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

What We AREN'T Being Told About Smoking

On which note, I've always wondered what on earth people are getting up to for smoking to increase the risk of cervical cancer ......

(of course, tobacco is so full of carcinogens it increases risk of pretty much all cancers, not just those in the areas it touches)
 
escargot1 said:
Wasn't there a Skoal Bandit-type factory planned some years ago, in Scotland? I seem to remember that after some campaigning by health awareness groups, involving Esther Rantzen, the company were refused permission for it.
Click to expand...

It was built in East Kilbride back in the 80s with about £200,000 of public money in grants, but then oral tobacco was banned in the UK before (as far as I remember) they could start production.
 
They used to sponsor Suzuki too, I remember my mate had a RG500 Gamma in full Skoal Bandit colours.
They should have had a little private meeting with the Prime Minister, a nice intimate dinner, Ecclestone-style, then they would still be selling in the UK.
 
_Lizard23_ said:
On which note, I've always wondered what on earth people are getting up to for smoking to increase the risk of cervical cancer ......

(of course, tobacco is so full of carcinogens it increases risk of pretty much all cancers, not just those in the areas it touches)
Click to expand...

Ask Monica. :lol:
 
Aah yes, that's right! Well remembered! :D

I'd forgotten the crucial public funding aspect. What a bummer all round.

Except for the East kilbride brickies, plumbers, roofers, electricians etc. ;)
 
Re: James Whitehead has given me a proustian moment!

CarlosTheDJ said:
millomite said:
balding13 said:
Reading your beautiful prose transported me back over thirty years, to the Essex tobacconist, where I could purchase Balkan Sobranie, Black Russian and other exotic smokin smoking comestibles. Regarding the thread topic, when I worked for a Japanese company (the largest telco in the world) everyone smoked, but Japanese people drink very little. Two pints of stella would have them paralytic and near dead the next day. As an ethnic Irishman I have to grudgeingly admit it's actually the healthy way to regard booze.

What's probably more important is the Japanese mindset.
Click to expand...

Japanese do not have the enzyme to breakdown ethanol like us westerners and so they suffer the effects quicker and for longer - so i understand.
Click to expand...


IIRC, it's something to do with the fact that in the "West", we used alcohol to purify water (as ale etc.), but in the "East" the convention was to boil the water up and then drink it (tea).

Westerners evolved the gene to help break down the poisonous alcohol over time.
Click to expand...

I really don't think evolution works like that!.
 
Nope. If it did we'd have evolved a natural resistance to hangovers by now. :lol:
 
Snuff is officially no fun.

Makes me sneeze uncontrollably a forms really gritty little bogeys later.
 
We're all doomed. (So are our progeny on to the nth generation.)

Smoking 'causes damage in minutes', US experts claim
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12193602

Smoking There may be genetic damage just moments after smoking

Related stories

* Light smoking still a cancer risk
* Smoking link to ectopic pregnancy
* Smoking curbs: The global picture

Smoking damages the body in minutes rather than years, according to research in the US.

The report, published in Chemical Research in Toxicology, shows that chemicals which cause cancer form rapidly after smoking.

Scientists involved in the small-scale study described the results as a stark warning to people considering smoking.

Anti-smoking charity Ash described the research as "chilling" and as a warning that it is never too early to quit.

The long term impact of smoking, from heart disease to a range of cancers, is well known. This study suggests the damage begins just moments after the first cigarette is smoked.
Faster than you might think

The researchers looked at the level of chemicals linked with cancer, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), in 12 patients after smoking.

A PAH was added to the subject's cigarettes, which was then modified by the body and turned into another chemical which damages DNA and has been linked with cancer.

The research shows this process only took between 15 and 30 minutes to take place.

Professor Stephen Hecht, from the University of Minnesota, said: "This study is unique, it is the first to investigate human metabolism of a PAH specifically delivered by inhalation in cigarette smoke, without interference by other sources of exposure such as air pollution or the diet.

