RE: Diesel fumes more carcinogenic than smoking (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

LafayetteLady -> RE: Diesel fumes more carcinogenic than smoking (3/5/2010 3:46:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

I can only relate what science has shown.... smoking is dangerous

There is a lot of money to be made from the sale of tobacco. Taxing it has made it a cash cow.

I know how my own health improved upon quitting. I also saw people I love die from smoke related diseases... I have never lost a loved one to a smoking related disease that wasn't also a smoker... isn't that weird?



Not weird, just coincidence. My father didn't smoke and he died of lung cancer. Go figure, right? George Burns smoked all his life, are you willing to say that it killed him? I mean I guess you could, but he was 100 years old, so it isn't like it took him when he was young.

While you couldn't find a listing for Dr. Kitty Little, did you check the footnotes of her article? The medical journals are listed right there.

What there has NEVER been an explanation of is why some people who smoke get cancer while others do not.

Keep in mind, I'm not saying that it does or it doesn't cause anything. What I am saying is that Aneirin has a point. When people start dying from something or it begins to cause serious health problems, it is usually taken off the market. Look at Phen Phen. They took Absinthe off the market. Talk about cash cows...the pharmaceutical and liquor industries are huge.

You decided to quit, and that's great. You feel better than you did before, that's great too. I've smoked since childhood and when I was in my early twenties, I was an aerobics instructor, no breathing problems and I had already been smoking more than 10 years.

The point I'm making is that tobacco has not been removed from the market in a society where we hold everyone accountable except ourselves for what goes wrong. People sued and Phen Phen was taken off the market. People sued because Ford Pintos blew up. A guy sued because Schwinn didn't tell him that people couldn't see him riding a bike in the dark. Another guy sues a casino because they got him drunk in order to take all his money. Our society doesn't take responsibility for anything. Why then has it been decided that people must be accountable for their decision to smoke? It doesn't seem to make any sense, does it? Every single person who smokes is not GUARANTEED to get cancer at some point in their life, what's the explanation for that?




DomImus -> RE: Diesel fumes more carcinogenic than smoking (3/5/2010 4:01:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aneirin
But as regards smoking, I am and was before unconvinced smoking is such a danger for one particular reason, that being if it was so dangerous, why has it not been pulled from sale like so many other things have been.


Using that same logic... diesel fuel is readily available and therefore must be safe.

That was easy![:)]



LadyEllen -> RE: Diesel fumes more carcinogenic than smoking (3/5/2010 4:07:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady

Every single person who smokes is not GUARANTEED to get cancer at some point in their life, what's the explanation for that?




Indeed, and this is the basis for my lawsuit against the Chief Medical Officer. Having spent thousands of pounds in the pursuit of killing myself and having enjoyed no success in that endeavour, it appears I have valid grounds for alleging negligence in his advice, printed clearly on each packet, and sueing for compensation.

However, I must first consult with my lawyer Mr Realone, (he's an Italian Brit, any likeness to any other person is purely coincidental), on the finer points of law in building my case.

E



Aneirin -> RE: Diesel fumes more carcinogenic than smoking (3/5/2010 6:21:06 PM)

I suppose it would be interesting to find out . who is the biggest say in government, the tobacco industries or the petrochemical industries



LafayetteLady -> RE: Diesel fumes more carcinogenic than smoking (3/5/2010 8:28:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

quote:

ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady

Every single person who smokes is not GUARANTEED to get cancer at some point in their life, what's the explanation for that?




Indeed, and this is the basis for my lawsuit against the Chief Medical Officer. Having spent thousands of pounds in the pursuit of killing myself and having enjoyed no success in that endeavour, it appears I have valid grounds for alleging negligence in his advice, printed clearly on each packet, and sueing for compensation.

However, I must first consult with my lawyer Mr Realone, (he's an Italian Brit, any likeness to any other person is purely coincidental), on the finer points of law in building my case.

E


Ok, LadyEllen, you are being a bit sarcastic here right? Asking RealOne? Sometimes I'm a bit slow on getting that British humor, especially at night after I took my meds, lol.

