U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 02-14-2012, 04:05 PM
 
Location: Interior AK
4,729 posts, read 8,635,288 times
Reputation: 3359

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by ja1myn View Post
I'd say the car since people have been known to commit suicide by sitting in a car that's on while pumping the exhaust into it. I don't think anyone's died from smoking too many cigs at once, but then again, anything's possible.
One of the reasons that CO poisoning by vehicle emission is an effective means of suicide and extermination is because the victim is not actively controlling the delivery mechanism. Their cognitive functions become impaired and they pass out before they can turn off the engine or get fresh air and the engine continues delivery until death occurs.

This is much less likely to occur with smoking since once you are poisoned to the point of illness, wooziness or loss of consciousness you are no longer able to smoke the cigarette and continue to deliver the CO. (Just like you can't simply hold your breath to kill yourself because you will pass out and resume breathing normally)

It is possible, however, to smoke yourself to death if you consume so much and so fast that you reach fatal toxic levels before the effects of the poisoning preclude it. You can kill yourself in this way with many substances... alcohol, medications, even water.

Possible... but not common and not probable.

 
Old 02-14-2012, 08:18 PM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
23,408 posts, read 28,257,722 times
Reputation: 28995
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissingAll4Seasons View Post
For the record, I'm talking about the questionnaires used at the hospital when you show up sick in the emergency room. The questionnaires are a key - the answers to the preceding questions lead you down a series of subsequent questions until you reach the "answer" like a decision-tree. In many instances, these keys work correctly and do uncover the appropriate cause... BUT in other cases, if there is a branching question too early in the chain, you can get lead down the wrong path because while you answered "yes" to that question, the real cause isn't in that pathway, it's further down or is a combination. If the rest of the questions in the "No" pathway aren't asked, then the real culprit may not be discovered.

Since smoking, drinking, substance abuse and "bad" food questions come directly after the symptoms questions, some medical professionals start down the wrong pathway based on assumptions even if the symptoms and recent activities don't quite match up. And most of them do not come back and ask the rest of the questions before making diagnosis and starting treatment. This a case of jumping to conclusions, and putting those questions so high up, and making it a branching question, will skew data sets.

I have my own personal experiences with this occurring and the diagnosis and treatment being WRONG.

I had food poisoning, went to the ER, got asked the canning and milk questions, answered yes and they started treatment... which was wrong. The real culprit was shigella from a green salad I ate at a deli down the street. So, I suffered nearly 3 days longer than I needed to while they ran tests on the food in my house because 1) the questionnaire is biased against raw milk and home canning (despite the low incidence of these being causation), 2) medical professionals trusted the assumptions in the questionnaire, 3) no one tested ME to see what might be the problem or finished the questionnaire (fresh greens was 4 questions down from the milk and home canning branches), they went after the usual suspects first.

Same thing happened with my bronchitis that developed into walking pneumonia. Because I had smoked, the fact that I got bronchitis and that it didn't go away and only got worse despite treatment was blamed on the cigs.... even though I hadn't smoked in over 2 years at that point. It didn't occur to them that I might have been or still being exposed to something else and that the reason my bronchitis didn't respond to treatment was because they were treating me for the wrong thing with the wrong medication.

I'm not knocking the medical establishment, they have a hard job and so many factors to deal with. But it is too easy to make logical errors in decision making when the keys you use are biased. My argument is that, in many cases, the "usual suspects" are greatly exaggerated, or at least given more weight than is appropriate based on the correlating information. Therefore, the keys that are based on them can be inaccurate and leading.

I'm not arguing that smoking doesn't increase your risk for and contribute to a large number of health issues. But so does being exposed to toxic/hazardous chemicals and emissions, both natural and man-made, from a multitude of sources in our modern world. And "increasing risk" and "contributing to" does not mean "causes" or "is the only cause"... it means it MAY.

Supporting Proven Data
1) Lung cancer is one of the top 10 prevalent cancers
2) Lung cancer is the top killer of those cancers
3) A high percentage of patients with lung cancer (or one of the others) are, or have been, smokers (does not include any other history that may be relevant -- stress, exposure, diet, heredity, etc)
4) Modern commercial cigarettes contain several known toxins and carcinogens (there is minimal data on non-commercial natural tobacco that is not highly processed, nor on other sources of these toxins and carcinogens)

FACILE/SPECIOUS ARGUMENT: Smoking causes lung cancer and a multitude of deaths by cancer could have been prevented by not smoking.

