does smoking really cause lung cancer?

Specialties Oncology

Published

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?

Thanks for the welcome.

Perhaps you are anti-smoker, but you are no fascist, like more of the others...

You started this topic with " There's no proof that smoking causes lung cancer " ... and i saw that as a truth.

So, when i say, im just supporting you... i'm supporting the truth from my perspective... and i didnt saw that link as a one reffering to a pro-smoking site... just a site with a diffrent view from many others.

Smoking aside... i dont want tomorrow, to feel the strange looks on me, because i drink the unhealthy coke or pepsi.

So, ok... you dont like the smell of tobacco, i respect that... but saying some media-guided lies about the dangers of smoking...i just cant go with that. Sorry if you are one of them and i've missjudged you.

Last of all, excuse my bad english. Cheers.

It's not a matter of "not liking the smell of tobacco" -- it's a matter of being exposed to a wide array of toxic, harmful chemicals and poisons against my will. I believe that what I said at the beginning of this thread was, basically, while there's no definitive proof that smoking causes cancer, there are very high correlations between smoking and a variety of cancers (lung cancer and others (smokers have very high rates of bladder cancer, also) -- and don't forget emphysema, COPD, and heart disease!). I was certainly not suggesting that there aren't grave health consequences to smoking -- only that the relationship between smoking and cancer is much more complicated and less clear-cut than, for example, Vitamin C deficiency and scurvy (where there is a clear, direct "cause & effect" link).

Coke and Pepsi may not be the best beverage choices, nutritionally, but they don't kill hundreds of thousands of people every year ... And drinking a Coke or Pepsi doesn't have any impact on the health of anyone else, as smoking does -- there's no "second-hand soda" problem. :)

Your English is very good. Best wishes.

0 Votes

Yes, offcourse.... correlations means asumptions.

There's an asumption that coke kills the liver ... and more than an asumption that hamburgers are really unhealthy, so nobody puts the "Health Warning" one either on them. And either arent grave dangers, but still are bad to the health... in fact obesity can kill you before the smoke.

I too dont like being exposed to toxic gases from cars... but hey, lets be real... maybe its a bad example but i would still look not to bother anyone with my smoke. As i sad , i'm trying to be a gentleman and to respect that.

That is the only argument that i will buy, non-smokers often dislike the smoke.

i just dont like unproffed correlations and false statements.

im not saying that you promote these ideas, just that, so far i've seen nothing against the cigars that is verified in a scientific way.

When i see it, ill believe it.

0 Votes
Specializes in Public Health, DEI.
Yes, offcourse.... correlations means asumptions.

There's an asumption that coke kills the liver ... and more than an asumption that hamburgers are really unhealthy, so nobody puts the "Health Warning" one either on them. And either arent grave dangers, but still are bad to the health... in fact obesity can kill you before the smoke.

I too dont like being exposed to toxic gases from cars... but hey, lets be real... maybe its a bad example but i would still look not to bother anyone with my smoke. As i sad , i'm trying to be a gentleman and to respect that.

That is the only argument that i will buy, non-smokers often dislike the smoke.

i just dont like unproffed correlations and false statements.

im not saying that you promote these ideas, just that, so far i've seen nothing against the cigars that is verified in a scientific way.

When i see it, ill believe it.

Perhaps it is a language barrier, but correlation and assumption do not mean the same thing at all. As far as what you need to see to believe, there is plenty of credible research linking cigar smoking to lung cancer. One visit to either the American Cancer Society or the American Lung Association will yield fact sheets on the topic, not to mention all the other research that has been done on the topic. If you choose to reject this research, I don't think you'll ever believe that cigar smoking can cause cancer, which is certainly your own business.

0 Votes

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. :)

0 Votes
Specializes in Public Health, DEI.

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.

0 Votes

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.

0 Votes
Specializes in Public Health, DEI.

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.

0 Votes
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! :)

0 Votes

People are going to throw out bologna facts all year if you let them.

http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2008-04/2008-04-03-voa4.cfm?CFID=60121530&CFTOKEN=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=researchers-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.

0 Votes

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.

0 Votes
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...

0 Votes
Specializes in ER.

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/

0 Votes
+ Add a Comment