• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Most Lifelong Smokers Never Develop Lung Cancer—Why Not?

kesavaross said:
My Grandmother smoked Woodbines unfiltered. My Grandfather smoked Capstain Navy. Both cigarettes could strip the bark off trees. He died aged 96, she died aged 92. Both born around 1880. (That seems incredible now, that I knew people born during the reign of Queen Victoria.)

There are always individual examples that seem to be contrary to proper studies.

I've often wondered is there a weird link. Maybe those who are prone to smoking are prone to chest diseases or, going by the original study posted at the top, perhaps those who are prone to smoking are lifelong are resistant to diseases that smoking causes? Rather like those that naturally take to swimming when young are less likely to die by drowning?

Cancer went from being almost unheard of when I was young, born 1957, to being now common place. Maybe the causes of cancer are by some other reason but now amplified by modern life styles? Cancer of all types is definitely on the increase, smoker or non smoker. There must be a reason for that?
Click to expand...
Good points. I think many more people are not dying of other diseases which were prevalent before. To a certain extant, the older one gets, the more likely it is that one will develop cancer.
 
None of the above explains the reason that many more people now die of cancer than previously. Especially children. When I was a kid, no other kids died of anything, let alone cancer. Now it almost seems, sadly, common.

TB is now on the increase having been in decline up to the 90's.
 
I'm afraid statistics are not backing you up there. Childhood mortality has been going down steadily for decades.
 
kesavaross said:
None of the above explains the reason that many more people now die of cancer than previously. Especially children. When I was a kid, no other kids died of anything, let alone cancer. Now it almost seems, sadly, common.

TB is now on the increase having been in decline up to the 90's.
Click to expand...

Perhaps we did not explain it sufficiently. You seem to have an unarticulated assumption that in the past 100 years, all other causes of death have been held constant, and that the cancer increase is remarkable. I disagree with this; and I have different assumption about the other causes of death.

You can rummage through the public health records and statistics for your country, and see, for any decade in the past 140 years or so:
1. average lifespan.
2. percentage of children born who died by age 10.
3. the 10-20 leading causes of death.
4. the changes in the leading causes of death.
etc.

All these factors are important to understand the trends in mortality. This will give you baselines, and clearly delineated trends or changes. If you could post this information here, I for one would be grateful.

If cancer is primarily - not entirely - a disease of aging and genetics, which is what my oncologist told me, then if more people are surviving longer (which is the case as a consistent trend in north America and western Europe, barring world wars and covid), the percentage of people developing cancer will increase. There are some environmental clusters, leading to the surmise that a causative agent is at work in those areas. The US CDC has tracked on a county level at least since WWII. I was born and raised in a county which leads the US in weird cancers. Heavy industrial pollution of water and air. When I was a child 60 years ago, I attended regular funerals for children and teenagers. Not frequent, but one every year or two. I remember leukemia, car accident, brain aneurysm, cancer, drug overdose, shooting.

Up until the past 70 years, the leading causes of death in the UK were TB, diptheria, scarlet fever, childbirth for mother, influenza, and other bacterial and viral infections. Although all these diseases are still around, almost nobody dies from them, and lifespan has greatly increased. Better public health, healthcare, and vaccinations and antibiotics have been game changers.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...articles/causesofdeathover100years/2017-09-18
 
My Dad's father (Poppa) smoked a pipe since he was a lad. He died in his 80s, but not from lung cancer. Nope, he died from a nasty reaction to a new medicine that had been introduced (can't remember what).
My Dad was a smoker until his early 30s. No lung problems there, no cancer. Lived to be 90.
My Mum's father was a non-smoker, non-drinker, died at 86. He had emphysema.
So it's pot luck and genetics.
 
Endlessly Amazed said:
the older one gets, the more likely it is that one will develop cancer. die.
Click to expand...
FTFY.

And in answer to somebody else's query on 'stuff' in fags that 'adulterate' them.

'Tailor made' tabs have saltpetre added to the tobacco so that it continues to burn at a steady rate instead of 'going out' when left (eg) in an ashtray.
AFAIA Cigarette companies did/do this deliberately so that they sell more.
 
