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.
Ok this is a very heated issue that ppl are understandly passionate about but it is something that i have always wondered. I am not advocating smoking as I am a non smoker.
How is it that so many never smokers are diagnosed and die every year of lung cancer and conversely many smokers never develop any cancer at all? I read many statistics that all demonstrate correlational arguments but never make direct links to cigarettes and cancer. Theres never an explanation as to why or how it causes cancer, but only assumptions. More and more ppl are not smoking every year yet the number of lung cancer diagnoses hasnt gone down.
Now logically my rational thinking tells me that ingesting any type of smoke into ones lungs isnt going to be good for them, especially if that smoke contains any type of chemical(s). But what chemical(s) in the tobacco is the culprit, specifically? Would smoking pure tobacco not have an affect on the risk of lung cancer?
Ive read a theory that maybe it isnt the smoke from cigarettes but the heat that is constantly being passed into the lungs. One of my suspicions is that the repeated trauma from the inhalation of the harsh smoke combined with the heat may be a factor. Again though, how can so many smokers, even heavy smokers, dodge the cancer bullet? Granted i know a lot of smokers arent so lucky, but still there is a considerable % of them who dont develop cancer. While, again, there are very health-conscious life long non smokers who receive surprise lung cancer diagnoses.
This leads me to the title of this thread, that some individuals are genetically predisposed to certain cancers and some arent. That regardless of whether you smoke or not, if you are unlucky in the genetics department you are going to develop cancer at some point in your life no matter what you do or dont do. I cant think of any other explanation. If the smoking/not smoking cancer patients diagnoses was more consistent id be more likely to lean one way or the other.
The first time someone smokes, they cough like hell and sometimes vomit. Seems to me that a pretty strong signal from the body saying "hey don't do this".
Also, this is a first post so I'm calling drive-by poster now.
I'm not sure why this is posted on the "Politics and Other Controversies" forum, because the many of the responses will likely be based on political ideology rather than scientific or medical merit.
Isn't this more of a health topic than a political one?
Yeah as i stated in my post my rational mind tells me that introducing the lungs to any type of smoke probably isnt good for them.. hence the body's reaction to it (coughing, vomiting). But is it going to be the direct cause of lung cancer?
It is all about probabilities. If Behavior X increases the odds of getting Disease Y, that does not mean Disease Y is going to affect everybody who engaged in Disease Y, it simply means the odds are increased.
Ok this is a very heated issue that ppl are understandly passionate about but it is something that i have always wondered. I am not advocating smoking as I am a non smoker.
How is it that so many never smokers are diagnosed and die every year of lung cancer and conversely many smokers never develop any cancer at all? I read many statistics that all demonstrate correlational arguments but never make direct links to cigarettes and cancer. Theres never an explanation as to why or how it causes cancer, but only assumptions. More and more ppl are not smoking every year yet the number of lung cancer diagnoses hasnt gone down.
Now logically my rational thinking tells me that ingesting any type of smoke into ones lungs isnt going to be good for them, especially if that smoke contains any type of chemical(s). But what chemical(s) in the tobacco is the culprit, specifically? Would smoking pure tobacco not have an affect on the risk of lung cancer?
Ive read a theory that maybe it isnt the smoke from cigarettes but the heat that is constantly being passed into the lungs. One of my suspicions is that the repeated trauma from the inhalation of the harsh smoke combined with the heat may be a factor. Again though, how can so many smokers, even heavy smokers, dodge the cancer bullet? Granted i know a lot of smokers arent so lucky, but still there is a considerable % of them who dont develop cancer. While, again, there are very health-conscious life long non smokers who receive surprise lung cancer diagnoses.
This leads me to the title of this thread, that some individuals are genetically predisposed to certain cancers and some arent. That regardless of whether you smoke or not, if you are unlucky in the genetics department you are going to develop cancer at some point in your life no matter what you do or dont do. I cant think of any other explanation. If the smoking/not smoking cancer patients diagnoses was more consistent id be more likely to lean one way or the other.
What do you guys think?
One can get lung cancer through other carcinogenic sources, of course. Not smoking is not a guarantee that you will not get lung cancer. And there are genetic predispositions that people have to certain conditions, such as cancer, that do contribute to the likelihood that you will develop that disease during your life (whether one is exposed to carcinogens or not). Certain mutations in certain genes definitely can make you susceptible to these predispositions, and you can get lung cancer even if you never smoked a single cigarette in your life.
And there are genetic factors that are still not fully understood that actually allow some people to live very long lives, despite poor health habits (see: super centenarians who smoke for long periods of time).
However, the causal linkage between smoking and lung cancer (and other respiratory diseases, such as COPD or IPF) is very strong and well understood. Smoking is a HUGE risk factor, and the statistical significance to many, many diseases (many of which not even being respiratory) is very high.
Quitting smoking (or never smoking) is one of the easiest ways to reduce your risk for many diseases. And conversely, smoking is one the easiest ways to INCREASE your risk of many diseases.
As far as the mechanisms of disease are concerned, smoking causes disease in many ways. One is through carcinogens that actually mutate the DNA in cells exposed to the chemicals. The other is through trauma mechanisms (see: IPF and COPD) that lead to chronic levels of epithelial damage and a heightened level of immunological response.
Disclosure: I work on genetics research projects for a biotech company.
Yeah as i stated in my post my rational mind tells me that introducing the lungs to any type of smoke probably isnt good for them.. hence the body's reaction to it (coughing, vomiting). But is it going to be the direct cause of lung cancer?
So the cure to cancer is poison and it makes you sick too. From that point of view neither one makes sense.
How is it that so many never smokers are diagnosed and die every year of lung cancer and conversely many smokers never develop any cancer at all? I read many statistics that all demonstrate correlational arguments but never make direct links to cigarettes and cancer. Theres never an explanation as to why or how it causes cancer, but only assumptions. More and more ppl are not smoking every year yet the number of lung cancer diagnoses hasnt gone down.
90% of all lung cancers in the US are caused by smoking
Now logically my rational thinking tells me that ingesting any type of smoke into ones lungs isnt going to be good for them, especially if that smoke contains any type of chemical(s). But what chemical(s) in the tobacco is the culprit, specifically? Would smoking pure tobacco not have an affect on the risk of lung cancer?
Tobacco smoke contains a deadly mix of more than 7,000 chemicals. Hundreds are toxic. About 70 are known to cause cancer.
This leads me to the title of this thread, that some individuals are genetically predisposed to certain cancers and some arent. That regardless of whether you smoke or not, if you are unlucky in the genetics department you are going to develop cancer at some point in your life no matter what you do or dont do. I cant think of any other explanation. If the smoking/not smoking cancer patients diagnoses was more consistent id be more likely to lean one way or the other.
Some people carry genes from their parents that increase the likelihood of cancer, and while that risk is always there, this can be mitigated (lessened) by eating well and exercising and not smoking. In any case, no matter how healthy your genes are, smoking will increase the chances of you getting lung cancer guaranteed.
So the cure to cancer is poison and it makes you sick too. From that point of view neither one makes sense.
Chemo is certainly an imperfect solution, which is why cancer research has been focused on MANY different fronts. I could speak at great lengths about the efforts of the company I work for, but I would be violating many NDAs in the process.
Just know that the future is very exciting for cancer treatment.
The hardest part about cancer is that tumors are made up of your own cells. And targeting cancer cells without damaging non-cancerous cells is VERY (VERY) hard.
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.
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.
