Christopher Reeve's widow announces she has lung cancer

She is a NON smoker. Her and so many other non smokers are getting lung cancer. Could it be that smoking isn't really the cause?!?

www.cnn.com...

NEW YORK (AP) -- Dana Reeve, who spent nine years caring for her paralyzed husband, Christopher Reeve, until his death last year, announced Tuesday that she has lung cancer.

www.journaloftheoretics.com...
Yes, it is true, smoking does not cause lung cancer. It is only one of many risk factors for lung cancer

www.radon.com...

Makes me wonder now.

With all due respect, both to you and to the author of Theoretics, we're seeing a rather involved battle of words and statistics, along with some (apparently) heavily screened facts relating to lung cancer and smoking.

One example:

"Based upon what the media and anti-tobacco organizations say, one would think that if you smoke, you get lung cancer ..."

No, that's not really how it is. The average person on the street would probably think "Huh, if you smoke, you're really gonna increase your chances of lung cancer". I'm yet to meet anyone who actually believes "if you smoke, you will get lung cancer". Neither the media nor the medical community have implied that one automatically results in the other.

Whilst I appreciate what Dr Siepmann is doing, he's also not telling the entire story; or, to be more charitable, he's pointing out the problems with the use of statistics (and many of these are valid points!) and disguising the actuality concerning smoking and lung cancer.

As for Dana Reeves; that's very sad. She's already gone through so much, and I hope she can be treated successfully.

(I haven't had chance to actually see what kind of lung cancer she has - would it be prudent at this point to mention that not all lung cancers have a correlation to smoking to begin with?)

This is such sad news. What a wonderful and loyal woman. I hope that she is able to get this into remission.

If I believe what I see on T.V. (why wouldn't you?) then 53,000 people die a year from second hand smoke.

Cancer happens. Living is a risk factor for it. Two mutations is all it takes, and sometimes it just happens. Second hand smoke happens, doesn't help, and is prominent in life.

Now that's a damned shame. The link between stress and illness has been studied. Sometimes when a person goes through a difficult time, caring for an ill partner, they become more prone to sickness. The stress and emotional pressure can trigger illness.

Well, God help the woman.

I believe it's the chemicals in cigarettes not tobacco, that causes lung cancer. But I think pollution as well as other inhaled irritants are as probable a cause.

Pointing the finger of blame entirely on smoking, is a good way to deter the public from the truth they don't want us to know.

Becoming the official scapegoat doesn't seem to have hurt the tobacco industry either. For years now, I've felt there's much more to this controversy then meets the eye. Someday it'll all come out.

I hope she can get through this as best she can. She has endured so much in the last few years. I am sure Chris is by her side in spirit.

Actually some scientist believe the raise in lung cancer can be traced to radon. An incidious gas that comes from the ground. The more drafty your house is the better, clear the poison out instead of having it linger so you can breathe it all day.

www.radon.com...
Therefore, it appears that the correlation between elevated radon levels and elevated non-smoker lung cancer rates for the areas surveyed certainly deserves further study.

cis.nci.nih.gov...
Radon is a radioactive gas released from the normal decay of uranium in rocks and soil. It is an invisible, odorless, tasteless gas that seeps up through the ground and diffuses into the air. In a few areas, depending on local geology, radon dissolves into ground water and can be released into the air when the water is used.
Radon is the second leading cause of lung cancer in the United States

Ian Punnitt on "CoasttocoastAM" did a good show on that last night. There has been a rise in the lung cancer rates lately. It was also pointed out that countries with higher smoking rates then North America have lower cancer rates.

A lot of it is lifestyle. The French eat more heavily and smoke, but have lower chloresterol and cancer rates. Partly it's because they drink more red wine. our concentration on greater healthy and fitness has made us eliminate wine as unhealthy, so we get into trouble.

Again the Atkin's Diet was onto something. It's closer to the french way of eating. Most of the weight comes from carbs, and not protien. Carbs are high energy, and if you don't burn them, they get stored up. It's why you do have fat vegans. (The 1st time I saw a 'vegan' cooking show, it was hosted by a 300 lber.)

Moderate smoking may in fact be beneficial. It lowers stress. It may not be as damaging on the lung tissue as is said. It's even a bit of 'mother's folk wisedom' that to expose people to small amounts of soemthing builds resistence and immunity. They negative effects can be more than offset by red wine, or tea. Ironically, the more we concentrate on health, the sicker we get. Just like the dieter who steadily gains weight.

I guess that's why out of around 20 smokers I know 5 currently have Lung Cancer

Look I know people want to justify their habit and I used to be young and naive too but I grew up and quit, now I have put on around 20 pounds and can breath much easier then I used to. I can even walk up a few flights of stairs without becoming short of breath. I smoked organic for the last couple years of my smoking life. After getting worse even on the organic tobacco I decided that all that propoganda about the chemicals are the only cause for cancer in tobacco is just that propaganda from the Organic Tobacco growers. The last time I was in the hosiptol I was still smoking at the time btw, and asked a OR nurse just what he thought of smokers(I was considering quitting at this time) and he said after witnessing just ONE surgury where he saw the inside of the patients lung he quit smoking right afterwords. Those blackend lungs on the packs are most likely real shots btw. Argue all you like, the ONLY thing that can protect you IMHO is genetic immunites. If you're lucky enough to have that then congrats! But in all likelyhood you do not know if you carry that immunity, so it's still Russian Roulette.