Mythopoeika said:
My Dad's father (Poppa) smoked a pipe since he was a lad. He died in his 80s, but not from lung cancer. Nope, he died from a nasty reaction to a new medicine that had been introduced (can't remember what).
My Dad was a smoker until his early 30s. No lung problems there, no cancer. Lived to be 90.
My Mum's father was a non-smoker, non-drinker, died at 86. He had emphysema.
So it's pot luck and genetics.
Click to expand...
When I studied Environmental & Public Health at degree level one of our (non-smoking) lecturers drew attention to the fact that many deaths from lung cancer caused by exposure to asbestos were wrongly attributed to cigarette smoking, simply for the reason that the dangers and processes of asbestos were not known about at that time. Lots of working class people came into contact with asbestos during their everyday work and they were also the heaviest smokers as a demographic cohort.

That said, please don't think I am recommending smoking. When I worked a season on a P&O cruise ship (2003) I was astonished at the number of passengers coming on board with oxygen masks and cylinders for their emphysema, which was definitely smoking-related and otherwise normally 'hidden' from everyday life. These were wealthy, former career people whose lives were now severely limited.
 
Last edited:
kesavaross said:
My Grandmother smoked Woodbines unfiltered. My Grandfather smoked Capstain Navy. Both cigarettes could strip the bark off trees. He died aged 96, she died aged 92. Both born around 1880. (That seems incredible now, that I knew people born during the reign of Queen Victoria.)

There are always individual examples that seem to be contrary to proper studies.

I've often wondered is there a weird link. Maybe those who are prone to smoking are prone to chest diseases or, going by the original study posted at the top, perhaps those who are prone to smoking are lifelong are resistant to diseases that smoking causes? Rather like those that naturally take to swimming when young are less likely to die by drowning?

Cancer went from being almost unheard of when I was young, born 1957, to being now common place. Maybe the causes of cancer are by some other reason but now amplified by modern life styles? Cancer of all types is definitely on the increase, smoker or non smoker. There must be a reason for that?
Click to expand...
Grandad (father's side) was born in 1879. Lied about his age for most of his life, but I have documents where he crudely altered 1879 to 1889. And my Dad altered 1910 to 1919. Both of them in the Merchant Navy before Dad became a bareknuckle fighter. Eventually after an injury that stopped him fighting a former sponsor of his got him a job at the Savoy Hotel, were he was trained as a full blown Escoffier qualified chef.

Granddad - mother's side - was born in Whitechapel in the 1880's. Died in the 1960's while trying to dance the Twist at a holiday camp. Smoked all his life, filterless rollups. 'Old Holborn' his tobacco of choice. Gassed in WW1. Worked for WD&HO Wills there after. Taught me to read from cigarette cards by the time I was 4. Very intelligent, almost no schooling.

We don't get on with forms in my family. Or intrusive questions. I must have overcome an awful lot of frowning forebears to get my pension. It's only because my line is dying out that I now want people to know some history.

Although Dad can't spin in his grave 'cos he was cremated. Not my choice.
 
Last edited:
I'm sorry, I got off the point there and distracted.

What I basically set out to say was my family were working class, smokers and otherwise unhealthy and tough lifestyles, while my wife's family were wealthy and well looked after, going back generations. Some of my wife's relatives are VERY rich.

But my wife's family was riddled with cancer - she died of it, her father and grandfather also, and her mum died of some obscure kidney ailment, my sister-in-law's son also has had cancer before out of his teens but has very fortunately survived. Genes.
 
kesavaross said:
None of the above explains the reason that many more people now die of cancer than previously. Especially children. When I was a kid, no other kids died of anything, let alone cancer. Now it almost seems, sadly, common.

TB is now on the increase having been in decline up to the 90's.
Click to expand...
My mother worked digitalising old birth, death certificates - most dating from before 1970 and I remember her telling me she was appalled by the number recorded as dying from cancer.
 
BlackPeter said:
My mother worked digitalising old birth, death certificates - most dating from before 1970 and I remember her telling me she was appalled by the number recorded as dying from cancer.
Click to expand...
Agree. I had a friend - not a close one, a boy living in my street - who had leukemia and died from it at 18. That would have been approximately 1972.

There is some truth that many older people would have died from other things before cancer set in, but it has been a killer - if not always diagnosed - forever - it's not just some disease of modern times. It would often have been put down to other causes before modern medicine.
 
My Dad worked for a huge pharmaceutical firm for many years and spent ten of those years in cancer research.
I remember him showing us as kids the trees in a neighboring town, that had huge 'knots' on them, big lumps on the trunks. He told us that we should never move to an area where trees were showing these abnormal growths, because that meant something was wrong in that area - could have been the water, the air, the soil, but something was not right.
I always listened to that.
 