"The results reported here should serve as a stark warning to those who are considering starting to smoke cigarettes."

Martin Dockrell, director of policy and research at Ash (Action on Smoking and Health), said: "Almost everybody knows that smoking can cause lung cancer.

"The chilling thing about this research is that it shows just how early the very first stages of that process begin - not in 30 years but within 30 minutes of a single cigarette for every subject in the study.

"The process starts early but it is never too late to quit and the sooner you quit the sooner you start to reduce the harm."

The research was funded by the US National Cancer Institute.
Click to expand...
 
Where does that revelation leave so-called "passive smoking"?
 
I would guess, it means we're all stuffed.
 
Smoking linked to earlier male deaths
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12205365
By Michelle Roberts Health reporter, BBC News

Man smoking The Medical Research Council study looked at 30 European countries

Related stories

* Smoking damages body 'in minutes'
* Nearly one in five 'to reach 100'
* UK 'lags behind Europe on health'

Smoking is the main reason why on average men die sooner than women across Europe, according to research.

World Health Organization figures on death rates reveal tobacco-related illness accounts for up to 60% of the gender health gap in most countries.

In the UK, women live an average of four years longer than men, although in recent years the gap has been closing.

Second to smoking, alcohol accounts for about 20% of the disparity, the journal Tobacco Control reports.

Some experts have claimed the difference is down to simple biology or the fact that women seek medical help more readily than men.

But the latest findings suggest smoking is the main culprit.

Across 30 European countries, which included the UK, deaths from all causes were higher for men than for women.
Continue reading the main story
“Start Quote

The fact that the gender gap varies between countries shows it is social causes, and largely smoking-related”

End Quote Dr Gerry McCartney Study author

Iceland and the UK ranked the lowest, with around 200 excess male deaths per 100,000 population each year, while Lithuania and Ukraine ranked the highest, at over 800 excess male deaths per 100,000.

When the researchers looked at what had contributed to the deaths, they found smoking was behind 40% to 60% of the gender gap in all countries, except Denmark, Portugal and France, where it was lower, and Malta where it was much higher - at over 70%.

In the UK, smoking-related diseases, such as lung cancer and heart disease, caused 60% of the excess male deaths.

Dr Gerry McCartney, who led the research for the UK's Medical Research Council, said: "This study shows it's not simply a biological difference between men and women.

"The fact that the gender gap varies between countries shows it is social causes, and largely smoking-related."

He said it was promising that smoking rates were going down as more people decided to kick the habit.

But he said there was a worrying trend of smoking and drinking now emerging among young women, which needed to be kept under close scrutiny.

Although smoking is behaviour often tied up with other social factors - such as deprivation - that can impact on health, it is something that is relatively simple to tackle, say experts.

Natasha Stewart, senior cardiac nurse at the British Heart Foundation, said: "It is never too late to give up smoking so it's important we invest in support services to help people quit the habit as well as ensuring our young people don't start smoking in the first place.

"That's why we want to see the removal of displays of cigarettes from shops - a form of tobacco marketing which entices youngsters into a life addiction and health problems."
Click to expand...
 
Sounds like lighting a cigarette is getting more and more akin to lighting the fuse on a stick of dynamite. Can the day be far away before lighting up is classed as a terrorist act?
 
I'm quite confident that there'll an intermediary step: the first attempted prosecution under existing legislation for the lighting a cigarette on private property without first seeking the permission of those in the immediate vicinity - forcing them (it will be argued) to inhale your second-hand smoke.

Perhaps a change to the law or new legislation will follow to facilitate such prosecutions. You now that either your society or its government (or both) is well on the way to the dogs it is found necessary to legislate good manners and common sense. I couldn't quite believe it when I saw the no smoking sign in the main doorway of Canterbury Cathedral.

It's coming; I can smell it on the wind.
 
Yes We Can!

