Smoking in Public / Cancer

*sigh*

Cancer and the Atom Bomb

Graphs prepared by Statistics Canada show cancer of the lung and lymphatic tissues for the period between 1931 to 1972. Dramatic increases of these cancers occurred after 1945.

The Blueprint for Tobacco Control (page 10) states that tobacco consumption increased after 1950 and that lung cancer takes about 25 years to show up. This means that lung cancer deaths should not have increased until the 1970’s or later. Lymphatic cancer has not been “attributed” to tobacco smoke, but has been directly linked to radiation exposure.




Have doctors caused our cancers and heart diseases?

Until 1920's, lung cancer was extremely rare. When a physician discovered a case, all interns were called because they would not see another case for years to come. The lung cancer epidemic in the second half of the century increased the lung cancer rate from 4 in 100,000 people to 72 in 100,000 in 1990. Coronary heart diseases also increased dramatically.

Dr. John Gofman, a prominent radiologist who helped to build the first nuclear bombs, concluded that medical irradiation has caused most of the cancers and coronary heart diseases in the twentieth century. He studied mortality rates from 1940 to 1990 of the entire U.S. population. He found that the mortality rates for cancers and coronary heart disease increase proportionally with the number of physicians per 100,000 people in each region, while all other diseases decrease. More physicians in a region means more x-rays to its population. In the case of coronary heart disease, the cause appears to be radiation-induced mutations in the coronary arteries.

Statistical analysis shows that medical irradiation has caused over a half of all cancers, two thirds of coronary heart diseases, and over 80% of breast cancers in the US. Dr. Gofman stresses that the radiation from each medical or dental x-ray can be reduced several-fold without sacrificing accuracy. All x-ray machines should be regularly calibrated and the doses measured. People should refuse unnecessary x-rays.

John W. Gofman, M.D., Ph.D. 1999: Radiation from Medical Procedures in the Pathogenesis of Cancer and Ischemic Heart Disease



Radon - the killer in tobacco

Out of the nearly 4,000 chemicals found in tobacco smoke, only two definite chemical carcinogens have been found - benzopyrine and nitrosamine. However, the most potent carcinogen in tobacco is radiation from the radioactive products of radon. Polonium-210 is the only component of cigarette smoke that has produced cancers by itself in laboratory animals by inhalation - tumors appear at a level five times lower than the dose to a heavy smoker.

Lung cancer rates among men kept climbing from a rarity in 1930 (4/100,000 per year) to the No. 1 cancer killer in 1980 (72/100,000) in spite of an almost 20 percent reduction in smoking. But during the same period, the level of polonium-210 in American tobacco had tripled. This coincided with the increase in the use of phosphate fertilizers by tobacco growers - calcium phosphate ore accumulates uranium and slowly releases radon gas.

As radon decays, its electrically charged daughter products attach themselves to dust particles, which adhere to the sticky hairs on the underside of tobacco leaves. This leaves a deposit of radioactive polonium and lead on the leaves. Then, the intense localized heat in the burning tip of a cigarette volatilizes the radioactive metals. While cigarette filters can trap chemical carcinogens, they are ineffective against radioactive vapors.

The lungs of a chronic smoker end up with a radioactive lining in a concentration much higher than from residential radon. These particles emit radiation. Smoking two packs of cigarettes a day imparts a radiation dose by alpha particles of about 1,300 millirem per year. (IEM) For comparison, the annual radiation dose to the average American from inhaled radon is 200 mrem. However, the radiation dose at the radon "action level" of 4 pCi/L is roughly equivalent to smoking 10 cigarettes a day.

In addition, polunium-210 is soluble and is circulated through the body to every tissue and cell in levels much higher than from residential radon. The proof is that it can be found in the blood and urine of smokers. The circulating polonium-210 causes genetic damage and early death from diseases reminiscent of early radiological pioneers: liver and bladder cancers, stomach ulcers, leukemias, cirrhosis of liver, and cardiovascular diseases.

The Surgeon General C. Everett Koop stated that radioactivity, rather than tar, accounts for at least 90% of all smoking-related lung cancers. The Center for Disease Control concluded "Americans are exposed to far more radiation from tobacco smoke than from any other source."

Cigarette smoking accounts for 30% of all cancer deaths. Only poor diet rivals tobacco smoke as a cause of cancer in the U.S., causing a comparable number of fatalities each year. However, the National Cancer Institute, with an annual budget of $500 million, has no active funding for research of radiation from smoking or residential radon as a cause of lung cancer, presumably, to protect the public from undue fears of radiation.

Dr. Gordon Edwards: Estimating Lung Cancers
Radioactive Polonium in Tobacco, Meat and Dairy



Other articles of interest:

www.forces.org...

168.144.6.51...

