- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Is smoking really to blame for lung cancer?
Posted on 6/7/19 at 7:52 pm to WylieTiger
Posted on 6/7/19 at 7:52 pm to WylieTiger
quote:
It sure as frick causes bladder cancer.
You're putting the cigarettes in the wrong hole, bro.
0
Posted on 6/7/19 at 7:52 pm to weagle99
There lies the issue, I agree with you
People can smoke then develop lung cancer but did the cancer they develop come from the cigarettes or from toxic shite they breathe elsewhere? Same can be said about HPV and the causes of oral cancer. Do we know that HPV was for sure the cause? Sure there have been links between certain HPV's and certain types of cancer.
Likely will never get a 100% answer but I imagine none of it helps the cause either way.
People can smoke then develop lung cancer but did the cancer they develop come from the cigarettes or from toxic shite they breathe elsewhere? Same can be said about HPV and the causes of oral cancer. Do we know that HPV was for sure the cause? Sure there have been links between certain HPV's and certain types of cancer.
Likely will never get a 100% answer but I imagine none of it helps the cause either way.
Posted on 6/7/19 at 7:52 pm to Puffoluffagus
Yeah, it really is.
That said, when you start brewing together huge risk pools-- HPV exposure, smoking, drinking *while* smoking (shockingly its significantly more dangerous than just smoking), being overweight-- it turns into a fast rolling snowball to shitty health outcomes.
That said, when you start brewing together huge risk pools-- HPV exposure, smoking, drinking *while* smoking (shockingly its significantly more dangerous than just smoking), being overweight-- it turns into a fast rolling snowball to shitty health outcomes.
Posted on 6/7/19 at 7:55 pm to Kujo
quote:
50 percent of women with lung cancer worldwide who are lifelong non-smokers.
And what percentage of people smoke?
Posted on 6/7/19 at 7:56 pm to Henry Jones Jr
quote:
People that defend smoking in any way are trashy as frick
Cigarettes are good for you. Helps build your immune system, gives you energy, helps open the lungs etc etc. i smoke 7 packs a day but the more I think about it I need to up that to a carton a day. Damn, I’m ready to run a marathon!!!
Posted on 6/7/19 at 7:58 pm to Bestbank Tiger
quote:
I don't think you're analyzing statistics correctly. Nonsmokers are accounting for a growing percentage of lung cancer cases because fewer people are smoking. So smoking-induced cancers are decreasing while other cancers are staying the same.
I see where you are coming from. However, I pose an alternate hypothesis. Lung cancer occurrences per capita have decreased since the late 80's. While this is seemingly correlated to the anti-smoking movement, it also falls right in line with the safe sex movement due to the AIDS scare.
HPV works faster than lung cancer, so you see a significant down turn in a much shorter time. example
Other lung diseases are also "long term"
quote:
Coal workers' pneumoconiosis (CWP), also known as black lung disease or black lung, is caused by long-term exposure to coal dust.
quote:
Asbestosis (as-bes-TOE-sis) is a chronic lung disease caused by inhaling asbestos fibers. Prolonged exposure to these fibers can cause lung tissue scarring and shortness of breath.
Posted on 6/7/19 at 8:00 pm to Kujo
I think hormones may come in to play, but how are you going to tax that?
Posted on 6/7/19 at 8:01 pm to Kujo
I’d be more worried about heart disease with smoking than lung cancer.
Posted on 6/7/19 at 8:07 pm to windshieldman
quote:
I’d be more worried about heart disease with smoking than lung cancer.
Think about those red wine heart disease studies. Do people order a Big Mac, Large Fry, and a Merlot? Do people order mahi mahi, arugula salad, and an orange drink?
Heart disease and smoking or heart disease and waffle house smothered cheese fries?
Posted on 6/7/19 at 8:07 pm to Henry Jones Jr
quote:
People that defend smoking in any way are trashy as frick
Pssst: You are going to die.
So am I.
Even vegans, non-smokers, and marathon runners. All dead.
Posted on 6/7/19 at 8:08 pm to Kujo
I mean I think it's clear that smoking is not the only cause /risk factor for the development of lung cancer. To act as though it plays a minimal role either in the development or the treatment of is just being blind.
In a parallel, of people who have oropharyngeal cancers (tonsils and base of tongue)...those who have non-HPV related(presumed alcohol and smoking induced) have a worse prognosis than those who have HPV-related oropharyngeal cancers.
Of those who have HPV-related oropharyngeal cancer...the ones who did to fail treatment/have the worst prognosis...are often the ones who happen to also be smokers and drinkers.