Barack Obama has not smoked in a year - Michelle Obama

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12399957

US President Barack Obama has not smoked a cigarette in almost a year, First Lady Michelle Obama has said.

Mrs Obama said she is very proud of her husband, who had smoked for years and has repeatedly spoken of his struggle to quit tobacco.

In December, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said he had not seen the president smoke in nine months.

After a 2010 medical examination, Mr Obama was told by Dr Jeffrey Kuhlman he should continue trying to quit smoking.
Click to expand...
 
Lung Cancer Predicted From Toenail Nicotine
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/218422.php

07 Mar 2011

How much nicotine you have in your toenails could predict your risk of developing lung cancer according to a new American study published online last week.

Using data from a large health study, the researchers compared nicotine levels in toenail clippings of male smokers who developed lung cancer over a 12 year period with equivalent male smokers who did not, and found the ones with the highest nicotine levels were 3.57 times more likely to develop lung cancer, regardless of their smoking history.

They said their findings suggest studies that only use smoking history, based on self-reported data, may be underestimating the adverse effect of smoking on health.

For example, if you only use how much people say they smoke as a way to assess lung cancer risk, you may not be measuring how much tobacco smoke and carcinogens they actually inhale into their lungs, leaving open the chance of error coming from respondents either not giving an accurate account, or because some just inhale more than others.

The two study authors were Dr Wael K Al-Delaimy, Associate Professor & Chief, Division of Global Health, Family & Preventive Medicine Cancer Prevention & Control Program at the University of California San Diego (UCSD) Medical Center, and Dr Walter C Willett, Fredrick John Stare Professor of Epidemiology and Nutrition Chair Department of Nutrition, Harvard School of Public Health, in Boston, Massachusetts, and the journal that published their paper is the American Journal of Epidemiology.

They set out to see if nicotine levels in toenail clippings might be an effective biomarker for lung cancer risk.

They used toenail clippings because nails grow slowly and thus provide a more stable measure than say saliva or urine.

For the study, Al-Delaimy and Willett used data on male smokers aged between 40 and 75 years from the Health Professionals Follow-up Study and who, in 1987, had given samples of toenail clippings for nicotine analysis.

They compared 210 men who were diagnosed with lung cancer between 1988 and 2000, with 630 matched controls who did not develop lung cancer.

The found that the mean nicotine level among the men with lung cancer was 0.95 ng/mg, which differed significantly from the 0.25 ng/mg of the men who did not develop lung cancer (P < 0.0001).

The researchers then compared the 20% of men with the highest level of toenail nicotine against the 20% with the lowest level, and found the relative risk of developing lung cancer for the former was a significant 10.5 times higher compared to the latter (95% confidence interval CI ranged from 5.61 to 19.64; while P for trend < 0.0001).

However, this result was before they took into account smoking history, that is how many cigarettes the men said they smoked when they answered questions for the health study.

When Al-Delaimy and Willett adjusted the figures to take into account the men's self-reported smoking history (based on pack- years), the relative risk in the 20% of men with the highest nicotine levels in their toenail clippings was still a significant 3.57 times higher than for the 20% with the lowest levels (95% CI 1.73-7.37; P for trend < 0.0001).

They concluded that:

"... the toenail nicotine biomarker was found to be a strong predictor of lung cancer independent of smoking history, suggesting that the adverse effects of cigarette smoke may be underestimated in studies based on smoking history only."

"Toenail Nicotine Level as a Novel Biomarker for Lung Cancer Risk."
Wael K Al-Delaimy and Walter C Willett
Am. J. Epidemiol. kwq446, first published online 2 March 2011
DOI:10.1093/aje/kwq446
Click to expand...
 
err ban smoking everywhere ?

oh I forogt, that would would make a dent in the government coffers and so make more deficit !!!

we're buggered
 
Could be an industry in extracting nicotine from toe nail clippings.
 
