does smoking really cause lung cancer? - page 2

does smoking really cause Lung cancer??? forget about other diseases that are being linked to smoking, let us just talk about lung cancer. how come only 10 percent of all the people that has lung... Read More

  1. by   cardiacRN2006
    Quote from cumberland40
    if you are telling me that there are a lot of evidences that clearly shows smoking can cause cancer, how come I havent heard any tobacco companies getting liable for it? In fact, tobacco companies were sued a lot of times, but no one had ever come close of getting them paid for the damages and deaths that their product supposedly caused
    Have you ever taken care of an end stage COPD'r?? Trust me, the site of that will be evidence enough.
  2. by   HappyJaxRN
    Anytime you damage cells, they grow back differently. Especially those that are continuously damaged. I forget the terminology for all this, but the new cells that grow back tend to be shaped differently and a lot of times can lead to cancer.

    I've known people who have smoked all their lives and get no cancer yet someone who has never smoked, develop lung cancer. I've also seen a high ratio of smokers develop different types of cancers such as throat cancers....
  3. by   shouldbecleaning
    I've always believed smoking was a cause of cancer, however, I've also had my doubts because people, even high organizations such as the ACS, have agenda's.

    Last night while doing research on something completely unrelated, I came across the following website. I'm sure that most of the anti-smokers here won't even read it, but I found it quite interesting to say the least.

    http://www.lcolby.com/

    A few points that stuck out for me were pathologists saying they cannot determine from an autopsy whether someone died from smoking or not. And those pictures of the good lung/bad lung....well, it says the thing about that is that the black is caused from the CANCER, not the smoke because when you smoke, you inhale it to the INSIDE of your lung - it never touches the outside of it, so of course on that picture the lung would be black because you have cancer!

    He also shows studies in detail and how they are misconstrued in order to read the way the anti-smoking lobby wants them to. It is a lengthy and detailed account, one that would take about 2 hours to read and digest.

    I'm not saying this guy is right or wrong, but it is up to people to read both sides realizing that there are agenda's here. Those that want to know the truth - or find their own truth, will look into both sides and then make a decision. Those who only want to be in with the 'in' crowd of anti-smoking Nazi's, will not.

    Amy
  4. by   mercyteapot
    What a joke.
  5. by   cardiacRN2006
    Quote from shouldbecleaning
    I've always believed smoking was a cause of cancer, however, I've also had my doubts because people, even high organizations such as the ACS, have agenda's.

    Last night while doing research on something completely unrelated, I came across the following website. I'm sure that most of the anti-smokers here won't even read it, but I found it quite interesting to say the least.

    http://www.lcolby.com/

    A few points that stuck out for me were pathologists saying they cannot determine from an autopsy whether someone died from smoking or not. And those pictures of the good lung/bad lung....well, it says the thing about that is that the black is caused from the CANCER, not the smoke because when you smoke, you inhale it to the INSIDE of your lung - it never touches the outside of it, so of course on that picture the lung would be black because you have cancer!

    He also shows studies in detail and how they are misconstrued in order to read the way the anti-smoking lobby wants them to. It is a lengthy and detailed account, one that would take about 2 hours to read and digest.

    I'm not saying this guy is right or wrong, but it is up to people to read both sides realizing that there are agenda's here. Those that want to know the truth - or find their own truth, will look into both sides and then make a decision. Those who only want to be in with the 'in' crowd of anti-smoking Nazi's, will not.

    Amy
    Amy, did you read any of the previous posts???

    I'll ask again, "Have you ever taken care of a COPD'r???"

    I didn't think so.

    Lame.
  6. by   shouldbecleaning
    Just to make everyone aware - my father has emphysema so I will watch him die from this. Now....my question to you is did you read the article? I thought not. You cannot possibly read that article with an open mind and come away without at least a possibility that things aren't how they seem.
  7. by   cardiacRN2006
    Quote from shouldbecleaning
    Now....my question to you is did you read the article? I thought not. You cannot possibly read that article with an open mind and come away without at least a possibility that things aren't how they seem.
    No, and it's not because you have already and open-mindedly labeled me a Nazi. (You might reconsider your open-mind comments when you pre-label people as Nazi's. Maybe I'm a fascist-you don't know; nor does it seem that you understand.)
    I didn't read that link because I already understand the pathophysiology behing smoking and cancer. I've seen tons of evidenced based research, and taken care of or watched many people struggle to breathe as a result. That's called anecdotal evidence. I've lived with people who smoke and now I have Asthma which is exacerbated by smoke-or maybe it's not. Maybe I will someday find a link that will say my Asthma isn't caused or exacerbated by smoking. Who knows. Just because it's a link on the internet doesn't mean squat diddly.


    Ok, I just went to your link. Now I'm open-minded! Now I'm liberated! Actually, I just have one comment on the link presented. Ready?
  8. by   elkpark
    shouldbecleaning, I did look over the website (although I admit I didn't waste my time reading it thoroughly). I notice that the author, in his introduction, also questions whether the HIV virus really causes AIDS, or is that just a government conspiracy?????

