The Suppressed Link between Trinity and Lung / Skin Cancer

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
The danger of smoking is not WHAT you are smoking.

Well, I disagree.

If you smoke pure tobacco like in rolling tobacco (hopefully) there is not the same fancy chemicals in there as in factory cigarettes.

At least I may hope so.

Truth 4 Hire

LOL

I live in Ontario. I have been smoking pure unadulterated golden leaf tobacco for a very long time and its flue cured. Or so I hope!

I enjoy it whatever it is. And that is one of the benefits of smoking - PLeasure!

Tired of Control Freaks

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
Truth 4 Hire

LOL

I live in Ontario. I have been smoking pure unadulterated golden leaf tobacco for a very long time and its flue cured. Or so I hope!

I enjoy it whatever it is. And that is one of the benefits of smoking - PLeasure!

Tired of Control Freaks

Do you grow your own tobacco? I am starting this year (while it is still legal)

Any tips welcome via U2U, especially the indoor seeding process...

Thanks

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
Misfitoy

And I am sick and tired of individuals who have decided that they and they alone, know what is best for me and that they are entitled to lie as they wish in order to coerce me into doing something I don't wish to do.

I hold the same feeling for all the anti-obesity campaign, the anti-alcohol campaign, the anti-perfume campaign and ad nauseum for all those people who honestly believe that they know what is best for everyone else.

Tired of Control Freaks.

Would you please point out to me exactly where I said 'I know what is best for you'?? My post clearly is asking for any suggestions and alternatives members may have to offer the people out there reading this who may like to know what choices they have.

Wow, makes you wonder what happens to people if it's been a while since their last cigarette...

Misfitoy

Please accept my apologies. That part of my post was not meant for you (but I can certainly understand why you would think so). It was just my "general state of the world" rant.

Tired of Control Freaks.

Truth 4 Hire

No I don't grow my own tobacco and considering the state of my house plants that might be a good thing.

But many people are starting to realize that growing tobacco is legal and profitable in light of the growing prices of cigarettes. I do believe the profit would exceed marijuana.

I would love to hear more - but caution you not to share publically. Who knows what is coming down the pike.

Tired of Control Freaks

Interesting thread.

I have realized that smokers tend to spit more frequently.
It is a disgusting sight but it has benefits.
The Chinese believe that spitting expels poison from your body. That is why the spitting problem in China is hard to contain.

I believe that what you say has certain sense although I am not sure what to tell my family and friends if I smoke.

I have sarcoidosis of the lymph glands and neurosarcoidosis.
I don't have sarcoidosis of the lungs. but i smoke.

The strange part is that my sarcoidosis started just after i had quit smoking.
it went into remission just after i started smoking again due to the stress of the sarcoidosis and fibromyalgia.
This was before i found this connection between sarc and smoking on the internet

The most common form of sarcoidosis is in the lungs.
about 90% of the people with sarcoidosis have lung involvement.
And one of the most common causes of death in people with sarcoidosis of the lungs is lung infections like pneumonia.
This is what killed Bernie Mac.

Very few people that smoke ever get sarcoidosis of the lungs.(unless they quit)
In fact there are clinical trials of nicotine patches on non smoking people with sarcoidosis.
www.inspire.com...
thorax.bmj.com...

reply to post by scubagravy


95% population reduction is very close to 100%. Anyhow, what's up with this flu stuff. Is this a controlled release or just natural?

Come on.

Just when I thought the herd mentality on ATS couldn't get any worse... this fiction becomes a popular topic.

reply to post by secretagent woooman

There is no doubt smoking is a large cause of lung cancer... but the instance of non smokers with lung cancer is much higher than usually thought.. so, perhaps the air we breathe with it's carcinogens from pollution is the main culprit?

Maybe untainted tobacco causes less cases of lung cancer than modern cigarettes with their 300 or so ADDED toxins? I wondered why it was necessary all those years ago for cigarette maufacturer's to add this chemical cocktail for reaons other than to insure addiction... perhaps the OP has a clue for us?

Lastly, I think the government should apply the hefty taxation from cigarettes to the medical world in order to deal more effectively with the results of smoking related illness. Isn't that what the tax is for anyway?

I'm a smoker of 34 years and very much aware of the long term effects on my body and yet I detest the smell and the smoke from other smoker's. Go figure, lol.