FALLACIES/LOGICAL FLAWS: 1) risk does not equal cause -- correlation does not prove causation; 2) not everyone who contracts a "terminal" form of cancer dies from it; and 3) you're still at risk of developing cancer whether you smoke, quit smoking, or have never smoked.

LOGICAL ACCURACY: Smoking may increase the risk of developing lung or other cancers and quitting smoking may reduce your risk of developing these cancers.

If the assumptions and conclusions stated as fact in the specious argument were proven and accurate then:
1) Why do cancer rates continue to rise despite tobacco use continuing to decline?
2) Why do people who don't smoke, or have not even been exposed to second hand smoke, develop lung cancer?
3) Why do people who have smoked, but have quit for a number of years, have the same chances of developing lung cancer as those people who have never smoked?

This is a classic example of a vicious circle. The argument assumes the validity of the assumption it is trying to prove... so any and all data used in support of that argument is biased because it is collected and interpreted with bias. You will find exactly what you are looking for because that is all you are looking for and your procedure precludes or dismisses anything else.
I am sorry about your bad experiences with the emergency room algorithms. I have never been given one. I've only had someone ask me about symptoms and do a physical exam, then order tests.

However, doctors usually do find that the most common things are what is causing the problem. That is why they check those out first.

But you are the victim of a few logical fallacies yourself, because you start with false assumptions.

In your supporting data #3: "does not include any other history that may be relevant -- stress, exposure, diet, heredity, etc."

When studies are done, every effort is made to compare two groups that are as alike in every way, as much as is possible, except that one group smokes and the other does not. Things such as age and gender are called variables, and there are statistical methods to control for them. So it is false that other things that might cause cancer, specifically lung cancer here, are not considered. So that knocks a big hole in your argument.

I do not understand your point about everyone who contracts a "terminal' form of cancer dies from it. Obviously, someone with lung cancer might die from injuries in an automobile accident. That has nothing to do with the lung cancer diagnosis. At any given time, there will be people living with a lung cancer diagnosis. They still have the diagnosis, and most of them will be smokers.

Correlation may not prove causation, but at some point the weight of the evidence begins to support causation.

With some cancers, smoking may not be a direct cause, but it may be an important cofactor, for example with cervical cancer.

Then you say, "you're still at risk of developing cancer whether you smoke, quit smoking, or have never smoked."

That is true, but the magnitude of the risk changes whether you smoke, quit, smoking, or have never smoked.

Perhaps you did not read this link. I'll repeat it:

PubMed Central, Table 5: BMJ. 2004 June 26; 328(7455): 1519. doi:*10.1136/bmj.38142.554479.AE

This study looked at deaths in a group of male British doctors over a period of 50 years. Not just cancer, but all of the things they died from.

The smokers died earlier than the non-smokers. It is the premature deaths that smoking causes. We all die, but people who smoke die earlier, from a variety of causes.

From the chart, you can see that smokers who quit reduced their risk of dying in each age group, and smokers who quit at earlier ages reduced the risk most of all. Smokers who stopped before age 35 reduced their risk to that of a non-smoker.

So your logical flaw # 3 is not true.

By choosing to look at male doctors, they were deliberately selecting a group of men with similar socioeconomic backgrounds, which would control for the things you mentioned, like stress and diet. They were not working in factories or mining coal. They were as similar as you can get two groups of men, except some smoked and some didn't.

What happens next is that you do have to look at other groups to see if you get the same results, such as women, and you do.


So let's look at your questions:

1. Why are cancer rates going up while tobacco use is declining?

First of all, you cannot ask the question this way. You have to specify a cancer, although overall cancer rates in the US are dropping, not going up.

Cancer Trends Progress Report - Incidence

"All sites combined: Overall [cancer] incidence was on the rise from 1975 to 1989, with non-significant changes in rates from 1989 to 1999. From 1999 to 2007, incidence has significantly declined. Among men, incidence rates rose from 1975 to 1992. From 1992 to 1995, cancer incidence among men significantly declined, with no significant change between 1995 and 2000. From 2000 to 2007, incidence trends among men resumed a decline. Among women, from 1975 to 1979 incidence rates were stable before rising between 1979 and 1987 and then stabilizing through 1998. From 1998 to 2007, cancer incidence among women significantly declined.

