I hate all images of people smoking cigarettes

a reply to: puzzlesphere

Is it false to state that increase in lung cancer rates follow increases in the number of people smoking.

Is it false to state the most controllable factor an individual has to decrease the risk of not getting lung cancer is deciding not to smoke?

www.cancerresearchuk.org...-Three

89% (91% in males and 87% in females) of lung cancer cases each year in the UK are linked to major lifestyle and other risk factors.
Smoking is the main avoidable risk factor for lung cancer, linked to an estimated 86% of lung cancer cases in the UK.
An estimated 89% of lung cancers in the UK are linked to lifestyle factors including smoking, certain occupational exposures (13%), and ionising radiation (5%).

a reply to: puzzlesphere

Is this false propaganda, and why would they lie....

Do the Chinese eat as badly as the USA....

Why would the Chinese Center for Disease Control lie?

One in three young Chinese men will die from smoking, study says

The research, published in The Lancet medical journal, says two-thirds of men in China now start to smoke before 20.

Around half of those men will die from the habit, it concludes.

The scientists conducted two nationwide studies, 15 years apart, covering hundreds of thousands of people.

In 2010, around one million people in China died from tobacco usage. But researchers say that if current trends continue, that will double to two million people - mostly men - dying every year by 2030, making it a "growing epidemic of premature death".

While more than half of Chinese men smoke, only 2.4% of Chinese women

The study was conducted by scientists from Oxford University, the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and the Chinese Center for Disease Control.

But co-author Richard Peto said there was hope - if people can be persuaded to quit.

"The key to avoid this huge wave of deaths is cessation, and if you are a young man, don't start," he said.

originally posted by: Daavin
Slows down my Parkinson's tremors, recommended by my neurologist along with drinking coffee and alcohol

A puff of ganga doesn't hurt.
I am developing a case of the shakes and my feet are going numb.
Self medication is my only real option.

a reply to: neutronflux

You do understand that even sciencific studies cannot predict the future don't you?

These type of predictictions are all epidimiology. Do a study. Have a control group and a group of smokers. Count the smoker deaths and the control group deaths. Stop counting when you like the numbers. Use this fake studies to predict smoker deaths.

Here is a clue for you.

Smoke or don't smoker. We are all going to die!

a reply to: neutronflux

Are you saying hamburgers have the same addictive effects as individual produced cigarettes.

Look at the added sugar and salt in most items and their addictive effects. Look at most soft, drinks they have sodium and salt in each can.

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: neutronflux

Are you saying hamburgers have the same addictive effects as individual produced cigarettes.

Look at the added sugar and salt in most items and their addictive effects. Look at most soft, drinks they have sodium and salt in each can.

That is not an answer. You are down to innuendo with no citable sources?

And you ignored the Chinese study on smoking. A country that a western diet is not a factor. And why would the Chinese study be false propaganda?

And you didn’t answer to that it’s cheaper in the USA to eat fast food than healthy. You need food. People spend money on cigarettes that have no value in sustaining life.

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: neutronflux

You do understand that even sciencific studies cannot predict the future don't you?

These type of predictictions are all epidimiology. Do a study. Have a control group and a group of smokers. Count the smoker deaths and the control group deaths. Stop counting when you like the numbers. Use this fake studies to predict smoker deaths.

Here is a clue for you.

Smoke or don't smoker. We are all going to die!

What does that have to do with the fact smoking exposes your lungs to alpha radiation. And by not smoking, an individual has removed the greatest controllable risk factor in getting lung cancer?

a reply to: neutronflux

boy You have really drunk the kool-aid

It has already been proved to you (with linked sources) that polonium210 is common in the environment (air, soil, dust).

So how come man did not go extinct when they were burning huge logs in their homes for cooking and heating for thousands of years.

There is a damn site more polonium210 in a log of wood than in 19 grams of dried leaves.

Come on - think it through! Your smart enough

a reply to: neutronflux

If smoking is the greatest single risk factor for lung cancer, please explain some real world examples (not studies that can be manipulated at will)

Below you will find two links

one for the rate of lung cancers by country and the other smoking rates by country

www.worldlifeexpectancy.com...

apps.who.int...

check out japan and greece. Both have higher smoking rates than the US or Canada. Both have lower lung cancer rates and both have long life expectency.

According to your theories.....that situation should not be happening

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Funny, smoking is not factor contributing to death in Japan?

www.japantimes.co.jp...

Smoking deaths

Tobacco smoking was the most common cause of death among 16 factors affecting life expectancy. The others were, in order, high blood pressure, 104,000 deaths; physical inactivity, 52,000 deaths; high blood glucose, 34,000 deaths; high salt intake, 34,000; and alcohol use, 31,000 deaths. In each category, the number of deaths exceeds that from the tsunami and earthquake last March.

