What We AREN'T Being Told About Smoking

[ramonmercado]

But since only the extinction of all warm-blooded life forms would solve that

But much more preferable than all of us smokers inconveniencing those poor afflicted non smokers

I reckon your head is going to spontaneously combust one of these days.

 

[Stu73]

I reckon your head is going to spontaneously combust one of these days.

My friend, it exploded about the time that i realized that LHO shot JFK all on his lonesome and that the lights in the sky are just black budget multi billion dollar psy-ops.

 

[Analogue Boy]

As a vigilant yet puppety member of the general public, I am often expected to join a shoal and emote over certain issues. Having recently swum through an atlantic of paedophile scaremongering, the dangerous currents of internet decapitation and the rocky shorelines of ebola, I now find myself following the shoal up a narrowing tributary which seems to be leading to a rivulet of weaker vacuum cleaner enforcement and the puddle of perils of the alternative to smoking.
Common sense is telling me the shoal should be dealing with wider issues.... but I'm told it's too risky and there's far too much trouble out there.

 

[Cochise]

There are so many things going on at the moment that could completely change the bubble we've been living in in the UK since WW2 that I wonder if there are active diversionary tactics going on.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

If you're going to start suspecting that the Great British Media is attempting to drown the Great British punter in a sea of lurid trivia, then it's best to remember that the Mediasphere has been awash with inconsequentiality, for decades.

 

[ramonmercado]

Increased asthma risk for babies whose father smokes before conception

... For this latest study, led by Dr. Cecile Svanes from the University of Bergen in Norway, the researchers used a questionnaire to assess the smoking habits of over 13,000 men and women. They then focused on the number of years an individual had smoked before conception, the incidence of asthma in their children and whether the parent had quit before the baby was conceived.

The study found that fathers - but not mothers - smoking prior to conception predicted non-allergic asthma (without hayfever) in children. Additionally, a child's risk of asthma increased if his or her father smoked before the age of 15, and this risk increased the longer the father's duration of smoking.

"This suggests a clinically important role of smoking on spermatogenesis with consequences for asthma development," write the researchers, "with potentially large impact on public health policies." ...

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/282197.php

 

[escargot]

Years ago I had heavily-smoking neighbours whose baby had breathing problems.

When I visited one day they were trying to get the child to breathe from some kind of inhalation contrivance (steam and vapour were involved somehow, I dunno, I didn't stay long) while they stood over her anxiously puffing away on cigarettes.

All I could think was,

 

[Cochise]

To be fair, the incidence of asthma keeps on increasing (along with allergies in general, although of course the two can exist independently) despite the general reduction in smoking.

But equally, my asthma was caused entirely by smoking.

 

[Rosebud]

I think it deserves its own thread, in fact it probably warrants two.

Doublespeak is usually utilized by those who want a foot in both camps or where stating the bleeding obvious is un-PC. Perhaps this thread should be revived?


http://www.forteantimes.com/forum/viewt ... eak#294007


The PM of Iraq is dancing to several tunes at once, so maybe a ' When does mealy-mouthedness tip over into doublespeak?'

 

[ramonmercado]

Smoking is widely recognized as one of the biggest risk factors for cancer. A new study has now demonstrated that smoking is associated with the loss of the Y chromosome in blood cells, potentially explaining why smoking is more of a risk factor for cancer among men.

Smoking was found to have an association with the loss of the Y chromosome in male smokers, which was affected by the frequency of smoking.
Only men have the Y chromosome, which "may in part explain why men in general have a shorter life span than women, and why smoking is more dangerous for men," says lead researcher Prof. Jan Dumanski, of Uppsala University in Sweden.

Researchers have already shown that male smokers are more likely to develop cancer outside of the respiratory tract than female smokers. In the new study, the discovery of a potential link between smoking and genetic damage that only affects men could account for this difference. ...

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/286474.php

 

[Cochise]

Wouldn't it be good if they concentrated on finding out what actually causes cancer, rather than focusing on 'risk factors' - which are no help at all if you are one of those unfortunate enough to get cancer despite not smoking or whatever?

In any case the risk factors may simply determine where the cancer initially develops rather than whether you get it or not. When people smoked pipes there was a much greater incidence of mouth cancer, and yet the carcinogens were the same.

A while ago there was a doctor who put forward the theory that cancer was triggered by a virus with otherwise mild symptoms so that generally people don't notice they had it. Of course by the time the cancer became evident the virus had long gone.

Another theory I saw was that there was no such disease as cancer, it was a mistaken healing reaction by the body. This might tie in with the fact that some cancers have an hereditary aspect - my wife, her father and her grandfather all died of bowel cancer. (We don't have medical records from further back)

I've heard another theory first hand from medical professionals that traumatic stress is a trigger.

Can anyone point me to anything that has an open-minded look at the various theories?

 

[Mythopoeika]

I think they're going to find that cancer is an auto-immune disorder, much like they're finding out about diabetes, Alzheimer's and so on.