No need to extract the nicotine, you just bag them up and sell them as nicotine chews to help you quit smoking.
 
theyithian said:
I'm quite confident that there'll an intermediary step: the first attempted prosecution under existing legislation for the lighting a cigarette on private property without first seeking the permission of those in the immediate vicinity - forcing them (it will be argued) to inhale your second-hand smoke.

Perhaps a change to the law or new legislation will follow to facilitate such prosecutions. You now that either your society or its government (or both) is well on the way to the dogs it is found necessary to legislate good manners and common sense. I couldn't quite believe it when I saw the no smoking sign in the main doorway of Canterbury Cathedral.

It's coming; I can smell it on the wind.
Click to expand...
I really am very down on ETS (secong hand / passive smoking) at the moment. Never mind 'third hand smoke' (being in a room where someone once smoked) and now 'fourth hand smoke' (being in the presence of someone who has been in the presence of someone smoking).

I linked to this in another thread, but I'll do it again - it is a long but interesting read. The guy is pretty pro-smoking, I guess, but I'd like to see the science refuted:
http://www.velvetgloveironfist.com/pdfs ... moking.pdf

I'm reading a lot about 'nudging' and 'denormalisation' these days .... it seems a priori judgements and social engineering are more important than good hard research (?) ...... ouch.
 
Passive smoking increases stillbirth risk, says study
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12711615

Fathers who smoke should be aware of the danger they pose to their unborn child, experts say

Related Stories

Passive smoking risk in flats
Passive smoking 'kills 600,000'
Call to end child passive smoking
Fathers-to-be should stop smoking to protect their unborn child from the risk of stillbirth or birth defects, scientists say.

University of Nottingham researchers found that pregnant women exposed to smoke at work or home increased their risk of stillbirth by 23% and of having a baby with defects by 13%.

They looked at 19 previous studies from around the world.

A UK expert said it was "vital" women knew the risks of second-hand smoke.

The studies used to pull this research together were carried out in North America, South America, Asia and Europe.

All the studies focused on pregnant women who did not smoke themselves but were passive smokers due to their proximity to a partner who smoked or work colleagues who smoked.

The combined data from the studies suggests that being exposed to more than 10 cigarettes a day is enough for the risks to be increased.

Continue reading the main story
“
Start Quote

It is very important that men quit smoking before trying for a baby.”

Dr Jo Leonardi-Bee
University of Nottingham
However, the University of Nottingham study did not find an increased risk of miscarriage or newborn death from second-hand smoke - only an increased risk of still birth and birth defects.

The results did not point to a link with any specific congenital birth defect.

Impact on sperm development
The researchers say fathers who smoke should be more aware of the danger they pose to their unborn child.

Previous research has shown that women who smoke during their pregnancy create serious health risks for their unborn baby, including low birth weight, premature birth and a range of serious birth defects such as cleft palate, club foot and heart problems.

Dr Jo Leonardi-Bee, lead researcher of the study and associate professor in medical statistics at the University of Nottingham, said they still did not know when the effects of the second-hand smoke begin.

"What we still don't know is whether it is the effect of sidestream smoke that the woman inhales that increases these particular risks or whether it is the direct effect of mainstream smoke that the father inhales during smoking that affects sperm development, or possibly both.

"More research is needed into this issue although we already know that smoking does have an impact on sperm development, so it is very important that men quit smoking before trying for a baby."

Dr Leonardi-Bee added: "The risks are related to the amount of cigarettes that are smoked so it is therefore very important for men to cut down.

"Ultimately though, in the interests of their partner and their unborn child, the best option would be to give up completely."

Andrew Shennan, professor of obstetrics at St. Thomas' Hospital in London and spokesperson for baby charity Tommy's, said: "It is vital that women are made aware of the possible risks associated with second-hand smoke and alert those around them of the impact it could potentially have on the health of their unborn baby.

"The chemicals in cigarettes are known to significantly increase the risk of serious pregnancy complications."
Click to expand...
 