The Japanese Lung Cancer Smoking Paradox

www.verywell.com...

The debate is not about smoking since we know that smoking causes lung cancer.

Lower levels of cancer-causing ingredients in Japanese cigarettes. In the United States, roughly 70 of the chemicals found in cigarettes are thought to cause cancer. While tobacco is present in most cigarettes, the type and proportion of these other chemicals can vary widely.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Quote where I said

“If smoking is the greatest single risk factor for lung cancer,”

I think I said greatest controllable factor. Is that false.

You are down to false arguments and misquotes now.

And smoking in Japan does impact life expectancy.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

One, please cite were wood on average has the same concentration per gram of radioactive isotopes as mass produced cigarettes.

Two, you are saying second hand wood smoke would be the same as purposely inhaling lung full of wood smoke after lung full of wood smoke.


Even cigarette studies show a vast difference in indirectly inhaling smoke second hand is different than purposely sucking it down in your lungs as a concentrated form.

False arguments by you.

a reply to: neutronflux

Ok I give up. Its not easy to talk to a zeolot at the best of times.

History will prove the argument.

And you two are still making excuses for an industry that has purposely manipulated it’s products to increase addiction, and conspired to hide the damaging effects of cigarette smoking.

You are the ones drinking the corporate cool-aid. Not me. Cigarette companies are not making money off me.

You are the ones that are using false arguments, and information out of context.

The proof is that smoking takes years off life expectancy no matter what country, reduces quality of life, causes diseases, and makes individuals more susceptible to diseases. Is that a false statement.

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: neutronflux

Ok I give up. Its not easy to talk to a zeolot at the best of times.

History will prove the argument.

Because you have the noble cause of free propaganda for cigarettes companies?

a reply to: neutronflux

Lower levels of cancer-causing ingredients in Japanese cigarettes. In the United States, roughly 70 of the chemicals found in cigarettes are thought to cause cancer. While tobacco is present in most cigarettes, the type and proportion of these other chemicals can vary widely.

Read your own sentence. "ARE THOUGHT TO CAUSE CANCER" - since when is someone "thinking" something proof of causation.

Since when is there any death certificate has a cause of death "smoking". All the so-called "deaths" are created by statistics. How many heart attacks occurred - well lets just say that a third of those deaths were caused by smoking and so on.

They are not real deaths. They are deaths created by epidimiology.

And somehow through all of this, you manage to overlook the paradox exists. Amazing

a reply to: neutronflux

no I have the noble cause for personal freedom and the right to life my life as I choose.

Have you not noticed the increase of government intrusion. Think of increased taxes on salt, sugar, alcohol, etc. etc Taxes on soda pop (for the children?), taxes on any food "thought" to be unhealthy. Tax on being alive (global warming taxes.

We are being infantilized and its the anti-smoking campaign that laid the path.

Its clear that pretty soon, we will be taxed to the point where our wages go directly to the government and they will send us back an allowance.

It is clear that we are all children that must be guided.

And considering the way you think and debate, I am having a hard time disagreeing with them.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

One, one of my arguments was that industrial cigarettes are bad.

Two, I did make the argument that Japan might have more restrictions on their tobacco.

Three, I did try to give an out by making a distinction between home grown tobacco and mass produced tobacco.

Four, you guys were arguing like all tobacco is as harmless. My beef is with corporations that have manipulated tobacco. You make not distinctions in quality of tobacco.

Five, you falsely hid that smoking amung Japanese does reduce life expectancy and does cause an increase in diseases.

a reply to: neutronflux

False arguments.

You deny that smoker's paradox exists.

Nicotine, by itself, is implicated with no disease. Tobacco is only implicated with disease because it is burned. It is the by products of the burning that is implicated with disease. It does not matter what tobacco is burned, the byproducts are the same.

Are you being foolish. Do you not think that it would have been easy for american tobacco companies to recreate japanese tobacco?

Of course, you are so steeped in propaganda, you actually buy someones' "though' that japanese tobacco is "different" as a fact.

I "think" you are foolish. According to your thought process, I must be right.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

“no I have the noble cause for personal freedom and the right to life my life as I choose. ”

No, you are arguing that a product that is known to be harmful, known to have been manipulated by corporations, and known corporations have conspired tho hide the dangers of its products are safe.

If you want to grow and use tobacco, that is your right.

Corporations do not have the right to hide how they have genetically and chemical manipulated their products, and conspire to hide the ill effects of their products.