Floyd1 said:
I reckon so.
The thing is, it's probably dependant on many factors. For example, if you smoke in an enclosed area (room/vehicle) I would suggest that that is a lot worse for you than being outside. Also, if you are inactive, that will make a difference compared to someone who exercises regularly - and many 'physical types' do smoke, and some are also heavy drinkers - the armed forces for eg, (or they used to be- maybe it's changed now though).
Click to expand...
On old friend qualified to be a Royal Marine over 25 years ago. He told me that during basic training they were all told that they could ignore advice to quit smoking due to the intense level of training they were receiving but to avoid cigarettes that had fibre glass in the filters. They were particularly told to avoid smoking John Player Specials.
 
Swifty said:
On old friend qualified to be a Royal Marine over 25 years ago. He told me that during basic training they were all told that they could ignore advice to quit smoking due to the intense level of training they were receiving but to avoid cigarettes that had fibre glass in the filters. They were particularly told to avoid smoking John Player Specials.
Click to expand...
I remember hearing that about JPS as well.
Just thinking about my Great Granddad who I just remember, as I was four when he died. My Mother told me he had a bottle of beer most nights and smoked strong smelling cigarettes (not sure which brand) and he was around 80 when he died. After the horrors of the Somme though I don't suppose he really was that bothered anyway.
Reminds me of the old boy who had been through two wars, and a prisoner of war camp and they told him in the old folks home that he wasn't allowed more than three eggs a week - this was back when eggs were the devil incarnate (devilled eggs?) - anyway he quite rightly told them to get f****d.
 
Ronnie Jersey said:
My Dad worked for a huge pharmaceutical firm for many years and spent ten of those years in cancer research.
I remember him showing us as kids the trees in a neighboring town, that had huge 'knots' on them, big lumps on the trunks. He told us that we should never move to an area where trees were showing these abnormal growths, because that meant something was wrong in that area - could have been the water, the air, the soil, but something was not right.
I always listened to that.
Click to expand...
I'm not exactly sure of what abnormal tree growths he was talking about, but many of those large contusions on trees are caused by humans.
Sometimes, a tree's bark may get damaged or branches get pollarded (chopped off very short). This can cause a bruise in the green wood of the tree, which then thickens up. It's nothing to do with cancer.
Unless... your Dad was talking about polluted water tables causing abnormal growth in trees?
 
Last edited:
Mythopoeika said:
I'm not exactly sure of what abnormal tree growths he was talking about, but many of those large contusions on trees are caused by humans.
Sometimes, a tree's bark may get damaged or branches get pollarded (chopped of very short). This can cause a bruise in the green wood of the tree, which then thickens up. It's nothing to do with cancer.
Unless... your Dad was talking about polluted water tables causing abnormal growth in trees?
Click to expand...
Aren't they Burl?
 
Floyd1 said:
Reminds me of the old boy who had been through two wars, and a prisoner of war camp and they told him in the old folks home that he wasn't allowed more than three eggs a week - this was back when eggs were the devil incarnate (devilled eggs?) - anyway he quite rightly told them to get f****d.
Click to expand...

I believe that it was Group Captain Leonard Cheshire VC, OM, DSO & 2 Bars, DFC (!) who, when in a nursing home in later life, was told that his morning soft-boiled egg was "too dangerous for him".

Cheshire's reply is unrecorded, but he went on to found his own chain of retirement homes. Where, I trust, eggs of all types are freely available.

maximus otter
 
maximus otter said:
I believe that it was Group Captain Leonard Cheshire VC, OM, DSO & 2 Bars, DFC (!) who, when in a nursing home in later life, was told that his morning soft-boiled egg was "too dangerous for him".

Cheshire's reply is unrecorded, but he went on to found his own chain of retirement homes. Where, I trust, eggs of all types are freely available.

maximus otter
Click to expand...
Ha! Yes, that rings a bell.
 
maximus otter said:
I believe that it was Group Captain Leonard Cheshire VC, OM, DSO & 2 Bars, DFC (!) who, when in a nursing home in later life, was told that his morning soft-boiled egg was "too dangerous for him".

Cheshire's reply is unrecorded, but he went on to found his own chain of retirement homes. Where, I trust, eggs of all types are freely available.

maximus otter
Click to expand...
Eggs are great in just about every form possible, butter is fantastic too, much healthier and much more natural than those terrible low-fat heart-friendlt 'spreads', which really are the devil's food.