Let's look at lung cancer. And we have to use primary lung cancer, not cancer that has spread from somewhere else.

Lung cancer rates dropping for men … and finally for women, too | Pepe's Non-Smoking Party Lounge

"In 1999, the lung cancer rate for men was about 93 cases per 100,000 population. In 2008, that dropped all the way down to about 79 cases per 100,000."

"In 1999, the lung cancer rate for women was about 54 cases per 100,000. That increased to about 57 cases per 100,000 by 2006, but then has dropped back down to about 53 cases per 100,000 in 2008."

So, cancer rates are not going up as smoking goes down.

2. Why do people who don't smoke, or have not even been exposed to second hand smoke, develop lung cancer?

5 Causes of Lung Cancer in Non-Smokers - MedicineNet.com

Radon gas --- which occurs naturally --- accounts for up to 12% of lung cancers, in smokers and non-smokers. But

'Those who do smoke and are exposed to radon have an even greater risk of developing lung cancer than non-smokers who are exposed to radon gas."

3. Why do people who have smoked, but have quit for a number of years, have the same chances of developing lung cancer as those people who have never smoked?

Already answered. They do not. The sooner you quit, the greater the reduction in risk.

Much Of The Increased Risk Of Death From Smoking Reduced Within Several Years After Quitting

"For lung cancer mortality [in women] a significant 21 percent reduction in risk was observed within the first 5 years [of quitting smoking] compared with continuing smokers, but the excess risk did not disappear for 30 years. Past smokers with 20 to less than 30 years of cessation had an 87 percent reduction in risk of lung cancer mortality compared with current smokers. When including the other smoking-related cancers, the excess risk approached a never smoker's risk more than 20 years after quitting smoking."

Quit Smoking! - MSN Health & Fitness - Quit Smoking

"10 years after quitting: Your chances of dying from lung cancer are now half of what it would have been had you continued to smoke. Your risk of getting cancer of the mouth, throat, esophagus, bladder, cervix, and pancreas has also decreased."

Smoking causes people to die early. Quitting helps you live longer.

Doll's study: two groups of similar men, doctors no less, observed for fifty years. No manipulation of the data. just tallying causes of death from death certificates and seeing who dies quicker, smokers or non-smokers.

The smokers do.

Medical studies are carefully designed to avoid jumping to conclusions. Researchers who try to manipulate data to fit a preconceived notion or falsify data get into real hot water. It's not done that way.
 
Old 02-14-2012, 09:44 PM
 
Location: Interior AK
4,729 posts, read 8,635,288 times
Reputation: 3359
What I'm saying is that the total numbers -- the field statistical data set, not the controlled study data set -- does not always include information that may be relevant because you are picking two discrete data points in the selection and ignoring all others. In a controlled study, those variables may be factored in and mitigated by controlling the study participants; but that is not the case with field statistics gathered straight from hospitals. So my premise is sound - not all factors are taken into account in the data being analyzed and used to support the argument because BOTH sets of data have been used to formulate their argument and only one set can be controlled and offset for variables.

My other point -- Some patients completely recover or go into long-term remission from terminal cancers, with or without treatment. So, there is a faulty assumption that all terminal cancer kills and, thus, the death (which didn't occur) could have been prevented. It's a semantic error, but still a valid counterpoint.

Quote:
At any given time, there will be people living with a lung cancer diagnosis. They still have the diagnosis, and most of them will be smokers.
And all of them swallowed saliva during their lifetime... does that mean that saliva causes lung cancer? Again, correlation does not equal causation.

In all the studies and reports you site there are data and trend discrepancies that appear suspect. Pre 1900 data is also before motorized transport, so any increases in cancers seen from that point forward can also be related to those toxins and emissions, not just smoking. In the last decade increased focus on reducing industrial and vehicular toxins and emissions may also be playing a factor in the any cancer reductions - not just the anti-smoking campaign. Any time you see a hard split in data sets, you must look at whether that split is logical and the impact it may have on the validity of the data set and any interpretation... all too often that split is not as random or arbitrary as it may first appear, even the selection of the control group could be biased.