Navajo uranium miners:
www.wsws.org...

my $0.02-


IM sick and f'n tired of these laws saying where and where not to smoke. Can you believe in NYC, you cant even smoke in a f'n bar!? wtf kinda crap is that. If they keeep going with this crap, theres gonna be riots.

SMOKERS UNITE!


-J

interesting info snap . i have always wondered about the valididy of "tobaco kills". especialy when someone like george burns lived so long being a lifetime cigar smoker. if this is true then it isn't totaly the tobaco company's fault but the fault of the chemical manufacturers, and the medical profession themselves, possibly even phamasuitical companies. also can we epect that the same bad chemicals would also be presant in all of our food and possibly water suplies?

in canada ther is a wonderfull graph on some tobaco products showing tobacco use kills more than other things:
"estimated deaths in canada, 1996
murders-510 [r]WARNING[/R]
alcohol-1,900 EACH YEAR, THE EQUIVALENT
car accidents-2,900 OF A SMALL CITY DIES
suicides-3,900 FROM TOBACCO USE
tobaco-45,000
Health Canada"
what it dosn't tell you is the parramiters of the statistics. is that from cancers? or is it ANY death that may be atribbuted or suspected from tobacco use? things such as house fires, car accidents (things like a dropped cigarette while driveing. a heat attack while driveing poss. cause smokeing-multiple deaths possible as result, or even blaiming a smoker for an accident due to not haveing both hands on the wheel ect), forrest fires caused by a possible cigarette, ect. i wonder because it is such a nice high number. and there are many things that smokeing can be blaimed for. even cancer can not be prooven to be the SOLE cause for cancers.

now someone as typical has pointed out that one should smoke ONLY within their own homes (and i asume vehicle would also be included). but what about children? we are now inundated with comercials pointing to people smokeing within their homes if they have kids as EVIL BAD people. in fact there has been a push to lable it as child abuse. so where can these people smoke?

there is always outside, where of course you can be hassled by cops wondering what you are doing loitering arround. yes i have been harrased in this way myself. people have also been harrased for smokeing arround doorways and sidewalks in front of their workplaces for smokeing since they don't have anywhere inside to smoke. not to mention of course that these people may end up getting sick more often because of being outside in bad weather all the time. i even remember one very cold day where there were six of us crammed into a phonebooth trying to get out of the wind and cold. (i was sitting on the phone ).

I live in Corpus Christi, TX, where the refineries produce more air pollution than anything else. So what does our illustrious city council do? They ban smoking in resturants.

On a side note, a petition was circulated and the ban was rescinded until it can be voted on in September by the people

It's been a long, long time since I've posted, but this one brought me out of my trolling shell for a bit...

This thread started with Kalibur making some interesting claims about second-hand smoke/environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) and cancer (specifically lung cancer).

He/she notes, for instance, that

even if you don't smoke, it's all around you. People with no regard for others -- it doesn't matter if you're in the "no smoking section" -- the carcinogens travel far beyond the smoke we see.

And he/she further states that

Poisons that are proven to be cancer causing substances.

My question is this...Who has proven that ETS is a cancer-causing substance?

I wish someone here, particularly someone who has these incredibly passionate beliefs about revoking my (or anyone else's) right to smoke in a public place, would tell me how they know that ETS is a CANCER-CAUSING SUBSTANCE.

I don't want to hear some anecdotal evidence like, "I once smelled smoke and threw up," or, "I have a friend who was around smokers a lot and ended up with lung cancer."

I want a study.

Please, if you want to remove someone's liberty (even such a small portion), back it up with some facts.

Happy hunting, though I will not hold my breath waiting for the evidence. Besides, as a smoker, I haven't got much breath to hold.

Robble Robble

P.S., if someone can let me know how to change/upload an avatar, that'd be greatly appreciated.

[edit on 1-6-2005 by Hamburglar]

there is nothing worse than having too breath other peoples second hand smoke in as a non smoker please smokers have some consideration for people who do not smoke

While I firmly believe that smokers have rights and that a smoke-free bar seems ridiculous, I also believe NON-smokers have rights.
What makes you think we non-smokers wish to inhale your addiction?
Smoke if you must, but have some respect and consideration.

Cigarettes and cigars STINK
Keep them to yourselves.

please smokers have some consideration for people who do not smoke

Hmmm...

What makes you think we non-smokers wish to inhale your addiction? Smoke if you must, but have some respect and consideration.

Interesting how often I've heard the "please have some consideration" schmarm used as justification or support for smoking bans. How about this one...I think your perfume/cologne stinks. Have some consideration and stop wearing it.

Or...I think your breath stinks. Try brushing your teeth. Or maybe even just have a Tic Tac. Have some respect for others and stop breathing.