    I'm also not going to waste my time doing a point-by-point explanation of all the points raised on the website and your original post, but there were a few things that leapt out at me that can be addressed easily. It appears that Mr. Colby, an attorney, has no healthcare background, and I'm guessing that you don't either (I don't mean that as an insult or a flame; I'm simply inferring from the comments you made that you've never studied anatomy & physiology, observed human lungs in an autopsy or OR, etc.).

    Lung cancer is not black, and lungs do not turn black because of a carcinoma. Also, the nature of lung tissue is such that it's hardly worth talking about an "inside" and "outside" of the lung. Lungs are not a sack, like the stomach or gall bladder; they're more like a collection of soap bubbles -- mostly air with just enough actual tissue/ "meat" to hold the alveoli together. Because of this, lung tissue is extremely fragile and somewhat translucent. So, contrary to what Mr. Colby asserts (and this is just one of the blatant errors/misstatements I noted in casually reviewing the website), all the black stuff (tar, carbon, etc.) that accumulates in the interior of the lungs (whether from smoking, working in a coal mine, or just breathing v. polluted air) is visible from the exterior of the lung and makes the lung tissue appear dark/black -- just as, for example, you can pretty much tell what's inside something wrapped in waxed paper because the waxed paper is translucent, or if you soak a light colored sponge in a colored liquid it will pick up the color of the liquid. Many all of us on this site who are nurses have witnessed the discolored lungs of smokers (people who do not have lung cancer -- you don't have to have smoked much or v. long to have it start to affect the appearance of your lungs) personally in operating rooms when people were having surgery.

    Again, I'm not trying to flame you at all, just provide some basic info. Mr. Colby is certainly entitled to his opinion (as you are, also), but many of the "facts" he provides to support that opinion are just plain wrong.
  9. by   mercyteapot
    about the misuse of the word nazi, wikipedia has this interesting tidbit:

    people of all political persuasions often attempt to draw parallels between their opponents and the nazis in order to put their opponents in a negative light. this is a fallacy called reductio ad hitlerum.

    amy, is it really necessary to call people names?
  10. by   cardiacRN2006
    Interesting post MTP! I like the part where it said "Reductio ad absurdum". I especially like the word absurd.

    Really, I can think of far more interesting names to call people then just calling everything Nazi this and Nazi that. Sheesh! I'd be suprised if the PP even know where Nazis fall on the political spectrum. It doesn't really make a person seem intelligent when they start a post calling everybody names before even getting any feedback. Not very wise. Oops, I mean, not very open-minded!:smackingf (That's me, trying to force open my mind)
  11. by   KathleenC
    Quote from cumberland40
    does smoking really cause Lung cancer??? forget about other diseases that are being linked to smoking, let us just talk about lung cancer.
    how come only 10 percent of all the people that has lung cancer smoke? what happen to other 90 percent?

    Just 2 evenings ago, I went to an inservice on lung cancer. One on of the first slides presented, the lecturer said:
    "This is an interesting slide. It shows both the cancer and the cause." The scan slide showed a large tumor in the right lung--and a pack of cigarettes over the left.

    Edited to correct a typo.
  12. by   shouldbecleaning
    as i said, i wasn't saying that the man was right at all......it just seemed to me that he cited certain studies that could lead one to be on the fence about the whole thing and most people who are on the anti-smoking side do not want to hear it.

    i, on the other hand, have been to the acs site and others online because of my dad's emphysema, so i have read material there as well - though i admit it has been a period of time since i last read anything there.

    i also am quite frustrated that the amount of money given from the settlements from the tobacco companies has not been spent the way it was supposed to be spent - therefore, you may see my problem as i think some of the cancer claims could be fraudulent and motives could be tainted.

    other things noted were about how we have more advanced technologies to diagnose, so that is why you see the cancer rate so high now. also, less people smoke now, yet cancer rates have not declined - are these incorrect as well (i'm asking here honestly.)


    elkpark, thank you for your insight. i may have to do more research on pathology to come to a conclusion. can you tell me if a non-smoker has lung cancer, are his lungs still pink?

    thanks
  13. by   cardiacRN2006
    Quote from shouldbecleaning
    As I said, I wasn't saying that the man was right at all......it just seemed to me that he cited certain studies that could lead one to be on the fence about the whole thing and most people who are on the anti-smoking side do not want to hear it.

    Thanks
    No, you said that all who did not choose to view your link were part of the "'in' crowd of anti-smoking Nazi's". That's a direct quote from your post. How can you possible be taken seriously when you flame us before we can even finish reading your post? I'll tell you what, anytime someone calls me a Nazi, I just laugh. It make you look ignorant (and small minded, but I think I have beaten the "open-minded" comment to death).

close