More Junk-Science about smoking

CHICAGO - Scientists have detected two substances in tobacco smoke that directly cause lung cancer, and they said on Sunday the finding may help one day predict which smokers will develop the disease.

They said people with high concentrations in their urine of a nicotine byproduct called NNAL had double the risk of developing lung cancer compared to smokers with lower NNAL concentrations in their urine.

And smokers who had high urine levels of both NNAL and another nicotine byproduct called cotinine had more than eight times the risk of lung cancer compared to smokers with the lowest concentrations of these two compounds.

The findings may help explain why some smokers get cancer while others do not, they said.

"Smoking leads to lung cancer, but there are about 60 possible carcinogens in tobacco smoke, and the more accurately we can identify the culprit, the better we will become at predicting risk," said Jian-Min Yuan of the University of Minnesota, who presented the findings at the American Association for Cancer Research in Denver.

Only about one in 10 smokers gets lung cancer. Well taudy dah, how often do you hear that?

Studies have found that laboratory animals with high concentrations of NNAL had higher rates of lung cancer, but its effect in humans has not been clear.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30294894/

Did ya get all of that?

First they state NNAL doubles the risk for some, ..... and then they said NNAL had more than eight times the risk for others, ...... and finally they said the effect of NNAL in humans has not been clear.

From "risky" .... to ...... "we don't know".

And there is people that believe that crapolla.



.

Before I say this and stir Sam up, the government has no business regulating or controling tobacco or places that people can and can't smoke, chew or whatever. That decision belongs to businesses and those who use them. I'm a non-smoker and I vote with my dollars. If a resturant wants my business, they'll offer a non-smoking section. If they don't they won't and I'll spend my money elsewhere.

Now for a couple intemperate thoughts - -

I volunteer a lot of my time to Relay for Life. I have worked as a volunteer for hospice and I have been a caregiver for a loved one with cancer. Point is I have seen the result of smoking and it does cause cancer. While many smokers escape the ravages of cancer, other don't. If a person smokes they increase their risk of developing cancer along with other lung ailments and heart disease.

As far as I'm concerned any person that fails to understand the risks associated with smoking is just plain stupid. Of course, it is their choice what they do. If the choose to smoke, then accept the consequences of doing so. Don't expect me to bail you out or don't come whining, hire an attorney, and sue the tobacco companies. Of course, then here's a thought, if one sues the tobacco companies for the results of smoking, then tobacco companies ought to be able to sue that person's parents for raising an idiot.

Cato wrote:
I volunteer a lot of my time to Relay for Life. I have worked as a volunteer for hospice and I have been a caregiver for a loved one with cancer. Point is I have seen the result of smoking and it does cause cancer.

Now Willy my man, I will have to question your diagnostic abilities on that one.

You had better stick with "seeing all the wonderful things that your God has created".

cheers

SamCogar wrote:

Cato wrote:
I volunteer a lot of my time to Relay for Life. I have worked as a volunteer for hospice and I have been a caregiver for a loved one with cancer. Point is I have seen the result of smoking and it does cause cancer.

Now Willy my man, I will have to question your diagnostic abilities on that one.

You had better stick with "seeing all the wonderful things that your God has created".

cheers

Prove to me that smoking does contribute to the cancer rate and I'll happily retract what I said.

Cato wrote: Prove to me that smoking does (not) contribute to the cancer rate and I'll happily retract what I said.

Willy, the burden of proof is on the accuser.

And the "accusers" that claim cigarette smoke causes cancer have never proven said claim.

They only ever cite an "association", ....... but, .... association does not prove causation.

That is what the AGW proponents are doing, ...... associating the rise in atmospheric CO2 as being human caused and the cause of the current period of increasing temperatures.

But the fact is, as verified by historical records, increases in atmospheric CO2 always follows increases in temperatures. This is the result of increased out-gassing of dissolved CO2 in ocean waters as the water "warms up" due to increased temperatures.

If the temps start cooling it will be several years before the ocean water starts cooling and said out-gassing stops and in-gassing starts and atmospheric CO2 starts decreasing.