Anyhow, like I said, I'm not saying that smoking is perfectly healthy. But no one can deny the truth of my statement that you quoted, and I really would be curious to have an answer to that. I admit I smoke, and have since I was about 7 (I'm 45 now). I also know that none of the health problem that I do have are caused by my smoking. I don't smoke where I'm not permitted to smoke, in the homes of people who don't like it, etc. But I do get really annoyed at people who like to walk through areas where smoking is permitted just so they can bitch about the smoke. I'm severely allergic to most perfumes (because the ingredients are all proprietary, we can't figure out which ones make me sick), and I often have to tolerate the stink coming from women who seem to bathe in their fragrances and can smell them from 20 feet away. I do my best to avoid it, yet the non smokers or reformed smokers seem to feel they have some "right" to walk into a posted "smoking area" and complain about the smoke and how I'm killing them.

As long as smoking is still legal to do, some people need to get a grip on their prejudices against it and stay away from the smokers so they don't have to deal with it.

And for the record, I don't think any of the tobacco lawsuits should have found in favor of the plaintiffs. If I were to be diagnosed with lung cancer caused by smoking, I'm not going after the cigarette manufacturers.



DomKen -> RE: Diesel fumes more carcinogenic than smoking (3/5/2010 8:51:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady
What there has NEVER been an explanation of is why some people who smoke get cancer while others do not.

Every single person who smokes is not GUARANTEED to get cancer at some point in their life, what's the explanation for that?

I thought you were asking rhetorical questions but your later posts show that you weren't so I'll explain it.

First there has always been an explanation of why some people get cancer and some do not. A carcinogen is more properly called a mutagen. It is a chemical that causes unpredicatble changes in the DNA or RNA of a cell. Sometimes those changes kill the cell in question. Sometimes the changes don't do anything at all. Sometimes, very rarely, the mutation creates a cell that no longer stops multiplying when it should which is what cancer is.

The odds against any single exposure to a mutagen causing cancer varies tremondously but it tends to be very low. However the mutagens in tobacco are repeatedly exposed to the same groups of cells over and over again which over the years greatly increases the odds but it is certainly possible to smoke 2 packs a day for life and never get cancer just don't count on it.



DomImus -> RE: Diesel fumes more carcinogenic than smoking (3/5/2010 9:05:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aneirin
I suppose it would be interesting to find out . who is the biggest say in government, the tobacco industries or the petrochemical industries


If diesel fumes were such a carcinogen would it not follow that there would be inordinately high mortality rates amongst truck drivers and diesel mechanics? I don't know whether that is the case or not but it seems like an obvious correlation that I've never heard anyone mention. Perhaps diesel fumes are only cancer causing if you inhale a year's worth each day - sorta like the equivalent of the massive doses of saccharine that researchers gave all those rodents years ago to "prove" that saccharine was a carcinogen.



LafayetteLady -> RE: Diesel fumes more carcinogenic than smoking (3/5/2010 9:29:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomImus

sorta like the equivalent of the massive doses of saccharine that researchers gave all those rodents years ago to "prove" that saccharine was a carcinogen.


The same kind of thing was done with chimpanzees and cigarettes though.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

I thought you were asking rhetorical questions but your later posts show that you weren't so I'll explain it.

First there has always been an explanation of why some people get cancer and some do not. A carcinogen is more properly called a mutagen. It is a chemical that causes unpredicatble changes in the DNA or RNA of a cell. Sometimes those changes kill the cell in question. Sometimes the changes don't do anything at all. Sometimes, very rarely, the mutation creates a cell that no longer stops multiplying when it should which is what cancer is.

The odds against any single exposure to a mutagen causing cancer varies tremondously but it tends to be very low. However the mutagens in tobacco are repeatedly exposed to the same groups of cells over and over again which over the years greatly increases the odds but it is certainly possible to smoke 2 packs a day for life and never get cancer just don't count on it.



I do appreciate the explanation, really I do. I don't smoke 2 packs a day, but I have smoked for a very long time (more than 30 years) and as I mentioned, cancer is one of the health problems I DON'T have. It doesn't mean that I have no intention of quitting at some point, nor does it mean I don't believe that cigarettes can cause various health problems. I do believe that some people are more predisposed to cancer than others, but I won't even say I have scientific evidence to back up that belief, because science gal just ain't me. Granted, the concept that cigarettes cause cancer has been consistant and unchanging, but so many other things are dangerous or not dangerous from day to day. Eat eggs, don't eat eggs, ok, you can eat them. Red meat is bad, red meat is good, no wait, it might be bad.

