Swedish tobacco tied to premature death - PhysOrg

[sgreger1]

Smoking Does Not
Cause Lung Cancer
(According to WHO/CDC Data)

8 % chance from smoking


Click Here
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/E...Vol-1/e1-4.htm

(Except it does though Joe)

I have several family members that are dead or dying from lung cancer, even they don't doubt its from smoking for 40 years.


The real point is that we need to be focusing on real threats from chemicals that we KNOW cause long term damage and are much more prevalent in our society; do you know what I am talking about? DHMO. All these studies are a conspiracy to distract us from the dangers of DHMO. Don't be fooled sheeple.

[Joe234]

(Except it does though Joe)

I have several family members that are dead or dying from lung cancer, even they don't doubt its from smoking for 40 years.


The real point is that we need to be focusing on real threats from chemicals that we KNOW cause long term damage and are much more prevalent in our society; do you know what I am talking about? DHMO. All these studies are a conspiracy to distract us from the dangers of DHMO. Don't be fooled sheeple.

It does for 8 % of smokers. The majority of smokers never get lung cancer.
The reason there are so many in one family is the genetic factor.

The second leading cause of lung cancer is radon gas in homes from the earth.
I believe it kills some 50,000 people annually.

Of course there is emphysema, heart disease and others.
And who wants to gamble.

[danielan]

The second leading cause of lung cancer is radon gas in homes from the earth.
I believe it kills some 50,000 people annually.

Yeah, check your house for radon if you live in an area with radon issues: http://www.epa.gov/radon/zonemap.html

It's not that expensive to test and with the trend toward sealing our homes better for energy efficiency - it's worth your time.

Remediation is a bit more expensive, but not horribly expensive ($1000 - $2500) compared to lung cancer.

[sgreger1]

It does for 8 % of smokers. The majority of smokers never get lung cancer.
The reason there are so many in one family is the genetic factor.

The second leading cause of lung cancer is radon gas in homes from the earth.
I believe it kills some 50,000 people annually.

Of course there is emphysema, heart disease and others.
And who wants to gamble.

Oh cummon Joe, are you trying to say there is no lung cancer in smokers? Get real. blaming it on radon? How about placing blame where blame is due. Smoking causes lung cancer. Don't join the crowd of "smoking isn't bad for me".

[Joe234]

Oh cummon Joe, are you trying to say there is no lung cancer in smokers? Get real. blaming it on radon? How about placing blame where blame is due. Smoking causes lung cancer. Don't join the crowd of "smoking isn't bad for me".

I never said that at all! Look at the facts.

I said radon is the second leading cause of lung cancer. Cigarette smoking is the leading
cause. However the majority of smokers never get lung cancer just as the majority of people
living in homes with radon gas do not. I think everyone has some level of radon.

Now if you look at the facts and the CDC's own statistics you will see that most smokers
never get lung cancer. Prove me wrong with some statistics. You are able to show
us snus and mouth cancer statistics. How about some showing lung cancer rates
of smokers? Just over 90 % of cig smokers never get lung cancer.

Cigarette smoking increases your risk of getting lung cancer. Recent research
seems to indicate that there is a genetic component.

I have also heard doctors state this similar statistic on TV.
You will hope it's correct since I have also heard when you
quit cigs your lung cancer risk only drops 1-2 %. Down to about
a 5-6 % you will get lung cancer years later after you quit.




---

[AtreyuKun]

I don't want cancer or anything(particularly pancreatic cancer), but at this point is there anything that doesn't cause cancer?

[WickedKitchen]

Broccoli would probably be pretty safe

[tom502]

People get cancer all the time that never smoked or used tobacco, yet if that same person did use it, they'd all blame the tobacco. I think it's mainly genetic, and probably more diet related than tobacco use.

[Simplysnus]

Statistically if higher numbers of smokers consistently show increased cancer rates, then you've captured people who would have gotten cancer anyways and added new numbers too, thus the higher risk. I don't get how anyone can not make that connection.

[truthwolf1]

8% of how many? I remember reading somewhere they were talking about a great die off from lung cancer that never happened.

Is not heart disease the main problem though for smokers? The carbon dioxide/smoke dries and constricts blood vessels/arteries forcing your heart to work harder then normal. This would seem to effect everyone, genetically disposed or not.

COPD is another which seems like it could also hit everyone drying out air passages.

[Simplysnus]

8% of how many? I remember reading somewhere they were talking about a great die off from lung cancer that never happened.

Is not heart disease the main problem though for smokers? The carbon dioxide/smoke dries and constricts blood vessels/arteries forcing your heart to work harder then normal. This would seem to effect everyone, genetically disposed or not.

COPD is another which seems like it could also hit everyone drying out air passages.

Nicotine causes your blood vessels to constrict, I believe.

[LaZeR]

Nicotine causes your blood vessels to constrict, I believe.

As long as I can still get a boner and my BP stays normal, I don't worry about this aspect of nicotine too much. If/When one of the two mentioned ever becomes an issue, then I will try to get off the starks and lower my nicotine consumption.

[truthwolf1]

It is hard to weed through all the nicotine propaganda, but it is the smoke that kills you not the nicotine.

Laboratory research indicates that cigarette smoking causes toxic cardiovascular effects. For this reason, nicotine replacement medicines such as nicotine gum and the patch have been extensively evaluated for cardiovascular toxicity, especially for patients with cardiac disease. These trials suggest that use of nicotine replacements for smoking cessation does not increase cardiovascular risk. These findings are consistent with the generally slower and lower doses of nicotine obtained from the medicines as compared to tobacco products, and to the absence of carbon monoxide and numerous other toxins in tobacco smoke.

[Premium Parrots]

Dam.......I was kind of looking forward to getting one of them CancerKazoos. [electrolarynx]

[Veganpunk]

Truthwolf is right, it's the heart disease that kills most smokers before the lung cancer can.