does smoking really cause lung cancer? - page 4

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   vladimir
    Perhaps, but there is still no scientific proof for your statements. Cigarettes are still legal in yur country ? I doubt they will allow for someone to buy some poison and commit suicide/murder othervise.

    Regarding reasearch, there is to many American in names (no offense) of your credible organisations for me to buy it as some neutral studies.

    But if you give me the link, ill be happy to se some facts, as long as i doesnt have some nasty propaganda as kids dying from cancer ... i have a weak stomach for that.

    Besides, i do know, that number of smokers gets smaller every day and the number of people with cancer doubles... strange logic indeed ?

    If you choose to reject this logic(s), I don't think you'll ever believe that cigar smoking doesnt cause cancer any more than other bad habits, which is certainly your own business.
  2. by   mercyteapot
    There is nothing strange about this logic. We know that cancer develops over a course of many years. We can't expect to see a decline in cancer rates from the current reduction in smokers the minute they stop smoking. Plus, although the percentage of people who smoke may have decreased, the overall population has increased, so that will affect the number of new cancer dxes as well.

    As for links, there have been many posted in this thread already. As I have said, a simple google search will yield many... hundreds, really... However, given that you've already dismissed them as American propaganda, I really don't see the point in posting them.
  3. by   vladimir
    You can't expect to see a decline in cancer rates from the current reduction in smokers because that isnt the cause... i personally dont know no smoker (read: 0) that has lung cancer... still my grandma died beause of it, and she's been nonsmoker for life.
    I dont need some study to tell me that is no isolated case.

    Maybe you know some other cases ?

    If you ask me, if someones to blame, its the radiation.
    We've survived a few wars here on Balkan (and i am only 21) and let me tell you, after each one...the number of people with cancer doubled. Dont think that you are maybe more lucky.... perhaps youre just less aware.

    PS i wasnt refering to 'american' propaganda, i've just sad, those are your goverment institutions... and we all know (around the globe) that they are familiar with serving the interests of politicians.
  4. by   mercyteapot
    Neither the American Cancer Society or the American Lung Association are government entities. They've never claimed that there aren't causes for lung cancer other than tobacco or that there aren't idiopathic occurances.
  5. by   elkpark
    Quote from vladimir
    You can't expect to see a decline in cancer rates from the current reduction in smokers because that isnt the cause... i personally dont know no smoker (read: 0) that has lung cancer... still my grandma died beause of it, and she's been nonsmoker for life.
    I dont need some study to tell me that is no isolated case.

    Maybe you know some other cases ?
    Yes, everyone knows the "one" person who never smoked but developed lung cancer (and was your grandmother routinely exposed to secondhand tobacco smoke, by any chance?), and multiple people who have smoked all their lives and haven't developed lung cancer, but anecdotal evidence isn't proof of anything. The fact remains that, if you look at the scientific studies that have been done over the years, all over the world, 85-90% (depending on which particular study you're looking at) of people who develop lung cancer are smokers, and only 10-15% of lung cancer victims are non-smokers (and, again, many of those people, while not smokers themselves, have been chronically exposed to secondhand smoke).

    But you are welcome to disregard that data, and all the other evidence of the dangers of tobacco use; you've clearly already made up your mind, which you're free to do. Enjoy your cigars!
  6. by   Atheos
    People are going to throw out bologna facts all year if you let them.

    http://www.voanews.com/english/archi...TOKEN=60730709

    ...While cigarette smoking is considered the number one risk factor for lung cancer, only 15 percent of smokers eventually develops the disease, leading doctors to suspect genetics...

    ---So obviously the 85-90% stat is bull... err wrong.


    http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=...s-find-smoking

    A protein responsible for repairing damaged DNA may be a vital link to explaining how smoking causes lung cancer, U.S. researchers reported on Tuesday.


    While we all know smoking MAY lead to cancer. We also know that the 'non-smokers' generally overstate things. Think the 'Marijuana Craze.' We know that statistics can be made to say what you want. We know that non-profits like the ACS and others are not always a 'neutral' truth teller and have agendas of their own. Not always good.

    Knowing that...

    Do I smoke? Oh yeah.
    Will I ever quit? Probably not.
    Am I aware of what may happen? Yes.
    Do I care? Not particularly.
    Have any smokers in my family died from any form of cancer? Nope.

    There are worse things than cancer. I would even venture to say there are worse things than emphysema. Neither are anything that a trip to Dr. Kevorkian won't fix.
  7. by   elkpark
    I didn't say that 85-90% of smokers get cancer, I said that the studies that have been done have found that 85-90% of the people who get lung cancer are smokers. That statistic is certainly not "bull... err wrong" -- it's been a consistent finding over years of studies.

    But the pro-smoking people have already make up their minds and don't want to look at real information. Enjoy your cigarettes.
  8. by   Atheos
    Quote from elkpark
    I didn't say that 85-90% of smokers get cancer, I said that the studies that have been done have found that 85-90% of the people who get lung cancer are smokers. That statistic is certainly not "bull... err wrong" -- it's been a consistent finding over years of studies.