Quote:
Doll's study: two groups of similar men, doctors no less, observed for fifty years. No manipulation of the data. just tallying causes of death from death certificates and seeing who dies quicker, smokers or non-smokers.

The smokers do.
Wait... I think this one proves my point --- not all relevant historical data is included in the study. There are a multitude of factors that could have made these men smokers that could also be contributing factors to increased cancer risks. Maybe Bob also had a crappy marriage and hellion child. Maybe Steve was unmarried and suffered from chronic depression. Maybe Ron had to care for an elderly parent in addition to his family and his patients. Maybe Mark's practice was understaffed and underbudgeted while being overcrowded (like most public hospitals). Maybe Chris ate a lard burger for lunch everyday and a 5th of bourbon for dinner and lived in a bad neighborhood next to a paper mill. Any of those could also factor into the increase in the cancer rates.

I'm not saying that medical studies are intentionally flawed. Or even that all of them are flawed. But many assumptions, interpretations, conclusions and campaigns based on them can be flawed... especially if someone in the chain has a vested interest in a particular outcome. Whether they mean to or not, their expectations can and often do skew their data collection methods and analysis. And campaigns most certainly can pick and choose sound bytes and snippets from any source (valid or invalid) to support their specious arguments and zealous crusade.
 
Old 02-15-2012, 12:17 AM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
23,408 posts, read 28,257,722 times
Reputation: 28995
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissingAll4Seasons View Post
What I'm saying is that the total numbers -- the field statistical data set, not the controlled study data set -- does not always include information that may be relevant because you are picking two discrete data points in the selection and ignoring all others. In a controlled study, those variables may be factored in and mitigated by controlling the study participants; but that is not the case with field statistics gathered straight from hospitals. So my premise is sound - not all factors are taken into account in the data being analyzed and used to support the argument because BOTH sets of data have been used to formulate their argument and only one set can be controlled and offset for variables.
You are trying to sound very scientific, but this is not the way medical studies are done. there is no "picking two discrete data points in the selection and ignoring all others." You account for the variables when you select the study population. You do not have a "field data set" and a "controlled data set". You have one data set, in which there are smokers and non-smokers. And Doll got his data from death certificates.

You choose a population of people that are as homogeneous as a population of human beings can be. Then you divide them into two groups: smokers and non-smokers. Then you see what they die from.

Quote:
My other point -- Some patients completely recover or go into long-term remission from terminal cancers, with or without treatment. So, there is a faulty assumption that all terminal cancer kills and, thus, the death (which didn't occur) could have been prevented. It's a semantic error, but still a valid counterpoint.
Um, actually, by definition if a disease is terminal, it kills you. If you do not die, you did not have a terminal condition.

Just because someone with cancer goes into long term remission does not mean that smoking did not cause the particular cancer.

Deaths are often what is counted because they provide a very definite end point, which makes them easier to count.

Since many cancers will be treatable (though unfortunately not lung cancer as much as some others), using deaths as an end point underestimates the effect of smoking on cancer.

Reducing smoking reduces the risk of living with cancer, not just the risk of death from cancer.

Quote:
And all of them swallowed saliva during their lifetime... does that mean that saliva causes lung cancer? Again, correlation does not equal causation.
All of the people who do not get lung cancer swallow saliva, too.

Quote:
In all the studies and reports you site there are data and trend discrepancies that appear suspect. Pre 1900 data is also before motorized transport, so any increases in cancers seen from that point forward can also be related to those toxins and emissions, not just smoking. In the last decade increased focus on reducing industrial and vehicular toxins and emissions may also be playing a factor in the any cancer reductions - not just the anti-smoking campaign. Any time you see a hard split in data sets, you must look at whether that split is logical and the impact it may have on the validity of the data set and any interpretation... all too often that split is not as random or arbitrary as it may first appear, even the selection of the control group could be biased.
Here is the link to the Doll article:

Mortality in relation to smoking: 50 years' observations on male British doctors

This is an observational study. It is not a randomized controlled trial, like you would do with a new drug.

The study started in 1951, not 1900.

Any changes in environmental factors should affect the non-smokers as well as the smokers.