Honestly, the way I figure it is that I want to enjoy my life while I'm here. If someone wants to live to be 100, and they avoid everything that they are told is bad for them, exercise like a maniac, etc., good for them. I would rather know that I had enjoyed my life while I lived it. Right now, that means I'm not going to quit smoking, I'm not giving up red meat, I drink alcoholic beverages, I swear, I have sex, I eat eggs. As long as those things are legal for me to do, I will enjoy my freedom to make those choices.



DomKen -> RE: Diesel fumes more carcinogenic than smoking (3/5/2010 9:44:33 PM)

I am not an expert on this issue but some cancers aren't environmental. Some are caused, at least partially, by faulty genes (like the so called breast cancer gene) so some people are predisposed to some specific cancer. Also carcinogens do their damage by oxidation so anti oxidants like Vitamin C and E may help reduce the risk and it is entirely likely that some people's bodies are simply worse at using the anti oxidants than others which could predispose some people to cancer as well.

But trust me when I tell you that the evidence that tobacco causes cancer is solid. Quitting smoking is statistically the best way to extend any person's life.



Termyn8or -> RE: Diesel fumes more carcinogenic than smoking (3/5/2010 9:55:16 PM)

Oh, but Ken we all need the same diet whether our ancestors are from Sweden or Japan. Or Russia or Zimbabwe. That is what the statistics don't tell. Our body chemistries do differ, amd that is totally disregarded, as well as the mutrition issue for some reason.

OK, there is a bit of sarcasm in there, but I mean no disrespect.

At this time :-)

T



DomKen -> RE: Diesel fumes more carcinogenic than smoking (3/5/2010 11:07:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

Oh, but Ken we all need the same diet whether our ancestors are from Sweden or Japan. Or Russia or Zimbabwe. That is what the statistics don't tell. Our body chemistries do differ, amd that is totally disregarded, as well as the mutrition issue for some reason.

OK, there is a bit of sarcasm in there, but I mean no disrespect.

At this time :-)

T

The fact is that while it is true that different people would do better with slightly different diets, there is at present no way to determine what those differences would be. So right now dieticians aim for more enough of each nutrient without anything being at toxic levels. It is important to keep in mind that above a certain level most vitamins and minerals are simply excreted in urine but that some, vitamin A for instance, can be toxic at elevated levels.



StrangerThan -> RE: Diesel fumes more carcinogenic than smoking (3/6/2010 5:35:49 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

Oh, but Ken we all need the same diet whether our ancestors are from Sweden or Japan. Or Russia or Zimbabwe. That is what the statistics don't tell. Our body chemistries do differ, amd that is totally disregarded, as well as the mutrition issue for some reason.

OK, there is a bit of sarcasm in there, but I mean no disrespect.

At this time :-)

T

The fact is that while it is true that different people would do better with slightly different diets, there is at present no way to determine what those differences would be. So right now dieticians aim for more enough of each nutrient without anything being at toxic levels. It is important to keep in mind that above a certain level most vitamins and minerals are simply excreted in urine but that some, vitamin A for instance, can be toxic at elevated levels.


There was a guy years ago who killed himself by drinking carrot juice. Vitamin A poisoning, I believe was the cause. My submissive works in a nursing home, and maybe my vision of extended life is colored by living a good portion of life in one of the retirement capitals of the US, but there's a point for me where simply being alive doesn't hold much value. Life sometimes seems like a roulette wheel in terms of what malady will eventually down a person. The only given is that something will, whether it be a disease or the body simply wearing out. My family generally has long life spans, particularly where the women are concerned. Men go anywhere from 70's to 90's. Most of the women make it to 90's or even later. on average though there's probably about an 8 to 10 year difference.

I'm not sure the difference is worth it given the avalanche of health problems, the onset of things you know will eventually be the killer - alzheimer's (sp) for example. My grand parents on my father's side made it to 84, and 90 with my grandmother living 6 more years. The last 3 of those however were spent in that insidious downward spiral of forgetfulness, fear, confusion and increasing reliance on someone else to do even the most basic things for you. It is such a total disintegration of self.

The evidence for genetics and cancer is evident in my extended family. Cancer is just about unknown on my mother's side, no matter how badly one has abused their body. Her family is large. Our family reunions regularly bring in several hundred people. Of them all, there has only been one case of cancer as far back as I can remember. Different story on my father's side, but mom's should be donating their blood to research.

As far as tobacco goes though, cancer is only one of a fairly long list of things that can complicate life. There are some I think are just about as bad. They may not kill you, but your quality of life can be drastically reduced to the point there's not a huge reason to keep living.