I wonder if electric cigarettes also build a mucus layer.. I was planning on getting one as a healthy alternative to smoking, maybe it's only a cheaper alternative after reading this aha.

It seems no matter how long I quit for I always want to smoke. I wonder how much rollie pouches are going to be in perth after the raised taxes.

Electric Cigarette I'm planning on getting:
www.blucigs.com...

Bravo my friend, bravo. Despite some lung irritation I never truly thought that smoking cigs was ever truly bad for you. They say smoking is the number ! cause of heart disease... which may be true. BUT, look at who most smokers are... dirty people who hang out at pubs, kiss their cousins and dont brush their teeth much. Poor oral hygeine has been closely linked to heart disease amongst other things. I think as well as you smoke in moderation and keep a clean hygeine, you wont be causing yourself any harm.
Starred and flagged. Good info and sources!
-Z-

Let me just say this much...I have been smoking an average of 30 100mm cigs a day for the past 35 years with no apparent ill effect so far. In fact, I can't recall the last time I took a sick day from work for actual illness (I did take 1 sick day 2 years ago when I finally had all my wisdom teeth extracted at the same time at the age of 50...when the oral surgeon asked if I had a preference for a particular painkiller I told him "Extra-Strength Excedrin and Bourbon"...he gave me a prescription for Percocet anyway, but it went unused and unfilled, and I was back in action the next day).

There are no statistically or scientifically valid studies linking secondhand smoke to disease in nonsmokers. Sorry to any anti-smokers who might disagree, but that is a fact and not debatable, as it would be a waste of time. You would cite an invalid study, I would have to go to great lengths to show why it was invalid and did not adhere to the Scientific Method, then cite an opposing study that did and have to defend it. Not into that...just leave me alone and let me smoke in peace. You have your (uninformed) opinion and I have mine.

BTW, my blood pressure, cholesterol, ECG, respiratory function, and gastric health are all fine, even compared to a man 20 years my junior.

I eat and drink what I please, am 6 ft tall, weigh 175 lbs, and don't jog or take any particular physical exercise other than normal everyday activity.

According to Conventional Wisdom and Political Correctness, I should be dead by now.

Please pardon me for not only being alive, but healthy as well. Sorry to shatter your delusions.

I'm off to get a Big Mac Value Meal. Catch you later.

The Sedan nuclear test of the 1960s, taking place at the Nevada Test Site (which Area 51 is a part of) reached Illinois and Iowa and beyond.
en.wikipedia.org...(nuclear_test)

some info on nuke tests:
www.cancer.gov...

at most half life occurs after 30 years, at MOST. most of the time half life occurs within 8 days:
excerpt:
For example, the isotope of caesium with a mass number
of 137 (1 3 7Cs) takes 30.2 years to decay to half of its initial activi
t y, but 1 3 1I decays to one half of its initial activity in about eight
d a y s .
Most of the activity of 1 3 1I resulting from the fis s i o n
p rocess arises from the decay of short-lived precursors with halflives
ranging from 0.29 second to 30 hours. Table 2.6 p re s e n t s
the radioactive precursors and decay products of 1 3 1I, along with
their radioactive half-lives and an example of their fractional
independent yields; the latter re p resent the relative numbers of
atoms with a mass number of 131 that are created during the
nuclear explosion, expressed as a fraction of the fis s i o n - c h a i n
y i e l d .1
i10.photobucket.com...

PS - My previous comments also apply to those who advocate "Sin Taxes" to tax supposedly unhealthy behaviour. My message to the government..."Screw You...I'll do what I want and deny you as much tax revenue as possible in the process".

Grow your own, roll your own, brew your own, whatever. Deny the tax money to the Feds. Defy them. Starve them of money.

That's what will make the difference.

Not all governments around the world share the same problem. Japan and Greece have the highest numbers of adult cigarette smokers in the world, but the lowest incidence of lung cancer. In direct contrast to this, America, Australia, Russia, and some South Pacific island groups have the lowest numbers of adult cigarette smokers in the world, but the highest incidence of lung cancer.

www.masternewmedia.org...

we need to do more research im not convinced by either side yet.

Smokers who are celebrating this new info should think twice as it may be premature.