The smokers still died younger than the non-smokers.

Quote:
Wait... I think this one proves my point --- not all relevant historical data is included in the study. There are a multitude of factors that could have made these men smokers that could also be contributing factors to increased cancer risks. Maybe Bob also had a crappy marriage and hellion child. Maybe Steve was unmarried and suffered from chronic depression. Maybe Ron had to care for an elderly parent in addition to his family and his patients. Maybe Mark's practice was understaffed and underbudgeted while being overcrowded (like most public hospitals). Maybe Chris ate a lard burger for lunch everyday and a 5th of bourbon for dinner and lived in a bad neighborhood next to a paper mill. Any of those could also factor into the increase in the cancer rates.
The study started with a population of over 34,000 men. They were doctors. They all lived in England. Their levels of stress, diets, and other habits were all likely to be very similar, considering their higher than average socioeconomic level. A lot of the things that you appear to think cause cancer, including stress, really are not factors at all. Stress does not cause cancer. So we can toss out the crappy marriages and the hellion children and the aged parents and the hassles of practicing medicine. Even if they did, they would affect the non-smokers as well as the smokers.

The study did look at the things that could confound the results, especially alcohol. Moderate alcohol consumption could actually decrease the risk of heart disease, and heavy consumption could increase the risk of certain cancers.

One thing that could decrease the apparent risk of smoking is that people who developed chronic illnesses might have stopped smoking because of it.

Even when these things are taken into consideration, the smokers still died earlier than the non-smokers.

Quote:
I'm not saying that medical studies are intentionally flawed. Or even that all of them are flawed. But many assumptions, interpretations, conclusions and campaigns based on them can be flawed... especially if someone in the chain has a vested interest in a particular outcome. Whether they mean to or not, their expectations can and often do skew their data collection methods and analysis. And campaigns most certainly can pick and choose sound bytes and snippets from any source (valid or invalid) to support their specious arguments and zealous crusade.
Doll had no vested interest in the outcome. He did not do anything to the men he studied. There was no intervention at all. The data collection was from questionnaires. The men filling out the questionnaires were anonymous physicians who had no reason to lie. The death information was from death certificates. That data would be hard to skew. The ultimate analysis was simple. Count the number of deaths of smokers and non-smokers from various conditions.

I have picked and chosen no sound bytes or snippets. You have the entire study report to read if you wish.

Richard Doll showed that smokers die sooner than non-smokers. In 2011 the study completed its sixtieth year. It will be interesting to see what the next report shows. Dr. Doll died in 2005 at the age of 92.

Richard Doll - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"In 1950, he then undertook with Austin Bradford Hill a study of lung cancer patients in 20 London hospitals, at first under the belief that it was due to the new material tarmac, or motor car fumes, but rapidly discovering that tobacco smoking was the only factor they had in common.

You see, Doll did not find what he expected to find. He found what the data showed him.

Doll himself stopped smoking as a result of his findings, published in the British Medical Journal in 1950, which concluded;

'The risk of developing the disease increases in proportion to the amount smoked. It may be 50 times as great among those who smoke 25 or more cigarettes a day as among non-smokers.' "

He overestimated a little bit:

Cigarette smoking and other risk factors for lung cancer

"Estimates of the relative risk of lung cancer in the long-term smoker compared with the lifetime nonsmoker vary from 10- to 30-fold. The cumulative lung cancer risk among heavy smokers may be as high as 30 percent, compared with a lifetime risk of lung cancer of 1 percent or less in nonsmokers."

"The risk of bronchogenic carcinoma is proportional to the total lifetime consumption of cigarettes. The relative risk increases with both the number of cigarettes smoked per day as well as the lifetime duration of smoking. It has been estimated that a 35 year-old man has a 9 percent likelihood of dying from lung cancer before age 85 if he smokes fewer than 25 cigarettes per day, compared with an 18 percent likelihood if he smokes more than 25 cigarettes per day."

You may choose to believe smoking does not cause lung cancer. Richard Doll believed otherwise, after his original study showed him something he did not expect to find.
 