Don't believe me? Try Dr John Briffa, nutritionist.

http://www.drbriffa.com/2013/11/01/...ter-versus-margarine-debate-once-and-for-all/

This includes the quote: "In one [piece of research], men ate their normal diet, while in the other the men were instructed to eat a diet rich in safflower oil, including safflower oil-based margarine. The men on this ‘heart-healthy’ diet actually ended up being 74 per cent more likely to die of heart disease."

I rest my case!
 
Vardoger said:
We got the typical life long smokers at 102 year of age saying to media smoking and whiskey kept them going, but it was their genes which saved them.
Click to expand...
I’ve mentioned it before on this forum that I come from a family of long lifers . All my dad’s side of the family were heavy smokers and drinkers, and they all got into their 90’s before death came for them, and that was through old age rather than a cancer.

My uncle Tom in particular, smoked 60 fags a day and drank at least a bottle of whiskey a day, not to mention at least 8 pints of beer a day and he was almost 98 before he passed.

You are correct Vardoger – its all in the genes……..well hopefully anyway.!!!
 
cycleboy2 said:
Eggs are great in just about every form possible, butter is fantastic too, much healthier and much more natural than those terrible low-fat heart-friendlt 'spreads', which really are the devil's food.

Don't believe me? Try Dr John Briffa, nutritionist.

http://www.drbriffa.com/2013/11/01/...ter-versus-margarine-debate-once-and-for-all/

This includes the quote: "In one [piece of research], men ate their normal diet, while in the other the men were instructed to eat a diet rich in safflower oil, including safflower oil-based margarine. The men on this ‘heart-healthy’ diet actually ended up being 74 per cent more likely to die of heart disease."

I rest my case!
Click to expand...
I'd not heard of safflower, but I have started cooking more with vegetable 'spread' in things like omelettes etc. Especially since oil has gone up so much.
(MrsF says her Grandmother used to use so much butter on a sandwich that it was spread on as thickly as the slices of cheese that she put on with it).
 
There's always the great W.C. Field's view.

Say, Mr. Fields, I read in the paper where you consumed two quarts of liquor a day. What would your father think about that?

WC: He’d think I was a sissy.
 
cycleboy2 said:
Eggs are great in just about every form possible, butter is fantastic too, much healthier and much more natural than those terrible low-fat heart-friendlt 'spreads', which really are the devil's food.

Don't believe me? Try Dr John Briffa, nutritionist.

http://www.drbriffa.com/2013/11/01/...ter-versus-margarine-debate-once-and-for-all/

This includes the quote: "In one [piece of research], men ate their normal diet, while in the other the men were instructed to eat a diet rich in safflower oil, including safflower oil-based margarine. The men on this ‘heart-healthy’ diet actually ended up being 74 per cent more likely to die of heart disease."

I rest my case!
Click to expand...
Yes, it’s interesting isn’t it. More and more people are regularly getting in to their late 90’s and early 100’s, and these were the generation who were all brought up with the frying pan. Most of the food eaten then would be described as processed food today, sausages and bacon etc including offal and fried in lard.

Strange isn’t it.
 
Dick Turpin said:
Strange isn’t it.
Click to expand...
Nah not really.
Modern life has been made such that everything is as frustrating and misleading as possible in order to keep the populace in a general state of unease.
Constantly informing us all that this or that is either bad for you or good for you, depending on how 'they' want to try and influence our existence is all part of it.
You don't see remote tribes of people without access to rolling news, internet, newspapers etc having the same issues with their health etc that 'western, civilised' societies do.

Give me lard, fags, and booze, any day.
 
Last edited:
Trevp666 said:
Nah not really.
Modern life has been made such that everything is as frustrating and misleading as possible in order to keep the populace in a general state of unease.
Constantly informing us all that this or that is either bad for you or good for you, depending on how 'they' want to try and influence our existence is all part of it.
You don't see remote tribes of people without access to rolling news, internet, newspapers etc having the same issues with their health atc that 'western, civilised' societies do.

Give me lard, fags, and booze, any day.
Click to expand...
A man after my own heart lol.
 
Dick Turpin said:
My uncle Tom in particular, smoked 60 fags a day and drank at least a bottle of whiskey a day, not to mention at least 8 pints of beer a day and he was almost 98 before he passed.
Click to expand...
He had a great life and lived to the max, by the sound of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top