Termyn8or -> RE: Diesel fumes more carcinogenic than smoking (3/6/2010 7:10:54 AM)

FR

Googling for diesel cancer AMA gets about 200,000 hits. Among them is one from medpagetoday.com.

Within the body of text, toward the bottom is :

"









The study was supported by grants from the CDC's National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health and the National Cancer Institute.

The authors reported no conflicts of interest.



Primary source: Occupational and Environmental Medicine
Source reference:
Hart J, et al "Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease mortality in railroad workers" Occup Environ Med 2008: DOI: 10.1136/oem.2008.040493. "

So I don't care if Kitty whatever or Kitty Wells (a singer from the 1950s) found out, they found out the obvious. What I find amazing is that people just don't get it. SMOKING IS BAD FOR YOU. I mean smoking anything, even weed. That means a bonfire in the backyard as well as a cookout. It is plain and simple to see that our lungs were not designed for this and to do so is of course harmful.

But we do it anyway. Don't smoke, but take a whiff of those steaks burnong out back. Join in on a campfire singalong. Have a weenie roast. Got a fireplace ? Why are the fumes directed outside ? Simple SO THAT YOU LIVE AND NOT DIE.

But we do it anyway.

I admit it, it is one of the few illogical things I do. At least weed gives you a buzz. Cigarettes have just about no saving graces like that.

When I put my shoes on I always put the right sock and shoe on and then the left. When I buy a pack of papers which could be used to roll weed I burn the first one with a lighter. I am starting to think that the human mind simply cannot develop to the extent it does without an error or two.

And I mentioned the first person (brainiac) to figure out how to smoke - it may have been a superstitious thing, people were like that back then. How much other ritualistic behavior might we find in a truly objective study of human behavior ? I think that would be in another book that makes the patriot act look like a TV guide.

Perhaps smokers are generally more rebellious in nature, I certainly am. But which is the cart and which is the horse, like the chicken and the egg question ? Do we smoke to rebel, or do we smoke because we are rebels ?

T



DomKen -> RE: Diesel fumes more carcinogenic than smoking (3/6/2010 7:15:51 AM)

Actually most people smoke because at one point in their lives they felt peer pressure to do so. People who don't care about fitting in are much less likely to smoke.



Aynne88 -> RE: Diesel fumes more carcinogenic than smoking (3/6/2010 7:26:10 AM)

Not really DomKen. Malcolm Gladwell covers this extensively in his book "The Tipping Point". Smoking isn't what's cool, it's the fact that smokers are cool. [;)]. In all seriousness, the psychology of it is fascinating. I posted an excerpt explaining his theory below.  


"If the tribe is a difficult adversary, the individual smoker is just as thorny. Malcolm Gladwell, in his book, "The Tipping Point," did a survey of smokers and discovered that smoking "seemed to evoke a particular kind of childhood memory -- vivid, precise, emotionally charged." Gladwell realized that smoking was associated with one thing to just about everyone: sophistication.

The Tipping-People in smoking are often parents who smoke, or even grandparents. These are the permission-givers who leave an indelible and powerful print on the young smoker-to-be. It may be someone outside of the family, but in some way, that person must have a close connection to the family or the teen, or both. Gladwell quotes this example:

"When I was around nine or ten my parents got an English au pair, Maggie, who came and stayed with us one summer. She was maybe twenty. She was very sexy and wore a bikini at the Campbell's pool. She was famous with the grownup men for doing handstands in her bikini... Maggie smoked, and I used to beg her to let me smoke too."

Furthermore, Gladwell suggests that there is a common personality to hard-core smokers. Research conducted by Hans Eysenck, a psychologist, has shown the hard-core smoker is quintessentially an extrovert who craves excitement, is temperamental (loses his or her temper easily), takes risks, is spontaneous and is both somewhat unreliable and emotional. Moreover hard core smokers have been shown in countless studies to have a greater sex drive than non-smokers, and often have a greater attraction to members of the opposite sex.

Eysenck quotes these statistics: 15 percent of non-smoking white women attending college had had sex, with 55 percent of white women smokers already sexually active. The numbers for men were virtually the same.

Gladwell writes that "the average smoking household spends 73 percent more on coffee and two or three times as much on beer as the average non-smoking household."

Smokers can also be typified according to jobs (or roles). Think of actors, soldiers, hairdressers, models, and more doctors and nurses than makes sense (in their profession).