In a parallel, of people who have oropharyngeal cancers (tonsils and base of tongue)...those who have non-HPV related(presumed alcohol and smoking induced) have a worse prognosis than those who have HPV-related oropharyngeal cancers.
Of those who have HPV-related oropharyngeal cancer...the ones who did to fail treatment/have the worst prognosis...are often the ones who happen to also be smokers and drinkers.
Posted on 6/7/19 at 8:10 pm to Kujo
quote:
Think about those red wine heart disease studies. Do people order a Big Mac, Large Fry, and a Merlot? Do people order mahi mahi, arugula salad, and an orange drink?
Heart disease and smoking or heart disease and waffle house smothered cheese fries?
I understand your point. I smoked for about 15 years and dipped 3-4 years prior to smoking. I had very thick blood count on some test once and dr never rode me hard about smoking but that day he did. There were some other fricked up shite with my blood work I don’t remember also. I quit smoking and my blood went back to normal thickness, hematocrit and hemoglobin went back down to normal, also BP went down over time quite a bit, my diet never changed.
ETA: I have read a study about dipping where they are saying there is no cardiac concern with dipping, and the rate of oral cancer with dippers is the same as non dippers.
This post was edited on 6/7/19 at 8:12 pm
Posted on 6/7/19 at 8:25 pm to Scoop
Pretty sure smoking can cause lung cancer but alright 
Posted on 6/7/19 at 9:47 pm to dawgfan24348
Scoop must not know very many people if he never knew anybody with lung cancer,I know several people that smoked and got lung cancer and had 2 uncles that smoked and died of lung cancer.Also knew one man that never smoked and died lung cancer but I don’t know if he had prior exposure to any noxious chemicals or if he just got it.I will say everybody that smokes will get copd to one degree or another,some of the people I’ve seen with copd would have been better off with lung cancer.They wouldn’t have suffered near as long.I worked ICU 35 years,took care of lot of heart attacks ,stents and bypass patients and the vast majority smoked or had smoking history.
I’ve never seen any statistics comparing chewing vs. dipping but one long time cancer doc. I know told me all the oral cancer he had seen were dippers-Skoal,Copenhagen,etc.Said he never saw case associated with leaf tobacco but he still didn’t recommend chewing.
I’ve never seen any statistics comparing chewing vs. dipping but one long time cancer doc. I know told me all the oral cancer he had seen were dippers-Skoal,Copenhagen,etc.Said he never saw case associated with leaf tobacco but he still didn’t recommend chewing.
Posted on 6/7/19 at 10:10 pm to Kujo
quote:
waffle house smothered cheese fries?
Waffle House doesn't serve fries.
Scattered, smothered, covered, chunked, and topped. If you're gonna go fat, go fat.
Posted on 6/7/19 at 10:49 pm to Kujo
quote:This is word manipulation. “Never smoked a single cigarette”... so people who smoked 1 cigarette in their entire lives wouldn’t be in that percentage.
In the United States, 20 percent of women who develop lung cancer have never smoked a single cigarette, and that number rises to 50 percent of women with lung cancer worldwide who are lifelong non-smokers
Then it says 50% WORLDWIDE. Much of the world is a dirty polluted mess. They are breathing in chemicals from smog on a daily basis.
If you look at “non-smokers” in the U.S. who develop lung cancer, it’s 10 to 15 percent of all lung cancer patients. Even taking the high percentage of 15%, that means 85% of people in the U.S with lung cancer are smokers.
And according to the CDC, only 15% of Americans are smokers.
So 15% of the population represent 85% of lung cancer patients.
This post was edited on 6/7/19 at 10:54 pm
Posted on 6/7/19 at 10:51 pm to Kujo
Smoking isn’t responsible for every lung cancer
Posted on 6/7/19 at 11:10 pm to Kujo
Smoking is also linked to pancreatic cancer.
Posted on 6/8/19 at 12:42 am to Scoop
quote:
I am 47 years old and no one I’ve known in my life has died of lung cancer.
I’ve also been in healthcare for 25 years and have seen very little lung cancer.
The risk of smoking is COPD, not lung cancer.
This seems legit, in some ways. Although, it might be that it's COPD or other issues that get them before the cancer has the chance.
The fact they're still legal at all tells you how much our politicians still value the money the tobacco companies are able to throw around. Selling a product that doesn't even give you a buzz but sure as hell kills you. It's fricking crazy.
Posted on 6/8/19 at 4:50 am to Kujo
Well, it just means they love sucking the ding ding
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News