A 1996 landmark scientific study from University of California, San Francisco has found indisputable proof linking smoking and lung cancer. It is the research in the tumor suppressor gene called p53 that demonstrated the direct genetic link between lung cancer and tobacco smoking. P53 is a gene that that helps prevent cancerous growth. When the P53 gene is damaged, it can lead to a uncontrolled proliferation of cancerous cells. Its mutation has been linked to 60 per cent of lung cancers.

It is the component of tobacco smoke, benzoapyrene, which is released into cigarette smoke from the tars in the tobacco that results in the mutation of the gene.

The tobacco companies have for years taken an interest in this gene, and have in fact, funded research to cast doubt on the damming study. It actually used it ties with the editor of a peer-reviewed journal to publish its contradictory findings without proper disclosure of the editor's connection with the tobacco industry.

Subsequently, other scientists have turned up refuting the UCSF report, but in almost all cases, were found to have ties to the tobacco companies and were not properly disclosing their connections. The tobacco industry attempts at subverting uncomplimentary studies have been well documented.

As for comparing, heavy smoking countries like Japan and Greece with low incidence of lung cancer, it could also be diet related. After all, both countries have diet rich in anti-oxidants, like consumption of green tea in the case of Japan and Mediterranean diet in the latter. Anti-oxidants protect against cancer and a host of other ailments.

Cancer is an opportunist disease. While your immune system is strong, the body has the ability to repair damaged DNA and you can be reasonably cancer free even if you are a heavy smoker. However, when your immune system is weak, for one reason or another, that is when you have got to watch out.

Personally, I have known 2 smokers, who were at one stage thought themselves invincible. Both had contracted an innocuous cold or flu, but found their coughing persisted even after they have recovered. Both were diagnosed with inoperable lung cancer, and they both died shortly after.

[edit on 7-7-2009 by A Conscience]

aconscience

Let me quote you

A 1996 landmark scientific study from University of California, San Francisco has found indisputable proof linking smoking and lung cancer. It is the research in the tumor suppressor gene called p53 that demonstrated the direct genetic link between lung cancer and tobacco smoking. P53 is a gene that that helps prevent cancerous growth. When the P53 gene is damaged, it can lead to a uncontrolled proliferation of cancerous cells. Its mutation has been linked to 60 per cent of lung cancers.

It is the component of tobacco smoke, benzoapyrene, which is released into cigarette smoke from the tars in the tobacco that results in the mutation of the gene.


_________________________________________________________

It "can" lead to .....? It can?? So does it or doesn't it? Or is it only a possibility?

Benzo (a) pyrene is found in all smoke including the smoke from grilling meat, burning candles, burning wood, BBQ, its in vehicle exhaust, diesel exhaust etc etc etc

www.britannica.com...

So again - how do you know that the extremely small quantity of beno (a) pyrene is the CAUSE of lung cancer? Or was it the air pollution etc etc.

Primary question: Since benzo (a) pyrene is a by-product of combustion and man has been surrounded by such products since the dawn of time - how is it that the lung cancer rate is still rising?

As for your assertions that ONLY scientists funded by tobacco fail to disagree...who funded this study in the first place? Was it perhaps the Robert Woods Foundation (Johnson and Johnson) who are also in a conflict of interest because they sell smoking cessation products in direct competition with tobacco?

As Justice Nimmo Smith asked in the McTear court case - why do you not respond directly to the scientists who disagree with you instead of dismissing their objections?

If the study was funded by anti-tobacco forces - why should it be given any more credibility than a study funded by pro-tobacco forces?

Have the original scientist who did the study responded to the criticism of others or have they chosen to remain silent? What was their response? Isn't that what peer review is supposed to be about - having your work criticized and then defending it?

Tired of Control Freaks

a consious


Subsequently, other scientists have turned up refuting the UCSF report, but in almost all cases, were found to have ties to the tobacco companies and were not properly disclosing their connections. The tobacco industry attempts at subverting uncomplimentary studies have been well documented.

___________________________________________________________


So why wouldn't the tobacco companies have an interest in funding such studies? If benzoapyrene is the problem, studies might lead to a path of removing it from cigarette smoke?

As for not "properly" disclosing thier connections - let me refer you to this link as it would seem that pro-tobacco forces are not alone in failing to properly disclose their financial conflicts of interest.

tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com...

See January 21, 2009 blog

Also see todays blog to see how anti-tobacco controls any criticism of itself.

tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com...

As I said - respond to the criticisms instead of attacking the person who is criticising your work.

Tired of Control Freaks