Gladwell summarizes the heavy smoker's traits as follows:

- defiance
- sexual precocity
- honesty
- impulsiveness
- indifference (to the opinion of others)
- sensation seeking

Here's where it gets interesting. If you consider the above characteristics you have a definition of exactly the personality type that attracts teens. Gladwell points out that Maggie the au pair wasn't cool because she smoked, she smoked because she was cool. He reiterates: "Smoking was never cool. Smokers are cool."



Termyn8or -> RE: Diesel fumes more carcinogenic than smoking (3/6/2010 7:43:28 AM)

"
- defiance
- sexual precocity
- honesty
- impulsiveness
- indifference (to the opinion of others)
- sensation seeking
"

Ahh, the things that made this country so great. The gallery of gluttony, the bastion of bastardisation, the guild of fake gold. The consumate consumer, the greedy globalist and the forever feverish ad hoc activist. The land of the fee and the home of the slave.

Maybe that's why they say smokers have a lower IQ, IQ tests are made for conformists. Perhaps the founding Fathers smoked a bit of that hemp before rolling out the paper on which to write the Constitution. Maybe that's why they forgot a few things. I mean once I smoked so much I forgot where I put the stuff. I guess it's a self regulating vice in that respect.

But back to the human behavior thing. People really are nice here. I was once knocked about ten feet out of a mosh pit. The bystanders, meaning those afraid to join in were very obliging. They picked me up and threw me right back in. That's the spirit.

Life is a trip, why do so many dread the destination ?

T



Aneirin -> RE: Diesel fumes more carcinogenic than smoking (3/6/2010 8:03:49 AM)

I was just thinking based upon what I said earlier that I will finally understand smoking tobacco is that bad for health when the government withdraws the sale of tobacco products, until that happens, the message is mixed. I believe I am correct in saying this, but the thought occured if they did decide to put their mouth in place of our money, how would they go about it.

How would the rest of the population who do not smoke feel if the government one day said that they realise smoking is so bad that they were going to ban it's availability, perhaps lob it is with the drugs classifications as being illegal to purchase, how would the non smoking population feel if this happened, and because of it happening the government announced they were either going to cut public services, or increase everyone's tax contribution to make up the shortfall in revenue lost via taxation of tobacco products ?

Would the non smoking population be happy with paying more tax to stop the smokers smoking or would the fact that they are being forced to pay more out for someone else be too much  to bear on whatever grounds ?

What are the non smokers thoughts on this ?

If such a thing should happen, one thing is for sure, the tax levelled out across the tax paying population, the smokers now forced to quit will be paying less in tax as they pick up the tab with the rest of the population, they will lose their habit, but have more money in their pocket.



DomKen -> RE: Diesel fumes more carcinogenic than smoking (3/6/2010 9:37:43 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aynne88

Not really DomKen. Malcolm Gladwell covers this extensively in his book "The Tipping Point". Smoking isn't what's cool, it's the fact that smokers are cool. [;)]. In all seriousness, the psychology of it is fascinating. I posted an excerpt explaining his theory below.  

Gladwell's book is interesting but far from gsopel.

His law of the few has been called into question by more recent research by Duncan Watts.

As to the countless studies linking high libido to smokers, countless must mean zero because I can't find any of them. The Eysenck book isn't one I've read but I have found a summary that is at odds with Gladwells description. I'll have to get a copy and see.

But I simply don't buy the smokers are cool argument. It is simply post hoc ergo propter hoc justification. Certainly people who do not smoke are "cool" and certainly people who do smoke aren't "cool."



Termyn8or -> RE: Diesel fumes more carcinogenic than smoking (3/6/2010 9:59:27 AM)

"I will finally understand smoking tobacco is that bad for health when the government withdraws the sale of tobacco products"

Understand that I am not looking for an argument here, but I finally understand that some people's reasoning is completely foreign to me. Deferring one's judgment to another is absolutely against my grain, and rubs me the wrong way.

In no way do I wish to imply that you lack intelligence or cognizance of the issue or any other, but just expressing that there is a huge rift in between our two viewponts, despite our agreement on things.

It may be possibly described as the difference between collectivism and individualism. But then my supposedly superior vocabulary has been proven shy since I have fallen into CM. Damn smart people here.....

:-)

T



pahunkboy -> RE: Diesel fumes more carcinogenic than smoking (3/6/2010 10:10:09 AM)

egads.    we need to get over the wet noodle beating of smokers.

!!!



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0630188