Or...I think you're fat. And as a matter of fact, your disgusting fatness offends my eyes. Have some respect (for both me and yourself), and put the fork down.

Or maybe we should even try this one...I think you chew too loud. Your loud chewing makes me want to vomit my food directly back onto my plate. Have some consideration and stop eating near me. Why should I have to be subjected to your disgusting eating habits while I try to enjoy a meal? Why don't you just stop it or go away?

Or finally...You are the most boring person to whom I have ever had the displeasure of listening. In fact, for a second there, you almost bored me TO DEATH. Please shut up. I shouldn't have to be subjected to your stupid, pointless banter.

Isn't it amazing how easily we can start to come up with ridiculous, emotionally fueled arguments? Isn't it disturbing how quickly I could come up with a bunch of stuff that bugs people in social situations. And yet, no matter how obnoxious these things may be, neither I nor anyone else are seeking to ban it.

If your (meaning you coffeeaddict and you DontTreadOnMe) only rationale for banning smoking (INFRINGING ON MY RIGHTS AS AN AMERICAN) is your own whining selfishness, perhaps you should try to rethink your position. What would you think if I said I wanted to take away your right to eat chicken because I personally don't like how it smells when you cook it? Or what if I said you couldn't have a drink of alcohol anymore, because it makes you act like a jerk?

I doubt you would go for those bans, would you (and I honestly don't care if you already don't eat chicken or drink alcohol, my logic is sound regardless)?

Finally, I'll continue to patronize smoker-friendly establishments just outside the county line, all the while helping you and the rest of the soipsistic anti-smoking zealots drive the local restaurants and bars to an early financial grave.

P.S., Should I be surprised that I am still waiting to hear some EVIDENCE for the title post of this thread, that ETS causes lung cancer?

Someone having a cigarette beside you, is playing russian rulette with your life? HAHAHAHAHA... that is the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

1. You have legs. Walk away, dont be so selfish, that air/area is NOT yours.

2. Someone having 1 cigarette beside you, 1 cigarette, will not give you cancer. Paranoid much?

3. Cancer is natures way of balancing out the over population.

I think you have to be mildly retarded if your scared of 1 cigarette. And plus, if you dont like it, why complain? Just walk away. I think you should be more scared of a truck jumping the curb and killing you, rather then passing a cigarette smoker on the street.

When the law passes that it can only be done on private property. I am going to get a lawn chair, and sit right beside the sidewalk and smoke a carton. hahaha.

If your going to confine smoking, confine liquer to private property. Better confine cooking too, i mean the chef MAY BE USING A KNIFE, HE....HE...could kill you with it.




Society is ridiculous, if we have freedom, let me smoke my cigarettes where i want.

Many of you are bringing up the point of a persons rights. The smoker having a right to smoke where he/she pleases, and the non smoker having a right to not have to breathe the cig smoke everywhere. So here we have the rights of two people conflicting with each other, so either one must win out, or a compromise must be reached. Do to the fact that smokers chose to pick up the harmful habit, they should have to deal with the consequences, which in my opinion should give the rights of the non smokers more value in this case.

However that does not mean that smoking should be completely banned and the smokers sent to camps, a compromise can still be reached. I do agree that smokers should be allowed to smoke in restaurants and bars, but it should at the very least be restricted to allow the nons some fresh air.

Just because something doesn’t kill you, doesn’t mean it won’t hurt you. If you only criticize smoking based upon the number of deaths it causes, then you defiantly are not looking at the entire picture.

I think your perfume/cologne stinks. Have some consideration and stop wearing it.

And just to clear it up, there is a difference between them. Especially considering the fact that the discomfort between the two is different, along with the level of harm. There are more factors determining how inconsiderate something is and how much it matters.

Originally posted by coffeeaddict
there is nothing worse than having too breath other peoples second hand smoke in as a non smoker please smokers have some consideration for people who do not smoke

WRONG There is nothing worse than trying to get some exercise and fresh air
and being killed every minute by stinky ass vehicle emissions.

I'll state it again, spend 15 minutes in a tobacco smoked up room, and spend
15 minutes in room being pumped with car exhaust, hell just a motorcycle....
which one will KILL YOU?

So please, everyone get rid of your cars.

Legalizer...

Some of us DO want pollution in those forms stopped, too.

This is why some of us don't have cars....

And we don't smoke. Or wear obnoxious perfumes/hairspray/whatever.

So...what am I meant to stop, again?

Now - linkages for studies relating to second-hand smoke (I was sure I'd already posted these - maybe it was a different thread. Or maybe I'm senile. Whatever )

First, there's this set...

American Cancer Society link

World Health Org. Link

Yes, I'm expecting at least one poster to call these sources biased and non-objective; if that's your opinion though, please tell me who you'd consider unbiased.

Enjoy!