I could go for a smoke today. It's been 58 or 59 weeks.

But at the moment of truth I know it would taste bad and burn and be harsh. I think what makes me want one is I turned one down the other day...

We are not talking about Global Warming Sam, we are talking about smoking. The data points to the simple fact smoking increases the chances of contracting cancer. In fact, if I'm correct "oat cell" cancer of the lung is direct associated with the use of tobacco.

What I'm asking of you is to provide the data that disproves smoking increases the chances of contracting cancer. Obviously, you must have some reason for you view and obviously it should be backd up with data.

Cato

Cato,

While I agree that cigarette smoking is very bad for me, I don't see how you can expect Sam, or anyone else, to prove a negative. The burden of proof is always on those making the accusation.

I believe there is enough evidence to prove smoking is bad for your health. Sam doesn't agree. If you want to change his mind show him the evidence.

Stephanie wrote:Cato,

While I agree that cigarette smoking is very bad for me, I don't see how you can expect Sam, or anyone else, to prove a negative. The burden of proof is always on those making the accusation.

I believe there is enough evidence to prove smoking is bad for your health. Sam doesn't agree. If you want to change his mind show him the evidence.

He's the one making the accusation and I challenged him on it. I would like to see how he arrives at the conclusion he arrives at.

I know we were not talking about Global Warming, Willy. Quit being so damn dense. I cited the “AGW CO2 = Global Warming” tripe as being comparable to the “cigarette smoke = lung cancer” tripe. They are both examples of …. “association = causation.” which is FUBAR.

And no different than when you “associate Biblical text = evolutionary causes”.

Willy, your reading comprehension seems to be quite inadequate when it comes to gleaning the “truth” from Junk Science articles. So, here below I have “stripped out” meaningful text from my lead post so that all the extra horsefeces does not befuddle and screw up your cognition of what is being stated. And I will include critiques where applicable, to wit:

CHICAGO - Scientists have detected two substances in tobacco smoke (NNAL and cotinine) that directly cause lung cancer, ……

Willy, do you understand what “directly cause lung cancer” means? Sure you do, it means they are 100% sure what causes it,

smokers who had high urine levels of both NNAL and cotinine had more than eight times the risk of lung cancer

Willy, what the hell does “eight times the risk” mean? It is not the same as “the odds” on a horse race you know. Is it the same as “risking” a $1 in hopes of winning the PowerBall Lottery?

findings may help explain why some smokers get cancer

Willy, whatta they mean “may help”. I though they already stated in the 1st sentence that it was “a done deal”. Don’ja member Willy they explicitly stated “tobacco smoke directly cause(s) lung cancer”. How can they honestly make such a statement if they can’t explain it and/or have no f’ing idea how to explain it.

but there are about 60 possible carcinogens in tobacco smoke,

Willy, there they go with that “possible” crapolla. And Willy, I am also sure you know what “possible” means, right. Sure ya do, it means they are just guessing. Just like every $1 PB ticket my wife buys because it is “possible” she will win the Jackpot. It is possible that you will be robbed before next April.

and the more accurately we can identify the culprit,

Which doesn’t mean shit relative to actually identifying the culprit. So, why don’t that state a “risk factor” of them being successful at actually identify the culprit?

Only about one in 10 smokers gets lung cancer

WHOA, wait a minute Willy, that is a 10% chance. Didn’t they previously state “eight times the risk”? How do they associate a “10% chance” with “eight times the risk”? If all tobacco smoke has about 60 possible carcinogens including NNAL and cotinine and said smoke directly causes lung cancer, …… where do they get that 10%, crap? ….. Shouldn’t it be 100%?

animals with high concentrations of NNAL had higher rates of lung cancer, but its (the) effect (of NNAL) in humans has not been clear

MERCY GAWDS, Willy, …. first they state that the “NNAL and cotinine in tobacco smoke directly cause lung cancer”, …… and then lastly they state that “the effects of NNAL in humans has not been determined”.

Now Willy baby, ….. just why would they do that? Do you have any idea?