Old 02-15-2012, 03:30 AM
 
Location: Interior AK
4,729 posts, read 8,635,288 times
Reputation: 3359
Here's what the NCI has to say on the link between stress and cancer

Quote:
Can stress increase a person’s risk of developing cancer? Studies done over the past 30 years that examined the relationship between psychological factors, including stress, and cancer risk have produced conflicting results. Although the results of some studies have indicated a link between various psychological factors and an increased risk of developing cancer, a direct cause-and-effect relationship has not been proven.
Accepted, no argument from me. The exact same thing can be said of smoking. You could substitute "various psychological factors" with "smoking" and the statement would still be true.
Quote:
Why are the study results inconsistent?

It is difficult to separate stress from other physical or emotional factors when examining cancer risk. For example, certain behaviors, such as smoking and using alcohol, and biological factors, such as growing older, becoming overweight, and having a family history of cancer, are common risk factors for cancer. Researchers may have difficulty controlling the presence of these factors in the study group or separating the effects of stress from the effects of these other factors. In some cases, the number of people in the study, length of follow-up, or analysis used is insufficient to rule out the role of chance. Also, studies may not always take into account that cancer is not a homogeneous (uniform in nature) disease.
Accepted, no argument from me. The exact same thing can be said of smoking. You could substitute "stress" with "smoking" and vice-versa and the statement would still be true.


You simply cannot use the "vague" and "inconsistent" arguments against one possible contributing factor (stress) and then dismiss it in support of another possible contributing factor (smoking). Both factors have been studied and both sets of studies indicate that there is a correlation between the factor in question and increased health risks... but neither have been able to show to a direct causative link or been able to exclude others.


Behaviors, activities, lifestyles, age, nutrition and heredity are all contributing factors in predicting your individual risk of developing any associated health issues. You may do things that could/should increase or decrease your risks, but that does not guarantee the results. There is a world of difference between "can/may/should/could" and "will/does".


I'm not a smoking advocate. I certainly don't think it's the healthiest thing you can do for your body, especially if you have one or more of the other associated factors that could drastically increase your risk of developing health issues where smoking has been shown to be a factor. This is just smart betting practice... never bet against the odds, but don't blindly rely on them either. You can win tons of money in Vegas, but that doesn't guarantee that you will -- odds of hitting Double-Zero are still 37:1 no matter what, but you can improve the odds of winning something (or decrease the odds of losing a lot) by tweaking your bet. The same principles apply to lifestyle choices and health issues.



BTW - Doll also made the following statement in 2001 in a BBC radio interview "The effects of other people smoking in my presence is so small it doesn't worry me." Just an interesting little sound byte.
 
Old 02-15-2012, 03:31 AM
 
Location: Interior AK
4,729 posts, read 8,635,288 times
Reputation: 3359
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post
You may choose to believe smoking does not cause lung cancer. Richard Doll believed otherwise, after his original study showed him something he did not expect to find.
ACTUALLY... Doll believed that smoking could INCREASE RISK of developing lung cancer, NOT that smoking CAUSED cancer. He was always very careful to make that distinction in articles and interviews, and to correct people who mis-stated him.

Last edited by MissingAll4Seasons; 02-15-2012 at 03:53 AM.. Reason: Double post, so added new content
 
Old 02-15-2012, 12:07 PM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
23,408 posts, read 28,257,722 times
Reputation: 28995
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissingAll4Seasons View Post
Here's what the NCI has to say on the link between stress and cancer


Accepted, no argument from me. The exact same thing can be said of smoking. You could substitute "various psychological factors" with "smoking" and the statement would still be true.

Accepted, no argument from me. The exact same thing can be said of smoking. You could substitute "stress" with "smoking" and vice-versa and the statement would still be true.


You simply cannot use the "vague" and "inconsistent" arguments against one possible contributing factor (stress) and then dismiss it in support of another possible contributing factor (smoking). Both factors have been studied and both sets of studies indicate that there is a correlation between the factor in question and increased health risks... but neither have been able to show to a direct causative link or been able to exclude others.


Behaviors, activities, lifestyles, age, nutrition and heredity are all contributing factors in predicting your individual risk of developing any associated health issues. You may do things that could/should increase or decrease your risks, but that does not guarantee the results. There is a world of difference between "can/may/should/could" and "will/does".