I saw on the BBC last week a segment on the news about Diesel fumes.

They took a sample of normal, healthy, non-smoking peeps and made them run on a treadmill and breath in prepared air.

In this air was diluted diesel smoke at the same concentration as you would get in a town/city environment.

They found that just a few minutes in this air was as bad for your lungs as having a cigarette.

It frustrates me...you get all the do-gooder, busy-bodies telling me where I can and can't smoke...then they get in their nice big cars and drive off, polluting MY air feeling good about themselves.

Incidentaly..I don't drive and don't plan too. So I tell you what, do-gooder non-smokers...I will stop smoking in my pub when you stop driving your 4x4's.......

I'm a courteous smoker, and always ask when around others if the smoke is bothersome to them before I light-up. Most of the time I smoke outside, as even I have problems with the unfiltered and second-hand smoke. But I also have a real problem with laws that prohibit smoking in bars, clubs, and restaraunts, with no exceptions. There was no attempt made for a compromise. Meaning, it should be up to the business owner whether or not to allow smoking, as long as adequate ventillation is installed. If any law should be passed it should be the owner must display a sign to distinguish whether or not they allow smoking. Non-smokers could enjoy the non-smoking establishments and vice versa. How many bars had to close-down because of lost revenues from the smoking ban? I'm sure alot of them had to. Now you hear all these non-smokers talking about how happy they are now that they can goto a bar and not come out smelling like smoke. Instead of lobbying and supporting a ban on smoking in bars, they should of lobbied for more smoke free bars. Imagine that, bars that you can smoke in, and bars you can't. Your choice.

Peace

Originally posted by StickyG
I'm a courteous smoker, and always ask when around others if the smoke is bothersome to them before I light-up. Most of the time I smoke outside, as even I have problems with the unfiltered and second-hand smoke. But I also have a real problem with laws that prohibit smoking in bars, clubs, and restaraunts, with no exceptions. There was no attempt made for a compromise. Meaning, it should be up to the business owner whether or not to allow smoking, as long as adequate ventillation is installed. If any law should be passed it should be the owner must display a sign to distinguish whether or not they allow smoking. Non-smokers could enjoy the non-smoking establishments and vice versa. How many bars had to close-down because of lost revenues from the smoking ban? I'm sure alot of them had to. Now you hear all these non-smokers talking about how happy they are now that they can goto a bar and not come out smelling like smoke. Instead of lobbying and supporting a ban on smoking in bars, they should of lobbied for more smoke free bars. Imagine that, bars that you can smoke in, and bars you can't. Your choice.

Peace

Exunclty!

There is a bar in my hometown, Reading, which has gone non-smoking and I tell you, when the weather is crappy (which it invariably is in england) that pub is dead. Only when the sun comes out do people go there for lunch or drinks and even then, the beer garden is rammed with the actual pub being empty. Wait till the winter sets in and I guarantee that Wetherspoons will be rethinking the whole smoking ban idea.

Once big business realises that they will lose revenue, the Government will listen and leave it down to market forces to decide.

PS...for the record, i am also a concientious smoker. I won't smoke at all in a restuarant, can't stand other peoples smoke, smoke outside away from my kid and generally try and avoid affecting anyone around me.

Whereas, all those that drive around (especially those dozy, middle class 4x4 mums who feel the need to do the school run in a Humvee) do so without a care in the world when it is actually causing more damage, not just to people but the environment as well.

[edit on 28/8/05 by stumason]

Originally posted by stumason

Incidentaly..I don't drive and don't plan too. So I tell you what, do-gooder non-smokers...I will stop smoking in my pub when you stop driving your 4x4's.......

Great.

Now what about us non-smokers who don't drive?

Do we just have to deal with the pollution from both groups? Caught in the crossfire, so to speak?

Or don't we matter?




[edit on 28-8-2005 by Tinkleflower]

I dont think there is such a thing as contracting something like this from second hand smoke. Millions die each year who were never exposed to smoke at all from Lung Cancer.
In any case i hope there is something they can do for her.

Originally posted by dgtempe
I dont think there is such a thing as contracting something like this from second hand smoke. Millions die each year who were never exposed to smoke at all from Lung Cancer.

Millions of non-smokers die from lung cancer each year? Is that worldwide?

Do you have a source for this?

This thread might be of interest to you, too.

More people die of lung cancer who were never exposed to smoke than those who smoke or are exposed to smoke.

Of course, smoking is not a good vice and its costly and considered filthy.
Other than that, there's no problem. It may contribute to emphyzema and other lung problems...but its not the sole issue here.

Originally posted by dgtempe
More people die of lung cancer who were never exposed to smoke than those who smoke or are exposed to smoke.

Source?

You're saying more lung cancer deaths occur in non-smokers, than in smokers.

Please, provide your sources for this?