very interesting

I will read the rest of that article tommorow, but if smoking causes Asthma, then my whole family should have it. I grew up with a 3 pack a day smoker. I rarely got a cold or broncitis, much less have asthma, nor does anyone in my family have it. And non have died of lung cancer, so somebody isn't being completely honest.. Who knows who..

I'll be 60 soon, not a whole lot of time left, but I will go out doing what I like. And probably smoking..

I guess my point of that was that many people disagree on what causes what etc

now I gotta stock up on smokes as well as ammo.

I think cause is maybe not an accurate way of describing how it affects the body. I would say that a better description might be to say it dramatically increases the risk of contracting those diseases. A lot has to do with other factors also. I would say think of it as cancer russian roulet. Smoking adds another bullet to the gun. If you already have a couple bullets in the gun from other things like genetic predisposition and environmental factors then your luck is getting pretty thin.

Smoking is a DIRECT link to lung cancer.

And bladder cancer.

Wouldn't a direct link suggest that everyone who smokes will get cancer?

There is a DIRECT link between lung cancer and Radon gas (radiation has actually been shown to mutate DNA, smoking hasn't), but I don't hear anyone bitching about their basements being poisoned. The "link" between smoking and lung cancer is based on a statistic which is basically, when someone dies of lung cancer, they are asked if they are a smoker. If they are, no radon gas search.

Statically, everyone who drinks water is going to die.

Statistically, everyone who dies from a heart attack has eaten french fries.

Statistically, numbers lie.

If you want to continue on being a simpleton that's your problem, but if you actually want to do some research in the matter, find me ONE scientific artical that demonstrates chemically how smoke can mutate DNA (i.e. cancer), just one. go ahead I'll wait.








You can't because it's scientifically impossible at this point to show how smoke in the lungs can make cells mutate. It's much easier to say the sun causes cancer, at least there, there is a link.

Don't BS a physicist with bull crap you heard on the TV. I will not sit here and say it doesn't cause cancer but it's not a proven fact.

On to more important issues..... More people die in their cars every day than die of lung cancer. Should we outlaw automobiles for being a risk to our health? Grow the **** up already, it's about time.

I sincerely appologise for singling you out but a point had to be made and your post was in the right spot. I don't hate you, but I needed to make a point.

I don't know to whom you were speaking but I am not giving anyone information that I heard on TV. Rest assured my information is well earned. For one, and I know there are many many more but...



Smoking and Lung Cancer
Saturday, March 29, 2008Jonathan Foulds, MA, MAppSci, PhD
Everyone knows that smoking causes lung cancer. But how big are your risks of getting lung cancer if you smoke and what is it about tobacco smoking that causes lung cancer?

For some illnesses caused by smoking, smokers have a 50% or a 100% greater chance if getting that illness than never smokers. Stomach cancer and pneumonia are like that. A 100% greater risk doesn’t mean 100% chance of getting the illness, it means double the chances of getting the illness as compared with the chances if you never smoked.

For lung cancer, the increased risks are much greater. So a man who continues to smoke until he dies is has 2300% increased risk of dieing of lung cancer: I.e. he is 23 times more likely to die of lung cancer, as compared with if he had never smoked. Of course, the overall size of that risk is influenced by how common the disease is. A lifelong non-smoker has less than half of one percent chance of dieing of lung cancer by the age of 75. A smoker who quits smoking by age 40 has a 6% chance of dieing of lung cancer by age 75. If the smoker keeps smoking until they die or reach age 75, then they have a 16% cumulative risk of dieing of lung cancer. These risks are amazingly big, when one remembers that for the smoker to get lung cancer they also have to survive and not be killed by one of the other common illnesses caused by smoking (e.g. COPD, heart-attack etc).

Smoking causes lung cancer because the smoke itself contain known carcinogenic chemicals such as benzo(a)pyrene and NNK. As these chemicals are deposited into the lungs year on year they cause DNA damage, oxidative stress and inflammation, which promote the initiation and growth of tumors. It is essentially the DNA damage, and the inability of the body to repair that damage, that results in cells starting to divide and multiply in a deviant way that ends up growing into a malignant tumor. Because the lungs are such essential organs for life (ie. healthy lungs are necessary for breathing) and because lung cancer is not easy to detect and cure at an early stage, lung cancer is very often fatal, with a 5-year survival rate around 15%. In many cases the cancer metastasizes and affects other organs of the body.

Great efforts continue to try to develop new methods of detection and cure for lung cancer. But right now the best interventions we have are those that prevent it occurring in the first place, by reducing initiation of smoking or enabling addicted smokers to quit before they develop lung cancer. By far the best thing you can do to dramatically reduce your risks of developing lung cancer, is to avoid all inhalation of tobacco smoke.

It is my choice whether I smoke - regardless of probability, expectability, statistics, links, research, old wives tales, my neighbors' cousin's wife's brother said so, etc.

Smoking does not cause cancer, it is a contributor, just like walking outside, living near power lines, living near a waste facility, living in a city full of vehicles, factories, etc. all are risks.

Life itself is full of risks. Live your life and let me live mine. Control your own destiny, share your info if it makes you feel better and I will appreciate learning something new, but do not think/believe that because shared the info I am going to change the choices I make, that's why they are my choices, they are mine to make.

Statistically 90% of the people killed in car crashes are sober. So if you want a better chance of surviving a car crash, be drunk

I agree, it is absolutely everyone's choice to smoke or not to smoke. Far be it from me to try to prevent anyone or step on any rights of free choice. As long as it is clear of the dangers and the #1 cause of lung cancer IS smoking. As I said, I smoke. I'll be seeing you all in the infusion suite.

Not being argumentative, but I truly do not believe smoking is the #1 cause of lung cancer, and trust me I have read and listened to data, research, opinions, etc. So many people get lung cancer that never smoke, and while it may be a contributor but there are many other contributors in we are surrounded with daily, toxins, pollution, not to mention the other crap we fill our bodies with. But this is my opinion.

(edit) as for the infusion suite, hope I don't see you there

Our country would be a MUCH better place if more people thought like that.

just curious about the non-smokers that get lung cancer...how do they get it?

second hand smoke

Second hand smoke, polutants, malnutrition, bad genes, the list goes on.

What's the biggest reason?