All they have to do then is find out why an auto-immune response is being triggered and how to turn it off.

 

[Jonfairway]

Turning off the immune system is pretty easy.... as is dying from something afterwards Your body ahould have cleared up....



deciding catagorically 100% that smoking causes at the very least Lung Cancer is pretty much 100% for sure for sure....

equate this with breathing in water makes you drown to get the idea..

to much water in lungs dead
to much smoking in lungs dead

simples

 

[Cochise]

Turning off the immune system is pretty easy.... as is dying from something afterwards Your body ahould have cleared up....



deciding catagorically 100% that smoking causes at the very least Lung Cancer is pretty much 100% for sure for sure....

equate this with breathing in water makes you drown to get the idea..

to much water in lungs dead
to much smoking in lungs dead

simples

Except it isn't that simple. If it was, EVERYONE who smokes heavily would die young. They don't.

 

[Schwadevivre]

Please check your assumptions

WHO Trends in Smoking Japan

Essentially death from other causes will often mask the effects of lung cancer

 

[Loquaciousness]

The thing is we

Wouldn't it be good if they concentrated on finding out what actually causes cancer, rather than focusing on 'risk factors' - which are no help at all if you are one of those unfortunate enough to get cancer despite not smoking or whatever?

In any case the risk factors may simply determine where the cancer initially develops rather than whether you get it or not. When people smoked pipes there was a much greater incidence of mouth cancer, and yet the carcinogens were the same.

A while ago there was a doctor who put forward the theory that cancer was triggered by a virus with otherwise mild symptoms so that generally people don't notice they had it. Of course by the time the cancer became evident the virus had long gone.

Another theory I saw was that there was no such disease as cancer, it was a mistaken healing reaction by the body. This might tie in with the fact that some cancers have an hereditary aspect - my wife, her father and her grandfather all died of bowel cancer. (We don't have medical records from further back)

I've heard another theory first hand from medical professionals that traumatic stress is a trigger.

Can anyone point me to anything that has an open-minded look at the various theories?

1. There is no such thing as a universal cause for cancer. In fact, different cancers seem to have different 'risk factors'. If there was a universal cause, even for one cancer, then everyone who smoked would get it.
2. There is evidence of cancers triggered by viruses, e.g. cervical cancer, or the boy in the bubble who died from developing cancer after receiving bone marrow contaminated by the virus that causes glandular virus.
3. The most likely 'cause' of cancer is demonstrated by the diathesis-stress model. In simple terms, the individual has a predisposition for developing a certain cancer (might be genetic, caused by previous exposure to a virus or a toxin in the environment, etc.), this is then triggered at some point by a stress factor such as a compromised immune system (such as is caused by HIV), physical or emotional stress, etc.
4. The older you are the more likely you are to develop cancer - the more times your cells have had to duplicate, the more likely it is that something goes wrong.
5. In terms of pipe smokers developing more mouth cancers, you seem to be right. It appears that this has something to do with the way pipe smokers inhale/amount of carcinogens in the smoke/how long the carcinogens are in touch with the mouth - more details here http://consumer.healthday.com/encyclopedia/cancer-8/mis-cancer-news-102/pipe-smoking-645343.html

 

[Cochise]

That's the sort of info I was looking for.

Is it actually right to refer to cancer as a disease? Or (speaking strictly medically) is it simply a general term for cells that malfunction?

If 3 is correct, surely it would be possible to develop tests (like the tests they have to determine what you are allergic to) to work out which cancers and individual was predisposed to, and monitor people for the cancer starting? As most people know, the prime problem with treating cancer is catching it early enough for the treatment to be effective.

This might be inappropriate for this topic, but I have found it very difficult to find information on cancer that just gives the facts without being too childish or too full of dogma about smoking, drinking etc. - or which at the other extreme is too complex for me as a layman to understand. I'm not interested in whether or not smoking is a prime cause - my wife didn't smoke, and died of bowel cancer, so that discussion has no particular bearing on her situation.

 

[Loquaciousness]

That's the sort of info I was looking for.

Is it actually right to refer to cancer as a disease? Or (speaking strictly medically) is it simply a general term for cells that malfunction?

If 3 is correct, surely it would be possible to develop tests (like the tests they have to determine what you are allergic to) to work out which cancers and individual was predisposed to, and monitor people for the cancer starting? As most people know, the prime problem with treating cancer is catching it early enough for the treatment to be effective.

This might be inappropriate for this topic, but I have found it very difficult to find information on cancer that just gives the facts without being too childish or too full of dogma about smoking, drinking etc. - or which at the other extreme is too complex for me as a layman to understand. I'm not interested in whether or not smoking is a prime cause - my wife didn't smoke, and died of bowel cancer, so that discussion has no particular bearing on her situation.

Well we are already some way down point 3. So for instance, there is a certain gene that predisposes a person to breast cancer, and you can be screened for it. I was when I had my genome sequenced by 23andme.