If you ban smoking for causing cancer then you have to ban all the other things that cause cancer or you are discriminating against a minority. That wont happen as the powers to be select who can do what and where. The Government want to ban smoking but allow the use of other carcinogenic things to go on. The state has got to big for its boots now , time for the public to get rid of these people who think they know ever thing.

Originally posted by Bulldog 52
If you ban smoking for causing cancer then you have to ban all the other things that cause cancer or you are discriminating against a minority. That wont happen as the powers to be select who can do what and where. The Government want to ban smoking but allow the use of other carcinogenic things to go on. The state has got to big for its boots now , time for the public to get rid of these people who think they know ever thing.

Perhaps the distinction is "doing something that can directly contribute to someone else developing cancer".

IE, "they" aren't so bothered about what you do to yourself - it's when it affects other people directly that we see objections.

The way I see it as a smoker, you can either complain all you want or do something about it. I myself, live my life thinking about my actions and how they affect others, but of course you know a lot of people don't. Smoking affects others and there is no law enforcement agency on the planet that will help you completely abstain from cigarette smoke so long as there are smokers.

My analogy of this is - and it helps me understand your plight - that I feel the same way about sharing the roadways with stupid drivers who risk everyones lives because they are incompitent in driving. Can you see the parallels here? Smoking may alert you because you fear for your health, just as I can't stand being anywhere near an ignorant driver on the road, because they are more likely to kill someone or injure someone than someone who knows what they are doing. Now, the law can make as many rules as they want to make it illegal to do certain things, like speeding or smoking in a public place, but in the end, it will always be your responsibility to stay away from danger. IF someone lights up and this offends you, then it isn't up to the gorvernment to come save you. It is up to you to save you. Just as I see people driving obliviously down the highway 20% faster than everyone else yacking on a cell phone, causing others to make way, there may never be a cop to take action on this.

Complaining that smoke is bad for you and you want others to take responsibilty for it by abstaining is like asking people to not drink and drive. You will always have people who will violate the rules, and it is ultimately up to you to stay clear from something you consider dangerous, no matter how many rules and laws we have in place to curtail it.

I would be more worried about automobile exhaust than cigarette smoke. Cars release alot more toxins into the air than cigarettes and, almost everybody drives one.
Second hand smoke is just being used as a scapegoat for bigger problems. You know the real problem in restaurants, small children. Nothing ruins the dining experience more than a loud baby.

How does smoking a cigarette beside someone actually effect them? Take into consideration,

the wind direction,

how big of a "haul" the smoker takes,

how close to that person they are,

humidity (hah i dunno)


But seriously, if you are outside and there is someone smoking near you, the smoke is going to thin out very fast. I mean unless your on the other end of the cigarette, directly inhaling what they are exhaling, I doubt you have to be so worried about cancer. Honestly. If your so scared of a little cigarette smoke, go sit in your house and surround yourself with hepa-filters, because there are many things in the air just as bad, or even worse for you.

Originally posted by NotTooHappy
I would be more worried about automobile exhaust than cigarette smoke. Cars release alot more toxins into the air than cigarettes and, almost everybody drives one.
Second hand smoke is just being used as a scapegoat for bigger problems. You know the real problem in restaurants, small children. Nothing ruins the dining experience more than a loud baby.

Except babies generally don't contribute to illness in others. "Annoyance" isn't an illness

Is it unreasonable to want both forms of pollution to be decreased?

Isn't your argument a little like saying "Well, this poison is less harmful than that poison...so you should be thankful"?

But seriously, if you are outside and there is someone smoking near you, the smoke is going to thin out very fast. I mean unless your on the other end of the cigarette, directly inhaling what they are exhaling, I doubt you have to be so worried about cancer. Honestly. If your so scared of a little cigarette smoke, go sit in your house and surround yourself with hepa-filters, because there are many things in the air just as bad, or even worse for you.

Perhaps if that were the case every time, it'd be a good point!

But as we know, a smoky bar is not really a place where smoke dissipates easily. Same as walking past a group of 15 people all smoking at once in one area outside the workplace doors; it's not quite the same as "one cigarette blowing in the wind".

"A little cigarette smoke" is a very, very ambiguous term, obviously.

And again - isn't your argument simply saying 'Yeah, it's bad, but so are other things'?

We know there are other pollutants out there - many of them more harmful than cigarette smoke. This doesn't, however, negate the basic premise; second-hand smoke can, and does, harm people.

i dont understand why people smoke tobacco to begin with..ESPECIALLY when it's not naturally grown..how stupid can you be

Mary Jane is the smart lane...weed is all ya need! and don't tell me that tobacco and marijuana are even anywhere close to the same health-risk wise, and I'm ready to prove you wrong

[edit on 28-6-2005 by invisibleplane]