    But the pro-smoking people have already make up their minds and don't want to look at real information. Enjoy your cigarettes.
    Almost forgot, the newest research which just came out this last week (you can search for it yourself) is showing that smokers generally have a 15 percent chance of developing lung cancer. There is apparently a specific gene that increases this risk. However, this risk is increased in cases where other environmental factors play a role also.

    Of course nonsmokers have a lower chance but hey 15% (25% if the gene is inherited by both parents) is not exactly large enough of a chance to account for the large numbers of lung cancer. I have gambled my life more times than that by going to fast food.

    Ummm the CDC says that lung cancer rates are rising 11% per year since the 90s (including people of all ages) yet the number of smokers has been decreasing steadily since the 90s. So either cigarettes mysteriously got more deadly or your statistics are wrong. You do the math. More people are getting lung cancer in their 20s and 30s and the majority of those cases are not smokers.


    The point is, your statistics are all made by people with agendas. On both sides. The research at this moment in time is pretty much bunk. Almost like saying drinking a glass of milk daily makes you lose weight.... Puhlease!!!

    However I am not a 'pro-smoker.' I am a 'pro-stay out of my personal business and let me put in my body what I wish-don't tread on me' person. It's a little different.

    BTW I will enjoy a cigarette or 4 in about 5 minutes.

    I'll enjoy my formaldehyde and you enjoy the heterocyclic amines in the meat I know you are eating for lunch and lets see which one of us develops cancer first...
    Last edit by Atheos on Jun 2, '08 : Reason: forgot to include something
  9. by   LeesieBug
    I read the article and found his logic COMPLETELY flawed.... and I read it with an open mind.

    I found the section on heart attack very amusing, as he spoke about exercise CAUSING heart attack. sigh. He even makes note that one of the examples he gives the person who dies of a heart attack was warned that he had a weak heart and should not over-do the exercise. Ummm---HELLO...


    Oy vey!




    P.s I am referring to this article:
    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/
    Last edit by LeesieBug on Jun 2, '08
  10. by   me5115
    The vast majority of Lung ca pts will be dead within a year, its a horrible disease and a horrible death....
  11. by   mercyteapot
    I've never had emphysema, but I've had bronchitis so I've had the experience of being racked with painful coughs and not wanting to breathe too deeply because it hurt so bad. I'm sure it's true and there are worse things that emphysema, but no one I know with that dx trivializes it.
  12. by   wtbcrna
    I am not sure how anyone that is a nurse or in the medical community can doubt the countless amount of research that has been done that shows the numerous carcinogens are contained in cigarette smoke and that smoking can & does cause cancer.

    "SMOKING AND LUNG CANCER RISK

    Lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer death in the world with an estimated 160,390 deaths in the United States alone in 2007 (1). Although the incidence of lung cancer in the United States appears to have increased by approximately 40,000 cases to 213,380 between 2006 and 2007, this apparent increase is actually artifactual and is the result of a one-time change in the formula used to calculate nationwide incidence. In fact, in the United States, death rates have plateaued in women and continue to decline in men, mirroring trends in smoking patterns over the past four decades.

    Cigarette smoking causes lung cancer, with approximately 10 to 15% of active smokers developing lung cancer. Several recent studies have examined the role of smoking patterns and host factors in modifying the risk of lung cancer in smokers. Lubin and colleagues developed a lung cancer risk model that demonstrates that risk does not increase in a linear fashion with the number of cigarettes smoked per day (2). Instead, the excess odds ratio per pack-year is increased in lower-intensity smokers (<15-20 cigarettes/d) compared with higher-intensity smokers (>20 cigarettes/d). This finding supports other studies by this group, suggesting that the carcinogenic potential of the tobacco-specific nitrosamine 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone (NNK) is reduced in individuals with higher exposure (3), as well as other studies demonstrating an inverse relationship between tobacco exposure and DNA repair capacity (4). Together with other data indicating that early age of smoking initiation is an important risk for lung cancer (5), these reports highlight the importance of public health policy efforts to reduce exposure to secondhand smoke and to prevent the initiation of cigarette smoking in children and young adults. Recent efforts to promote smoke-free environments have demonstrated promising efficacy in the attainment of these goals, as indicated by a reduction in salivary cotinine levels in New York City nonsmokers (6) and by a reduced likelihood of smoking initiation in individuals with low exposure to secondhand smoke outside of the home (7)."

    Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2008 May 1;177(9):941-6.
  13. by   Atheos
    Quote from mercyteapot
    I've never had emphysema, but I've had bronchitis so I've had the experience of being racked with painful coughs and not wanting to breathe too deeply because it hurt so bad. I'm sure it's true and there are worse things that emphysema, but no one I know with that dx trivializes it.
    Dying is never trivial. But people still smoke when they have emphysema.

close