/.

>medfag
>>
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.
>>
>>7795375
correlation is not causation, unless there is a direct link between the two facts that explain the numbers
>>
>>7797247

Many people also walk away unharmed from car crashes and land wars in Asia. Do you also find it hard to believe that those are dangerous?
>>
>>7796714
>hurdurr my med textbook said smoking's bad for you

i think you might have missed the point of this thread
>>
>>7797259
How is it a direct link when only ten percent of smokers get lung cancer and plenty of non smokers also end up being just as capable of getting it?
>>
>>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.
>>
>>7797843
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3749017/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22945513

It's like a simple internet search could clear up your confusion or something
>>
>>7797843

That's not correct. About 30% of smokers get lung cancer vs about 1% of non-smokers.
>>
>>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.
>>
>>7796086
Tobacco harbours radioactive lead and polonium isotopes in its hairs. This is (probably) the biggest contributor to cancer risk from tobacco use.

Of course the tissue weighting factor isn't the only thing at play - heating and atomizing the materials will increase their harm potential as well.
>>
>>7797977
If that's the case, wouldn't there still be a way to grow tobacco without the radioactive risk?
>>
>>7797987
You'd have to grow it in a controlled atmosphere and use fertilizers with none of the aforementioned isotopes (which may not be possible).

I love the idea of the cops busting into your home only to find your xXxDANKxXx hydro tobacco setup.

There was a 'reduced radiation' cigarette product floating around a while ago but it never took off IIRC.
>>
>>7797977
http://www.manicbotanix.com/hydro-hype/76-the-radioactive-fertilizer-hoax-.html
>>
>>7795375
This guy. What about all the cocksucking?
>>
>>7798058
It collects the isotopes in its hair. They can come from fertilizer, sure, but there's a lot of radioactive stuff just floating around in the air like radon.
>>
>>7798075
Wouldn't marijuana smokers or other plant smokers have the same problem anyway though?
>>
>>7798092
Well cannabis smokers don't usually smoke the leaves and I'm not sure whether other plants have such an affinity for radioactive molecules.
>>
>>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.
>>
>>7798103

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.
>>
Try exercising while smoking. It's unbelievable how helpless you are when having smoked recently.
>>
File: 1389766553766.jpg (32 KB, 218x232) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1389766553766.jpg
32 KB, 218x232
>>7795349
It is bad for you, this is not up for debate as it is objectively true.

Fuck off.
>>
>>7795375
>correlation isn't causation
one of my least favourite memes
>>
>>7798557
>something is objectively true
>that means it's not up for debate
no
>>
>>7798586
It's not a meme, it's a well known logical fallacy
>>
>>7798623
I've seen it used in situations where it shouldn't be.
>>
>>7795375

...without a direct link. Which is carcinogens.
>>
https://daveatherton.wordpress.com/2011/07/05/after-enstromkabat-did-the-data-get-better-professor-stanton-glantz-says-so/

Looks like the Enstrom/Kabat study may be more accepted as legitimate among peers, even if it's coming from a rabid anti-smoking guy like Glantz.
>>
>>7798557
Wow, what a quality post on a science board. I'm impressed.
>>
>>7798626
In this case, I'd say using it is pretty justified.
Thread replies: 109
Thread images: 7
Thread DB ID: 445047



[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vip /vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y] [Search | Home]

[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vip /vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y] [Search | Home]

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.