Yet another non-statistically-significant epidemiology meta-analysis result being plastered around the media to 'denormalise' smoking by adding to the 'overwhelming body of evidence' for the dangers of passive smoking.
Wonderful.

Drinking *is* next, incidentally.

The BMA have decided on a policy to 'denormalise' alcohol, just as the WHO decided to pursue a policy based on the health risks of passive smoking which they knew intuitively to exist, even before their studies, and ones like this one, effectively proved they don't.

All looks very convincing when you read the press release, but less so if you check the science (no, I've not bothered either, but risks of 1.13 would have the scientific community laughing at you as your funding was taken away if you presented them as proof that eating e.g. oranges causes HIV, or anything else ... anything below 2.0 or 3.0 depending on whose methodology you trust is considered a 'weak association' at best ... not causality).

Expect the same levels of non-proof to convince you that there is 'no safe level of alcohol consumption', not to mention third and even fourth hand tobacco smoke exposure (the latter, incidentally, is going near someone who has been near someone who smokes - I'm not making this stuff up) over the next few years.
 
Secondhand Smoke Tied To ADHD And Learning Disabilities In Children

11 Jul 2011

Children exposed to secondhand smoke in the home appear to be at 50% higher risk of neurobehavioural disorders such as ADHD/ADD and learning disabilities compared to unexposed children according to an analysis led by the Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) that was published in the journal Pediatrics this week. The analysts suggest if such a link were found to be causal, then secondhand smoke in the home is responsible for over quarter of a million children across the US developing ADHD and other neurobehavioural disorders.

For their research, Hillel Alpert, a research scientist for the Tobacco Control Research and Training Program at the HSPH in Boston, Massachusetts, and colleagues, examined data from the 2007 National Survey on Children's Health. The telephone survey took place between April 2007 and July 2008.

The analysts were particularly interested in parent-reported information on secondhand smoke exposure in the home experienced by children from birth to the age of 12, and neurobehavioral disorders (that is, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder or ADHD/ADD, learning disabilities, and conduct disorders).

Using advanced statistical methods they looked for higher than expected neurobehavioral disorders and how these might be linked to exposure to secondhand smoke in the home. The tools they used allowed them to take into account potential confounders like socioeconomic background, income and so on.

The results showed that:
The nationally representative survey covered 55,358 American children under the age of 12.

6% of these under 12s were exposed to secondhand smoke in the home: this corresponds to 4.8 million across the whole of the US.
The weighted prevalence of learning disabilities among these children was 8.2% (95% Confidence Interval CI ranged from 7.5 to 8.8%).

For ADHD/ADD this was 5.9% (95% CI: 5.5-6.4%) and for behavioral and conduct disorders this was 3.6% (95% CI: 3.1-4.0%).

Children exposed to secondhand smoke at home had a 50% higher chance (calculated as Odds Ratio) of having two or more childhood behavioral disorders compared with unexposed children.

Boys appeared to be at significantly higher risk than girls.

Older children, especially aged between 9 and 11, and those in the poorest households had the highest risk.

Expressed in absolute terms (that is looking at the equivalent across the whole of the US), if children had not been exposed to secondhand smoke in the home, and if the relationship between such exposure and risk were to be causal, then these figures would show it may be possible to prevent 274,000 children from developing neurobehavioral disorders.
Alpert and colleagues concluded that:

"The findings of the study, which are associational and not necessarily causal, underscore the health burden of childhood neurobehavioral disorders that may be attributable to SHS [secondhand smoke] exposure in homes in the United States."

In January 2011, Alpert and colleagues reported that an increase in smoke-free homes across the US has led to a fall in childhood ear infections.

"Secondhand Smoke Exposure and Neurobehavioral Disorders Among Children in the United States."

Zubair Kabir, Gregory N. Connolly, and Hillel R. Alpert
Pediatrics 2011; peds.2011-0023
Published ahead of print July 11, 2011, doi:10.1542/peds.2011-0023
Link to Abstract: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/c ... 3.abstract


Article URL: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/230824.php
Click to expand...
 