I'm not a smoking advocate. I certainly don't think it's the healthiest thing you can do for your body, especially if you have one or more of the other associated factors that could drastically increase your risk of developing health issues where smoking has been shown to be a factor. This is just smart betting practice... never bet against the odds, but don't blindly rely on them either. You can win tons of money in Vegas, but that doesn't guarantee that you will -- odds of hitting Double-Zero are still 37:1 no matter what, but you can improve the odds of winning something (or decrease the odds of losing a lot) by tweaking your bet. The same principles apply to lifestyle choices and health issues.
"Increases the risk" is what it's all about, isn't it? You may continue to believe that smoking does not "cause" lung or other cancers or cardiovascular disease, but you are just deceiving yourself. Do not smoke and do not allow yourself to be exposed to secondhand smoke and you are highly unlikely to get lung cancer. If you want to "tweak" your bet, get your house tested for radon, too, and take steps to mitigate it. If smoking "increases" the risk of lung cancer up to 30 times, depending on the amount and length of time you smoke, and quitting smoking reduces the risk, smoking is doing something, don't you think?


Quote:
Originally Posted by MissingAll4Seasons View Post
ACTUALLY... Doll believed that smoking could INCREASE RISK of developing lung cancer, NOT that smoking CAUSED cancer. He was always very careful to make that distinction in articles and interviews, and to correct people who mis-stated him.
Quote:
BTW - Doll also made the following statement in 2001 in a BBC radio interview "The effects of other people smoking in my presence is so small it doesn't worry me." Just an interesting little sound byte.
It seems Doll changed his mind, June 2002.

One of the experts, Sir Richard Doll, said: "Environmental tobacco smoke that people experience at work or at home is definitely a cause of lung cancer.

"That has been discussed for a long time but this is the first time a group of independent scientists have reviewed all the evidence and said there is no question it is a cause of lung cancer."

Sir Richard said the findings should have a significant influence on health policies around the world and could strengthen arguments for a ban in this country on smoking in workplaces.

The experts also stated that one half of all persistent cigarette smokers are eventually killed by a tobacco-related disease.

Half of these deaths occur in middle age, which means they lose an average of 20-25 years of non-smoker life expectancy.

Professor Sir Richard Doll

Doll's children embarrassed him by smoking, though they quit.

"This professor wasn´t surprised that his children seemed to ignore his findings, because years earlier, in 1950, when he and Bradford Hill were the first to draw a firm conclusion that cigarette smoking is an important cause of lung cancer no one believed them. 'Even the cancer advisory committee to the Dept of Health advised the DoH not to do anything about it. They didn´t think it was true causation, which was frustrating as we had evidence to the contrary.'"
 
Old 02-15-2012, 12:37 PM
 
15,924 posts, read 17,417,256 times
Reputation: 7641
 
Old 02-15-2012, 03:08 PM
 
Location: Interior AK
4,729 posts, read 8,635,288 times
Reputation: 3359
So, back to the OP... according to a report by FORCES International based on the AirCare study the national average comparable VOC emissions (Carbon Monoxide, Nitrogen Oxides, Hydrocarbons) for personal/commuter vehicles (not including commercial vehicles) are equal to 42.5 cigarettes per person (not just per smoker) each minute. That's over 2 packs being smoked at once. I personally can't even fit a whole pack in my mouth at once, so more than 2 is probably a physical impossibility. It takes an average of 5 minutes to smoke a regular/king-sized cigarette (75-80 mm), but even if the smoker seriously sucked it down and then immediately lit another they probably couldn't smoke 42.5 in an hour, much less a minute.

So, I'd say that being locked in a garage with a chain smoker for an hour is still less risk and exposure than simply breathing the air during my daily rush-hour commute... forget about actually being locked in a garage with a running vehicle.

And before anyone cries foul that there are more toxins in cigarette smoke than the VOCs listed, I might also remind you that many of the same and several more are also found in vehicle exhaust.
 
Old 02-15-2012, 04:41 PM
 
3 posts, read 19,245 times
Reputation: 11
Cars emit only carbon dioxide and water in their modern forms. I would rather leave them in there with a car than you poisoning them with nicotine. Not that I look down on smokers. Just don't try to say your cigarette smoke full of tar, nicotine, and various other chemicals is worse than a car which exhales pretty much the same things we do.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top