 

[Cochise]

I am aware there is a genetic component - but I didn't know they had isolated specific genes. My wife came from a family with a predisposition towards bowel cancer - unfortunately this wasn't known until after her father died and his father's records were investigated. That's three generations for certain now.

Her sister is now being regularly tested - she lives in Australia. Apparently tests here wouldn't have been available until my wife was 50 - the age at which she died.

We tend over here to leave everything to the NHS - I can only say that you need to be more proactive and try and find out what your ancestors died of. You can then at least work out what your doctor might need to be looking for.

 

[Loquaciousness]

There is more here on a specific gene mutation that makes an individual more predisposed towards getting breast cancer. http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/type/breast-cancer/about/risks/breast-cancer-genes . Of course there are different breast cancers and this is just one type. Angelina Jolie, for instance, is a carrier of this gene and has chosen to have a mastectomy and I think also a hysterectomy to lessen her risk.
There is also a gene mutation associated with bowel cancer. More info here : https://www.beatingbowelcancer.org/family-history

 

[Cochise]

Thanks, Loquaciousness, that's been very useful. It's too late to get hung up on it, but if only we'd done some research when my wife's father was first diagnosed. Still, that's nearly 10 years ago now, so the info might not have been available then.

Sorry for diverting the thread, everyone.

 

[FrKadash]

''Unborn baby shown grimacing in womb as mother smokes''
By Sarah Knapton, Science Editor, video source ITN

11:36AM GMT 23 Mar 2015

Unborn babies appear to grimace in the womb when their mother lights up, scientists have shown, demonstrating the harmful effects of smoking during pregnancy.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/sci...shown-grimacing-in-womb-as-mother-smokes.html

 

[Mythopoeika]

Not just grimacing - it looks like it's throwing up.

 

[GeorgeP]

I wouldnt be surprised if we eventually see E-Pipes and E-cigars.

 

[ramonmercado]

Parental smoking puts nearly half a million UK children into poverty
Date:
May 29, 2015
Source:
BioMed Central
Summary:
Smoking is not only bad for your health; it also puts 400,000 children in poverty in the UK alone. Smoking places a financial burden on low income families, suggesting that parents are likely to forgo basic household and food necessities in order to fund their addiction.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/05/150529083538.htm

 

[Eponastill]

Sounds like another round of Demonisation of the Poor to me. What about poor people with pets! Spending money on dog food! Eat those pets. What about poor people having children at all when they can't afford it? Sterilise them!

No I'm not serious. But we've had so much of this kind of reporting recently in Britain. You can't even collect social security any more. You have to be on 'welfare'. According to the press that is. It makes me irritable.

 

[Mythopoeika]

Sounds like another round of Demonisation of the Poor to me. What about poor people with pets! Spending money on dog food! Eat those pets. What about poor people having children at all when they can't afford it? Sterilise them!

No I'm not serious. But we've had so much of this kind of reporting recently in Britain. You can't even collect social security any more. You have to be on 'welfare'. According to the press that is. It makes me irritable.

Yes. We're only allowed to be rich and powerful now. Anybody who doesn't conform to that must be imprisoned/left to die of starvation/forced to emigrate.

 

[Yithian]

Feel free to flame me in response to the following:

Why is it when I read the British press I begin to believe the UK is a member of the third world, yet everywhere I go I see wealth? There is still a small minority of the genuinely impoverished, but the 'poor' are not objectively or historically poor. And despite being lamentably educated, a sizeable majority of British children has a fairly decent existence with regards to health, wealth and lifestyle. Not perfect, not everyone, but by and large they've done pretty well in the lottery of life compared with the numerous wretched places in which most of the world's youth are being raised.

 

[drbastard]

It is easy to forget that we do have it good in this country. However I think poverty can sometimes be masked by the way some families place a high priority on 'stuff' over basic living needs.

I know a family who struggle to buy food yet still everyone has an iPad each. Another flaunts a BMW on their drive but are knee deep in credit card debt etc.

 

[Graylien]

Speaking from personal experience, I think if you're a single person living on benefits then it's a bit hard to get by, particularly if you're trapped in private accommodation, but once you have large families with lots of kids all living together then they appear to manage reasonably comfortably even if no-one is working.

We do live in a culture that's obsessed by 'stuff' though, and one where credit seems too easily available to people who really shouldn't be getting themselves in debt.

Also, I think whinging about how poor you also seems to have become a British characteristic, rather like whinging about the weather. I've known people much better off than me who constantly whine about not having enough money. You just know that however much they get, it's never going to satisfy them.

Lastly, I suspect celebrity culture might be somewhat to blame. In the old days, people generally only compared their lifestyles to those of their neighbours and colleagues. Now we have the Daily Mail et al constantly rubbing our faces in how opulent the lives of the rich and famous are, and by comparison our own little lives inevitably seem pretty shabby.