Can anyone suggest a motive behind the persecution of tobacco and alcohol? The evidence for second hand smoking damage is tiny, so lets set that aside for a moment.

We can't afford for everyone to live longer, so what does it matter (in the overall scheme of things) if some people choose to effectively top themselves early by smoking? Therefore, why the 50 year old co-ordinated and all pervading campaign? Who benefits?

(Incidentally a chemist freind of mine believes that it is inhaling the products of combustion that is the primary cause of lung cancer, not specifically tobacco, and that cannabis users would be just as much at risk if they smoked in the same quantity).
 
Maybe that independent companies are being proved as being incapable of regulating their own product and in future the government, having reduced the labels to bland Courier prescription font-fronted packs(which would be counterfeited in exploding warehouses full of neat alcohol and saltpetre) could produce their own cigs and alcohol and gain revenue from product sales as well as duty.

I just made that up by the way.

But there again...we have Persil Washing Powder ads promoting activities that'll get your kid's knees dirty and THAT's pretty specific targetting.
 
But there again...we have Persil Washing Powder ads promoting activities that'll get your kid's knees dirty and THAT's pretty specific targetting.
Click to expand...

A few years ago I worked briefly for a charity called SmartRisk, who do risk education workshops for schoolkids and actually encourage 'smart' risky activities with appropriate precautions over 'stupid' risks.

Some of their sponsorship and promotion actually came from personal injury lawyers. I am not making that up.
 
Passive smoking 'doubles hearing loss risk among teens'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-14183871

Tobacco smoke contains toxins

Related Stories

Passive smoking hearing loss link
Is smoking in cars dangerous?
Passive smoking 'kills 600,000'

Passive smoking nearly doubles a teenager's risk of hearing loss, research reveals.

Investigators say the findings, from a study of over 1,500 US teens aged 12 to 19, suggest that secondhand tobacco smoke directly damages young ears.

And the greater the exposure the greater the damage.

Often it was enough to impair a teen's ability to understand speech, Archives of Otolaryngol - Head & Neck Surgery reports.

It is still unclear how much exposure could be harmful and when the damage might occur.

Experts already know that smoke increases the risk of middle ear infections.

And they believe it may also harm the delicate blood supply to the ear causing "subtle yet serious" changes.

Continue reading the main story
“
Start Quote

Further research is needed to demonstrate a causal link”

Dr Ralph Holme of the charity Action on Hearing Loss
For these reasons, as well as other smoke-related health risks, they say the best advice is to avoid any exposure to tobacco smoke as far as is feasible.

Dr Ralph Holme of the charity Action on Hearing Loss, formerly RNID, said: "We already knew from our own research that regular active smoking is a significant risk factor leading to hearing loss.

"This research strongly suggests that children exposed to tobacco smoke are at increased risk of hearing loss.

"Further research is needed to demonstrate a causal link, but in the meantime to protect your child's hearing, and health, it would be advisable to avoid smoking around them."

Avoidable
Lead researcher Professor Anil Lalwani, from the New York University School of Medicine, said: "We need to evaluate how we deal with smoking in public places and at home, as well as how often and when we screen children for hearing loss."

In the study, around 40% of the 800 teens who had been exposed to secondhand smoke had detectable hearing problems, compared to about 25% of the 750 teens who had not had this exposure.

Yet very few - less than a fifth - of the affected teenagers were aware that they had a problem with their hearing. This is because mild hearing loss is not necessarily noticeable to the individual.

But hearing tests revealed that they struggled with high and low frequency sounds.

Co-researcher Dr Michael Weitzman said: "It's the type of hearing loss that usually tends to occur as one gets older, or among children born with congenital deafness."

He said this could make it difficult for children at school because they might find it hard to follow lessons and be wrongly labelled as "troublemakers".
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top